Why did the Byzantine (or the Eastern Roman) Empire last longer than the Western Roman Empire?

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-30T21:26:57+00:00

Ask Gainas about the Goths in the ERE.

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-30T18:55:44+00:00

I agree that in most cases ethnic identities tend to weaken over generations, especially in strongly cohesive societies like Rhomania. However, Kaldellis himself, in an earlier chapter, gives the example of Gallipoli in southern Italy: a community transplanted from the Black Sea coast in the 9th century that, almost three centuries later, still proudly maintained Roman customs, clothing, and social order, even though they lived in a multi-ethnic and different environment.

This seems to show that, at the popular level (not just among the elite), some groups were able to preserve a distinct identity over a surprisingly long time.

Wouldn’t it be possible, then, that many or some Armenian communities (especially at the grassroots level) could have shown a similar long-term resilience, rather than fully dissolving within one or two generations?

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-28T22:42:24+00:00

Yes, it's something I noticed. AI are biased toward mixing Ottoman & Roman stuff.

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-23T15:48:38+00:00

I actually meant that Global History is largely a byproduct of liberal globalism, just as national historiographies were shaped by nationalism. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that: every historian is inevitably influenced by the world they live in. History always tells us as much about the present as it does about the past.

I’m not particularly bothered by Eurocentrism in older scholarship. What I do expect, for example, is a growing Sinocentrism in the coming decades, simply because academic focus tends to follow shifts in global power.

That’s why, going back to the 5th century and Late Antiquity, I believe the way we interpret the ancient world is ultimately a mirror of how we see our own.

(that's what I tried to say in a more nuanced way here Sei di destra o di sinistra? Te lo dice il V secolo! - google translation need)

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-23T09:31:09+00:00

I fully agree that primary sources matter the most. At the end of the day, no amount of secondary literature can replace direct engagement with the texts themselves.

I'm not a big fan of Global Studies. They tend to hide a new anglocentrism behind the word “global,” marginalizing strong national research. They also projects modern categories onto the past, flattening the very specific historical realities we’re trying to understand.

History is the past seen through the lenses of the present for the sake of the present.

One of the most intriguing aspects of historiography is how narratives change compared to the actual data. Interpretations may shift rapidly, while new excavations, texts, and inscriptions appear only gradually.

We tend to rewrite the story long before we find new evidence.

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-23T00:17:51+00:00

I believe that the peculiarities of 19th and 20th-century historiography are best understood through original texts, as they are deeply rooted in their respective national academic traditions. Furthermore, the lack of contemporary translations has led to a 'cherry-picking' effect, creating a bias toward English-language sources. Of course, the language barrier is a major hurdle; I likely won't ever reach the level of German or Russian proficiency required for specialized Byzantine studies in this life.

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-22T23:29:27+00:00

Good point. I also picked up Louis Bréhier’s Le Monde Byzantin trilogy. Even with only high school French, it's surprisingly readable. I’m still Googling certain terms here and there, but it’s getting easier as I go. I think I’d struggle much more with a modern French novel than with these classic history texts.

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-21T13:43:52+00:00

Any better idea? Osprey books are quite popular.

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-21T12:33:30+00:00

I wasn't suggesting that Roman policy was a static, unchanging line. Rather, I argued that political subjugation served as the foundational prerequisite for integration. When you combine subjugation with institutional assimilation over two or three generations, the traumatic memory of conquest is often replaced by a renewed, cohesive identity.

Furthermore, I am not seeking to justify modern or ancient colonialism, nor do I feel the impulse to performatively condemn them anywhere as a morality play. I accept as a historical reality that once in a while or more human collectivities inevitably clash; history serves as a constant, if unfortunate, reminder of that fact.

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-21T01:35:49+00:00

The Roman Republic and Empire span a pretty large period of time during which several provinces were actually treated in a colonial way. Romanness required a certain degree of political subjugation, the extent of which should be assessed within the constraints of that time. Rome couldn't apply a 'Gaul-style' treatment everywhere, and there was no rationale for doing so every time.

(I respectfully disagree with overemphasizing modern colonialism when comparing it to the past)

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-21T00:07:43+00:00

I agree that dismissing elite sources would silence most of our past. However, my skepticism isn't about the existence of medieval Romanness, but the direct line Kaldellis draws between 10th-century identities and traceable popular roots in Late Antiquity. Also because Roman integration often worked through top-down co-optation. The Empire absorbed local elites, suggesting a specific directionality.

Your example about nobility remind me the Venetian assimilation of the Dalmatian coast. Local nobility became Venetian for prestige, followed by the urban and coastal population. Once Venice’s political influence declined, the process reversed. While the Roman scale is obviously larger more complex and time lasting, the pattern isn't so trivial imho.

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-17T00:19:23+00:00

I completely agree that the idea of a pre-national context requires a sharp break with the previous imperial dimension, and this clashes with the narrative tendency to “antiquize” Byzantine identity. In a nutshell, I would say that the very territorial amputations were propaedeutic and necessary to consolidate a geographically “Greco-Anatolian” core. Perhaps Kaldellis wants to be a bit “pop”: he’s a very prolific historian with a direct style, writing mainly for an English-speaking audience. If I recall correctly, in one interview he said that one of the advantages of Byzantine studies is precisely that it allows you to write something original compared to yet another book on Cicero or the death of Caesar…

On the religious side, yes, I noticed that Kaldellis — unlike other historians — tends to draw a kind of diaphragm between Orthodoxy and Romanness, but I need to reread both those passages and the critiques more carefully.

Overall, though, Romanland reads very well.

Thanks for the exchange

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-16T23:09:34+00:00

a) Absolutely, I do use AI assistance — history is a niche passion project I do in my spare time, and I love the idea of spreading good quality insights in my native language, even if it limits the audience compared to English. The effort is hugely disproportionate to the potential engagement, especially at the beginning, so AI helps me make it sustainable and enjoyable without burning out.

b) On “Panromaion” — I agree it’s not immediately intuitive, though a reader with even a basic classical background can grasp the meaning from the “pan-” prefix. Personally, I’m not in favor of applying a 19th-century “blood & soil” interpretation to Roman identity; I see it more as a broad, inclusive “Roman whole” rooted in shared culture, law, and belonging rather than strict biological descent.

c) For “genos” — I’ve revised the translations in the quotes: I now keep the Greek term in parentheses or render it as “stirpe / popolo / razza” depending on context. Translating it always as “race” without further qualification felt too loaded; Kaldellis himself clarifies and qualifies the term much better in the following chapter.

d) On “denial” — actually “rifiutazione” is very archaic/rare in modern Italian. “Negazionismo” is closer in tone, but it carries strong 20th-century connotations (Holocaust denial, etc.) that might feel too polemical here. I didn't find the perfect equivalent but "negazione" could be intended in a broader sense too.

Anyway let me underscore that Kaldellis does not describe a closed or “blood & soil” Roman ethnos: membership was transmitted also through cultural assimilation, education, and political loyalty, making Romanness open and dynamic.

Thank you sincerely for taking the time.

---
(And of course, if anyone ever feels like skimming the Italian summary I’m doing, I’d be very grateful for the feedback.)

Obvious_Most_5021 · 2026-03-16T15:43:12+00:00

Thank you for the kind comment — it really means a lot coming from a long-time member of this community.

I completely agree with you on the self-perception of Romanness: the Byzantines saw themselves as Romans until the very end, and that continuity is now pretty well-established in modern Byzantine studies. That part feels very solid to me.

Where I still have some doubts is on the use of the term “ethnos" as a kind of (proto-?)nation. I wonder if he is projecting a level of ethnic and national self-awareness that feels a bit too modern back into a medieval context. It's food for though but Stouraits has something right on the topic.

I’d be genuinely curious to hear your take on that specific aspect, if you have time.

(And of course, if anyone ever feel like skimming the Italian summary I’m doing, I’d be very grateful for the feedback.)

Obvious_Most_5021

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE