What do you think?
Rate this book
Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium
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 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.
392 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2019
25 people are currently reading
570 people want to read
About the author
Anthony Kaldellis
35 books163 followersPh.D. University of Michigan, Department of History (2001)
Anthony Kaldellis’ research explores the history, culture, and literature of the east Roman empire from antiquity to the fifteenth century. An earlier phase of it focused on the reception of ancient Hellenic culture, for example on how authors conceived their projects in relation to classical models (Procopius of Caesarea, 2004), as well as the history of identities (Hellenism in Byzantium, 2007), monuments (The Christian Parthenon, 2009), and genres (Ethnography after Antiquity, 2013). A second phase brought to light the enduring Roman matrices of Byzantine life and thought, focusing on its political sphere (The Byzantine Republic, 2015) and ethnic identities (Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium, 2019). He has translated into English the works of many medieval Greek writers, such as Prokopios, Genesios, Psellos, Attaleiates, and Laonikos Chalkokondyles. His own monographs have been translated into other modern languages, including Turkish, French, Romanian, Russian, and Greek. In 2019, he created the first academic podcast for his field, Byzantium & Friends. He has just published a new, comprehensive history of Byzantium, The New Roman Empire (2023), which embeds social, economic, religious, and demographic developments within a lively narrative framework.
Anthony Kaldellis’ research explores the history, culture, and literature of the east Roman empire from antiquity to the fifteenth century. An earlier phase of it focused on the reception of ancient Hellenic culture, for example on how authors conceived their projects in relation to classical models (Procopius of Caesarea, 2004), as well as the history of identities (Hellenism in Byzantium, 2007), monuments (The Christian Parthenon, 2009), and genres (Ethnography after Antiquity, 2013). A second phase brought to light the enduring Roman matrices of Byzantine life and thought, focusing on its political sphere (The Byzantine Republic, 2015) and ethnic identities (Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium, 2019). He has translated into English the works of many medieval Greek writers, such as Prokopios, Genesios, Psellos, Attaleiates, and Laonikos Chalkokondyles. His own monographs have been translated into other modern languages, including Turkish, French, Romanian, Russian, and Greek. In 2019, he created the first academic podcast for his field, Byzantium & Friends. He has just published a new, comprehensive history of Byzantium, The New Roman Empire (2023), which embeds social, economic, religious, and demographic developments within a lively narrative framework.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
September 26, 2021
Excellent book that completely reexamines the nature of ethnicity in the “Byzantine Empire.” I love it when an argument is so compelling that I keep saying “duh” throughout the book.
The chapters on empire did raise some questions for me on how modern historians should define empire. It’s not really clear in my head but something seemed off about defining empire on how ethnic minorities/homelands identified and treated. This was not an issue with Kaldellis’ argument or use of the definitions, just a more general question that’s starting to nag at me.
The chapters on empire did raise some questions for me on how modern historians should define empire. It’s not really clear in my head but something seemed off about defining empire on how ethnic minorities/homelands identified and treated. This was not an issue with Kaldellis’ argument or use of the definitions, just a more general question that’s starting to nag at me.
January 15, 2020
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.
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.
June 17, 2019
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.
Read
November 3, 2024Does a good job of dispelling the common, false western preconceptions that surround the so called Byzantine Empire by clarifying the elements of a historical entity purposely made obscure and often presented as a vague, confused abstraction rather than a real, well defined polity.
However he also does what he (rightly) accuses western sources of doing, namely coming up with arbitrary delineating factors that define a nation and then arguing for those factors' existence ad hoc, which causes him to have to clumsily distance his own definition from the too permissive modern liberal concept of an infinitely malleable nationality in the book's conclusion.
I think the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle and national consciousness by itself can't be the sole factor determining nationality, especially when that is a nationality that has already existed in the past in a different geographical, cultural, and indeed racial context. A modern example of this would be the people of "North Macedonia" who insist on their Macedonian identity but that clearly doesn't align with historical, linguistic, or ethnic continuity.
However he also does what he (rightly) accuses western sources of doing, namely coming up with arbitrary delineating factors that define a nation and then arguing for those factors' existence ad hoc, which causes him to have to clumsily distance his own definition from the too permissive modern liberal concept of an infinitely malleable nationality in the book's conclusion.
I think the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle and national consciousness by itself can't be the sole factor determining nationality, especially when that is a nationality that has already existed in the past in a different geographical, cultural, and indeed racial context. A modern example of this would be the people of "North Macedonia" who insist on their Macedonian identity but that clearly doesn't align with historical, linguistic, or ethnic continuity.
January 16, 2025
Leunt heel sterk op primaire bronnen en gebruikt (voor mijn gevoel) vrij weinig secundaire literatuur (de auteur verwijst bovendien vrij veel naar zijn eigen, eerdere werk). Interessante conclusie die vrijwel volledig ingaat tegen de dingen die bij mijn master betoogd werden.
December 31, 2025
The author puts in a lot of effort to support his argument that the people who lived under the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as Byzantium and Romanía (Ρωμανία), were calling themselves Romans (but also after a certain point Romioi (Ρωμιοί) and Christians though he never mentions that) and that the term Byzantium came later (though he uses the term numerous times). While these are known facts, he goes a step further to claim that they were Romans and nothing else and whoever claims otherwise is a denialist. He argues that Western scholars who invented the term Byzantium did it to downplay the Greekness of the empire (or nation-state as he claims). However, he does exactly the same by claiming that they were Romans and nothing else. He never provides a clear definition on what the term Roman means, suggesting that the Greek orthodox religion and the Greek language are not so important aspects in comparison to someone being self-identified as Roman. However, at the same time he uses at different points the Greek language and orthodoxia as parts of the Roman identity. To add more confusion, he never makes a distinction between eastern and western Romans. It is not quite clear what he makes from the fact that some Byzantines were considering their ancestors the emperors of Rome even though he implies himself that this is rather impossible. Self-identification seems to cover everything else even in such extreme claims and while this is a relatively new conceptual argument he refutes other modern or less modern narratives as denialism. He also never mentions aspects of identity such as customs, traditions, food, architecture, aesthetics, etc, which were all Greek in character. While it is clear that the term Roman started to be used when Roman citizenship was provided to the very same population of the Greek world that previously called themselves Greeks (and ceased to exist when these people stopped to be Roman subjects after the end of the Eastern Roman and Ottoman Empires), he makes strange arguments to support that it was more than a label (which is not false per se) even claiming that the Greek language was Latinised (!) because a few hundred words were borrowed from the Romans (so, was it turkified as well?). He also makes the argument that Byzantium was a mix of different ethnicities but he never says which ones other than providing niche examples such as the Galatians. Overall, a well-researched but overzealous and dogmatic attempt to contradict Byzantine scholarship and existing knowledge but without making a specific and clear contribution on what is meant by Romanness of the Byzantine Empire and how we should interpret it.
August 7, 2019
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.
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.
March 2, 2022
Anthony Kaldellis presents a convincing and well sourced defense of his thesis: The majority of the "Byzantine Empire" were comprised of an ethnic people that considered themselves Roman. It's full of history but is primarily a work of historiography, Dr. Kaldellis spends a lot of the book arguing against the positions of many historians. The evidence Dr. Kaldellis presents is incredibly difficult to argue against and is presented in an easy to read but also comprehensive manner. It's hard to synthesize why the identity of the Byzantine populace has been erased but Dr. Kaldellis does so in an honest way without creating a strawman. Needless to say, however, the arguments Dr. Kaldellis defeats aren't all that sound in the first place. The only chapter that wouldn't be interesting to the general populace would be 5, which is the most niche historiographical chapter. Still interesting, but definitely the most advanced chapter. The only flaw, if there is one, is that the book does rely heavily on modern definitions especially of empire. It's well presented but I wonder how in 10, 15, 20 years the specific arguments will be received. His ethnic and cultural arguments are sound but his arguments for and against the term "Byzantine Empire" do not carry the same weight. That isn't to say they're bad but just rely heavily on recent thought on the subject and those can change very fast. In the final analysis, Anthony Kaldellis has presented one of the most important works in the field of Byzantine Studies. Any future students of Byzantium needs to contend with this study of ethnic identity.
September 16, 2020
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.
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.
January 27, 2020
The newest book by Kaldellis continues and expands his overarching and of course controversial thesis that permeates some of his previous works also: that Byzantium had an ethnicity (so, not multi-ethnic empire), and that ethnicity was Roman. Controversial among West historians because they consistently deny the Romanness of Byzantium (from around 800 AD if I remember correctly), but also among Greek historians (and not only historians) because the prevailing Greek thesis about Byzantium is that if it had an ethnic identity, that was the Greek one. Kaldellis makes a strong case as usual, and may have started to 'turn' the tide a bit, at least in the West, about the Romanness of Byzantium and Byzantium awareness in general, however I am afraid that among the Greek speaking audience this thesis is too controversial to be ever accepted or even discussed.
March 26, 2022
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.
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.
September 17, 2023
A landmark book that thrusts the question of roman identity, long settled under political pretenses in the West, back into the room. Despite refuting the Armenianness of many romanized Armenians and thereby hurting my ethnic ego, an absolute MUST read for anyone interested in the medieval roman empire.
October 4, 2021
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.
August 5, 2023
Εξαιρετικό βιβλίο και με ιδιαίτερη σημασία στο Ελληνικό κοινό που όχι απλά αγνοεί την ιστορία των Ρωμαίων γενικά, αλλά ακόμη και αυτή τη λίγη που μαθαίνει, τη μαθαίνει τελείως λάθος (δήθεν Ελληνικό Βυζάντιο και κουραφέξαλα).
Το πρώτο κομμάτι ασχολείται αναλυτικά αλλά χωρίς να κουράζει με το ψέμα περί μη ύπαρξης Ρωμαικής εθνότητας στο βασίλειο της (ανατολικής) Ρώμης. Πως ξεκίνησε ο μύθος ότι οι Ρωμαίοι δεν ήταν Ρωμαίοι αλλά Βυζαντινοί, Έλληνες, Αρμένιοι κτλ. και πως αυτό συνεχίζει να συντηρείται. Αυτή η αποκατάσταση της αλήθειας θα έπρεπε να ήταν κομβικό κομμάτι της Ελληνικής δημόσιας παιδείας για όσα παιδιά ενδιαφέρονταν για την ιστορία αυτής της γωνίας του κόσμου που ονομάζεται Ελλάδα. Επίσης, αυτό αποτελεί και ένα άριστο παράδειγμα για το πως χρησιμοποιείται η ιστορία γενικότερα σαν εργαλείο μαζικής παραπλάνησης ανθρώπων.
Το δεύτερο κομμάτι του βιβλίου είναι αρκετά εξειδικευμένο και θεωρητικό, ανάλυει το τι εστί αυτοκρατορία και κατά πόσο αυτό στέκει στη περίπτωση του βασιλείου της (ανατολικής) Ρώμης. Θα φανεί ελκυστικό σε πολύ μικρότερη μερίδα ανθρώπων αν και τα τελικά συμπεράσματα είναι σημαντικά. Πρώτον, πως ο όρος αυτοκρατορία είναι νεφελώδης/προβληματικός και δυσκολεύει τη συνεννόηση γιατί ο καθένας υποθέτει διαφορετικά πράγματα. Δεύτερον, ότι η (ανατολική) Ρώμη ήταν περισσότερο βασίλειο παρά αυτοκρατορία, ύπο την έννοια πως περισσότερο μετέτεραπε τους μη Ρωμαίους σε Ρωμαίους και στο πέρασμα του χρόνου, ενω υπήρχαν αυξομείωσεις σε έκταση/πληθυσμό, υπήρχε μια γενική πορεία προς μείωση/σμίκρυνση.
Το βιβλίο προφανώς δεν είναι για μαζική κατανάλωση, απευθύνεται σε ανθρώπους με συγκεκριμένα ενδιαφέροντα. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, στην ιστορία των (ανατολικών) Ρωμαίων και τις αντιλήψεις των ανθρώπων για την εθνότητα. Παρόλαυτα, είναι ένα ιστορικό βιβλίο που μπορεί να διαβαστεί χωρίς δυσκολία και να προσφέρει γνώση σε πάρα πολλούς Έλληνες.
Δυστυχώς υπάρχει μόνο στα Αγγλικά και είναι πανάκριβο. Εγώ το βρήκα ηλεκτρονικά, μακάρι να κυκλοφορήσει στα Ελληνικά και σε audiobook μορφή, και σε πιο προσιτές τιμές.
Το πρώτο κομμάτι ασχολείται αναλυτικά αλλά χωρίς να κουράζει με το ψέμα περί μη ύπαρξης Ρωμαικής εθνότητας στο βασίλειο της (ανατολικής) Ρώμης. Πως ξεκίνησε ο μύθος ότι οι Ρωμαίοι δεν ήταν Ρωμαίοι αλλά Βυζαντινοί, Έλληνες, Αρμένιοι κτλ. και πως αυτό συνεχίζει να συντηρείται. Αυτή η αποκατάσταση της αλήθειας θα έπρεπε να ήταν κομβικό κομμάτι της Ελληνικής δημόσιας παιδείας για όσα παιδιά ενδιαφέρονταν για την ιστορία αυτής της γωνίας του κόσμου που ονομάζεται Ελλάδα. Επίσης, αυτό αποτελεί και ένα άριστο παράδειγμα για το πως χρησιμοποιείται η ιστορία γενικότερα σαν εργαλείο μαζικής παραπλάνησης ανθρώπων.
Το δεύτερο κομμάτι του βιβλίου είναι αρκετά εξειδικευμένο και θεωρητικό, ανάλυει το τι εστί αυτοκρατορία και κατά πόσο αυτό στέκει στη περίπτωση του βασιλείου της (ανατολικής) Ρώμης. Θα φανεί ελκυστικό σε πολύ μικρότερη μερίδα ανθρώπων αν και τα τελικά συμπεράσματα είναι σημαντικά. Πρώτον, πως ο όρος αυτοκρατορία είναι νεφελώδης/προβληματικός και δυσκολεύει τη συνεννόηση γιατί ο καθένας υποθέτει διαφορετικά πράγματα. Δεύτερον, ότι η (ανατολική) Ρώμη ήταν περισσότερο βασίλειο παρά αυτοκρατορία, ύπο την έννοια πως περισσότερο μετέτεραπε τους μη Ρωμαίους σε Ρωμαίους και στο πέρασμα του χρόνου, ενω υπήρχαν αυξομείωσεις σε έκταση/πληθυσμό, υπήρχε μια γενική πορεία προς μείωση/σμίκρυνση.
Το βιβλίο προφανώς δεν είναι για μαζική κατανάλωση, απευθύνεται σε ανθρώπους με συγκεκριμένα ενδιαφέροντα. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, στην ιστορία των (ανατολικών) Ρωμαίων και τις αντιλήψεις των ανθρώπων για την εθνότητα. Παρόλαυτα, είναι ένα ιστορικό βιβλίο που μπορεί να διαβαστεί χωρίς δυσκολία και να προσφέρει γνώση σε πάρα πολλούς Έλληνες.
Δυστυχώς υπάρχει μόνο στα Αγγλικά και είναι πανάκριβο. Εγώ το βρήκα ηλεκτρονικά, μακάρι να κυκλοφορήσει στα Ελληνικά και σε audiobook μορφή, και σε πιο προσιτές τιμές.
July 19, 2020
Interesting, but
The point of this book (in close to 300 pages) is to prove that what is usually called the Byzantine Empire was in fact a nationstate, inhabited by a large and dominant ethnic majority which not only saw itself as Roman and called itself Roman, but actually was Roman. This may sound an exceptional, but as the author points out, it is home from accepted and has in fact for centuries been denied. If this is a topic that interests you, this is a well written book that conclusively proves his point. If this is an issue where you have no opinion and can’t be bothered to form one, don’t bother reading it.
The point of this book (in close to 300 pages) is to prove that what is usually called the Byzantine Empire was in fact a nationstate, inhabited by a large and dominant ethnic majority which not only saw itself as Roman and called itself Roman, but actually was Roman. This may sound an exceptional, but as the author points out, it is home from accepted and has in fact for centuries been denied. If this is a topic that interests you, this is a well written book that conclusively proves his point. If this is an issue where you have no opinion and can’t be bothered to form one, don’t bother reading it.
December 1, 2022
Grade is for legibility. 5/5 for history. Love Kaldellis. Spends a while banging on about some elements, but the first few chapters especially are really well written. Interested to know why Romans were so into classic Greek - likely a love of the authors?
The guy who left one star below clearly didn't read the book.
The guy who left one star below clearly didn't read the book.
May 4, 2022
Required reading if you're interested in byzantine history
November 4, 2024
I've never seen a historian make this many passive aggressive comments in a published monograph before.
December 19, 2025
The Fact that this book needs to exist is kind of insane.
It is Kaldellis at his most belligerent - at one point referring to Robert Guiscard as a "Norman terrorist" which was highly amusing.
The first part of the book is about the "history of denial" of Roman identify, which the west has perpetuated over time to bolster its own roman credentials by discounting those of the actual romans. This started with Charlemagne and as not really stopped.
I already follow the Kaldellis' school of though as I am familiar with his other work so a lot of the book comes across as him stating the obviously but I think it is important for it to exist for the field.
It details how Byzantinists have invented a blindspot where they are unable to see the Roman people right in front of them in the primary sources and instead some ambiguous often vaguely Greek blob, with Armenian and Slavic emerging as noticeably distinct elements.
The Roman people it turns out did not disappear after the fall of the west (heavy sarcasm), instead they continued to be Roman, live in Romanland, and eventually Romaic.
What was fascinating was the focus on Caracalla's edict which granted citizenship to all non slaves in the empire. What usually follows when people talk about this is how its just created new divides around the haves an have-nots or whatever else, which then is followed by the obligatory why did he do it? to increase taxes? Or so more people could worship him/ Blah. Boring.
What was here instead was a discussion of how this facilitated - to paraphrase an unrelated book I just read - the "emotional community" of the Romans/Romanland, which eventually allowed for a greater buy-in, to the state and the development of a common ethnicity, among originally desperate groups. Coming to believe in a common ancestry and descent, which would come to have elements of truth to it.
There is something to be said about the construction of Greekness during the period around the Greek war of independence which is only alluded to here and I ought to know more.
The second part of the book is more interesting focusing more on the process of roman assimilation, and if the empire was actually an empire in specific periods.
There is also a fun chapter on the "Armenian Fallacy" which was enjoyable. There is a certain emperor who's wikipedia page is almost entirely an argument on whether or not he was an Armenian. The stance of this book is that even if he had Armenian ancestry which is already highly unlikely. It would have had nothing to do with his primary identity which was as a Roman. If he was anything other, It would have been remarked upon.
This book is not necessary for the general public unless you are a die hard and need your byzantine fix. But its ideas will continue percolate through the field as people within it encounter it Im sure.
It is Kaldellis at his most belligerent - at one point referring to Robert Guiscard as a "Norman terrorist" which was highly amusing.
The first part of the book is about the "history of denial" of Roman identify, which the west has perpetuated over time to bolster its own roman credentials by discounting those of the actual romans. This started with Charlemagne and as not really stopped.
I already follow the Kaldellis' school of though as I am familiar with his other work so a lot of the book comes across as him stating the obviously but I think it is important for it to exist for the field.
It details how Byzantinists have invented a blindspot where they are unable to see the Roman people right in front of them in the primary sources and instead some ambiguous often vaguely Greek blob, with Armenian and Slavic emerging as noticeably distinct elements.
The Roman people it turns out did not disappear after the fall of the west (heavy sarcasm), instead they continued to be Roman, live in Romanland, and eventually Romaic.
What was fascinating was the focus on Caracalla's edict which granted citizenship to all non slaves in the empire. What usually follows when people talk about this is how its just created new divides around the haves an have-nots or whatever else, which then is followed by the obligatory why did he do it? to increase taxes? Or so more people could worship him/ Blah. Boring.
What was here instead was a discussion of how this facilitated - to paraphrase an unrelated book I just read - the "emotional community" of the Romans/Romanland, which eventually allowed for a greater buy-in, to the state and the development of a common ethnicity, among originally desperate groups. Coming to believe in a common ancestry and descent, which would come to have elements of truth to it.
There is something to be said about the construction of Greekness during the period around the Greek war of independence which is only alluded to here and I ought to know more.
The second part of the book is more interesting focusing more on the process of roman assimilation, and if the empire was actually an empire in specific periods.
There is also a fun chapter on the "Armenian Fallacy" which was enjoyable. There is a certain emperor who's wikipedia page is almost entirely an argument on whether or not he was an Armenian. The stance of this book is that even if he had Armenian ancestry which is already highly unlikely. It would have had nothing to do with his primary identity which was as a Roman. If he was anything other, It would have been remarked upon.
This book is not necessary for the general public unless you are a die hard and need your byzantine fix. But its ideas will continue percolate through the field as people within it encounter it Im sure.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews