@@julessamuels4588 Cope he was restored by an Ecumenical Council in 879 with Papal Approval and is a Saint, he’s more likely to be in Heaven than you ever will be.
@@velenteriushendeneros3251no, he thought that the Eastern Romans were less legitimate because unlike the Franks the Emperor wasn't crowned by the Pope.
Much of your videos are helping us unlearn inaccurate history. And the result has always been something much deeper and interesting than simple falsities.
"You should be wary of the Greeks, for they may deceive you, as is their custom" sounds to me like a partial quote of the Aeneid, when a Trojan states "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes": "I am fearful of the Greeks, even when they bring gifts"...the gift was the Trojan Horse, so yeah...you can see the point...
Anastasius claiming the Byzantines aren't Romans cause their Emperor is acclaimed by the Senate people and army. My brother in Christ do you not know how Roman emperors were made. The pope never named an emperor before the fall of Rome
The Pope never named an Emperor. Period. Only some pretenders. The Roman Emperors of the East were not named by the Patriarch, they were proclaimed by the army, Senate and People and lifted on a shield. The involvement of the Patriarch was not absolutely necessary.
I think the thing which throws everybody is that the Roman aristocracy were native Aegean Greek speakers. Roman Greek was an aristocratic dialect which often used different words than other Greek speakers, such as instead of using the word "Homer", Roman aristocrats used the word "Maion". The reason that there were so many Latins in southern Italy is because they all used the Western Greek alphabet introduced by Latinos (youngest son of Odysseus of Ithaca) in order to colonise Italy. They were the Greek speakers who attacked Troy and destroyed it by deceit. 1,000 years later their Greek (using a different alphabet since 1200BC) had diversified so much that it was barely recognised as a Greek dialect.
@@aokiaoki4238 The Papacy never had any authority to name a Roman Emperor. The Ottonians may have been Emperors but they could never be Roman Emperors and there was nothing Roman in their laws, customs and traditions.
so the frankish king is more roman than the emperor in Constantinople because he was chosen by the pope, whereas the emperor was chosen by the senate, people and armies. i need to punch smth right now.
" The word of God is Government": The Frankish king bends his knee to the infallible Will of God, and the only legitimate worldly authority, the Church in Rome. - While the Eastern emperor does not; he comes to power via mob rule and corruption. - A highly common thought figure, from the very early ( 5th century) medieval times onwards. And, yes: The Rome of the Republic, before Christ, is very obviously " Not Rome".
The weakness of the Basileus and Eastern Patriarchs in the former Western Roman Empire made the pope-emperor connection very popular in Western Europe and formed modern Catholicism.
Neither was Rome. Rome fell in the 5th century. Roman = of Rome. An empire with a capital other than Rome and which did not control Rome for the majority of its history is not Rome.
Why? There was no emperor in the Roman Kingdom or Republic, and they were Roman despite a development in legitimacy, and this development did not end with Augustus. Otherwise an American president would fot your idea of a Eoman Emperor more than someone elected by the pope
Your investigations, treatment and investigations on primary sources are absolutely unmatched, you have become my favourite youtuber by far on roman history, especially medieval. Thank you.
Here's a crackpot alternate take: what if it was that Michael called the Latin the Bulgarians were using barbaric? It'd certainly explain why he calls it Scythian, of all things - the Bulgarians were horse lords not too too long ago from when he was writing (unlike even Frankish-influenced Latin, to which Scythian is an odd comparison), and at that time it would have been within memory that both Rome and Constantinople had been courting the Bulgarians to convert to Christianity. Is it possible that there were some Latin speakers, or some Latin-speaking priests, still in the Khan's Court, and that Michael dropped some kind of "and you didn't even teach them the language correctly" style burn which Anastasius took as (or twisted into being) insulting all Latin? It'd also explain why Anastasius blames the translators - both Greek and Latin might've been relatively new to them, creating that translation rather than localisation effect. Of course, I know next to nothing about this period, so take it as the ramblings of the madwoman it is. Also, man, if I had a nickel for every time the Pope accused an 'Emperor of the Romans' of being the Antichrist, I'd have at least two nickels. Which isn't a lot but it's weird it's happened twice.
This does sound like mudslinging something out of context about a SPECIFIC communication in Latin to be an insult to the language as a whole. It also has rings of some recent fake kerfuffles in US politics. (This comment will remain timeless unless youtube outlives the US because there's always gonna be SOMETHING like this slung as mud though in this specific context it was about a US party primary zeroing in on the word "Smart" and removing all context.)
Well Comparing to Greek who was the Eastern Romans spoked, every other language look barbarian. Greek language is the most rich language with 5 million words and 70 million word types. For that reason all the languages use Greek words but Greek language don't use foreign words because have it's own. Every scientific word is Greek because only Greek language can born new words. Now that time the only Romans who remain was the Greek speakers. The Latin speakers of north Italy was Germanic people who invade Italy and destroy the western Roman empire. YOU missing history lessons mate. Eastern Romans till 10th century always wanted to take revenge from Germanics who invade and destroy western Roman empire
There is a bit more context: For the emperor, the Latin spoken in the west during the 9th century is no longer the high language of the Romans, but indeed just a heavily modified lingua franca of germanic barbarians: Facts. - Hence the counter: "We" , as christendom in the west, may look like barbarians in your eyes. You on the other hand, not accepting the full authority of the Church in Rome, never received "the True Message" , " like the Jews" .
"...whereas in the East the so-called Emperors were sometimes acclaimed by the Senate, the People and the armies." - Anastasius not understanding how SPQR works, circa AD 871.
Like Greeks many Germans were also part of roman empire so why a greek empire or kingdom is accepted as roman empire while the German one is not? Hell why Ottomans empire is not roman, considering early romans weren't even Christians, of christian can be Romans why can't muslims?
Scythians were seen as the prototypical barbarians for centuries. Ironically, Germans would later claim to be their successors as a sort of noble savage theme. There were some blondes among them. Ultimately in the line of "Ashkenaz", from Japheth, son of Noah.
On the Latin-Greek issues in the Roman Imperial identity I strongly recommend Schwerpunkt's Byzantine history series: including the inflamatory ones on why it's not the end of the world to use the term Byzantine of course :D
You know the mob has low historical conscience when the use of "Byzantine" is inflamatory for it. Schwerpunkt is really popular in others' comment sections.
Schwerpunkt does not even think that Eastern Romans (not “‘byzantines””) are real Romans. His content clearly has effort put into it, But his takes on Eastern Rome are just idiotic.
@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetardedIn the end of the day, The East Romans is still considered themselves as Romans/Rhomoi and they are Greek Romans, Greeknized Balkan, Greeknized Latin. And they enrich Greek civilization nothing else. Culture, Language is the most important not DNA because there is no such thing as pure race especially towards Mediterranean peoples because all of them are decendants of neolithic Anatolians farmers, Indo European etc..
The use of the term "byzantine" to describe the mostly Greek eastern Roman empire arose because the Frankish western Holy Roman empire insisted they were the "real" Roman empire well into the modern era. During the middle ages the Frankish empire called the eastern Greek one "Imperium Grecorium" , empire of the Greeks, with hostility. With the rise of the Renaissance Greek came into fashion again. So the Holy Roman empire further insulted Greeks by renaming them "Byzantines" thus implying they were neither Greeks nor Romans.
This subject is like a drug to me, thank you. I need to know: this is FAR from the 1st time the Franks had a chip on their soldier about the Byzantines' Romanness. Why were they so adamant against Greek, compared to other Westerners? As far as I studied, not even the British or Spanish contested like the Franks did. One early English king used Greek "Basileus" on his coins. Is this all because of Charlemagne being crowned as Caesar? The East West Schism which culminated then in 1054 is so heartbreaking as an Orthodox. So much might have been prevented. ;_;
They weren't against the Greeks per se, they just wanted to give an identity to the Eastern Roman Empire that wasn't Roman. The majority of the Eastern Romans were either Greek or Greek speaking so it was a very good excuse for the Franks to call them just Greek. The British and the Spanish people weren't established nations in that era. The Iberian peninsula was half conquered by the Moors and the British isles were governed by numerous petty kingdoms which weren't strong enough to claim anything away from what their eyes could see. On the other hand, the French (or the Franks) had had an already established and powerful kingdom (or rather 3 after 843). They had defeated the Muslims, they had conquered Germany so they were strong enough to compete and try to devaluate the ERE
@@TeutonicEmperor1198 I meant British and Spanish as colloquial terms for the contemporaneous Saxons, Visigoths, Celts etc sorry. Thank you for the effort in reply though and you have a point
on behalf of the Latin Church, I hold the "fourth crusade" in anathema and consider it an own-goal. iirc Innocent III thought about the same; he'd excommunicated the expedition. unfortunately the "crusade" had left an amber-heard on his bed so he had limited-options on how to clean it up.
To be fair we do have Kings of France(like Louis VII) and even a later HRE emperor(Frederick II) calling them Romans. Often it was more a matter of political policy than genuine beliefs
Can you make a video about CKIII's depiction of the Byzantine Empire (along with Bulgaria, Georgia, Rus' and such)? You already use the models for the characters and the music from it.
If Roman is a person who speaks Latin as a native language, that means after 193 all Roman emperors where not Roman’s. Do you guys think that Aurelian was less Roman than Trajan ?
Wow! I've known that quote from the letter of Louis to Basil for almost six years now, and I have often referred to it, but I had no idea Anastasius the Librarian was behind that too! Thank you so much for doing your research and producing such enlightening videos!
Ok, with Anatasios entering the equation, now it makes more sense. At first I wanted to say "how the heck this is possible", thinking Michael went wacky / crazy / ridiculous.
"Scythian" at the time meant "Most Barbaric", as Scythians were perceived to be the most Unroman / Ungreek, the most distant peoples to their civilization and culture.
Solidi continued to be issued with Latin throughout their existence (aka Late 11th century). The coin of Basil II for example has text like BASIL(EUS) ET CONSTANT AUGG (trans. Basil and Constantine Augusti- Basil's brother Constantine VIII was co-emperor aka symbasileus with him), ICXC REX REGNATIVM (ICXC- Latin transliteration of Christogram and Rex Regnatium means King of Kings- referring to Jesus Christ) Latin continued to be studied in the Universities of Constantinople in some capacity as late as 11th century mainly by scholars who needed to translate or study the old Roman texts and scrolls as well as Imperial tutors preparing curricula for the would-be Emperors, nobility, the rich and the intelligentsia, educating them on the history of their thousand year old Empire. Leo the Wise is said to have been able to speak many languages including Arabic and Latin. Transliterated Latin terms and phrases were commonly used in both administration and day to day language. In the Early Byzantine Period, Latin was seen as the "language of their ancestors". As seen in the edict of Justinian when he compiled the Corpus Iuris Civilis (Justinian's Code) declaring that the copy in Imperial possession would be in the "language of their ancestors" aka Latin while the copies distributed for day to day local level use would be in "the language of the people" aka Koine Greek.
Very good analysis indeed. I want to put one more aspect of the whole issue which influenced the Church and politics of the time. Michael III was the last of a line of non-Roman Barbarian dynasty which happened to rule over the Roman state - the Amorian dynasty. This was not the first such Barbarian dynasty which happened to rule over the Romans with the notable example of the Isaurian dynasty. The Amorians were well known not only with the reintroduction of the Asian forged Iconoclasm which ripped apart the Roman world as a way for the Barbarians to Barbarize and divide the Romans and make them their servants, but the vary same grandfather of Michael III - the founder of this illegitimate dynasty was well known for not speaking Greek properly. He was not native speaker of the Greek language and was nick-named ὁ Τραυλός or ὁ Ψελλός by the Romans of the time. This family trauma was inherited by his grand-son who was pure Barbarian without a single drop of Roman blood (Greek-Romaioi or Latin-Romani) like his grandfather. Therefore I do not exclude that Michael III could possibly gave a good reason to the Papal scribe for his comment.
So this topic needs a little more background and development, but thanks for putting up the video. There was another patriarch named Ignatius before Photios, so you'd need to dive more into* that context to understand the story (but your video does touch into it). There was the Eighth Ecumenical Council (869/870) - attended by papal legates and the Emperor that anathematized Photios and reinstated Ignatius. Something that came out of this was the Azymes controversy and also the Filioque as you mentioned and Bulgarian territory. Eventually the schism was healed and Photios was in communion with the Pope of Old Rome with his excommunication lifted. But certainly there were linguistic challenges and I think you are onto something. Another note is that the Byzantine Liturgy had Latin readings kept for stationary churches in New Rome. Pope St Nicholas argued if it's barbarian and Scythian language, then why celebrate the Byzantine Liturgy with Latin parts and why keep the title Emperor of the Romans? So Nicholas really thought Michael was saying that so it seems (based perhaps on Anastasius the Librarian's translation!), however, to your point the Emperor was most likely speaking about usage of Frankish Latin and all its variants and not even the Ecclesiastical Liturgical Latin which Constantinople made use of still. Actually there is a similar story about the term Ecumenical Patriarch. If interpreted to mean Universal Bishop as St Gregory the Great was reading into it, then it's considered a heresy, but reading into it to mean the Imperial Bishop (that is in the Roman Known World) that is orthodox. Again it was limited understanding of Greek terminology and even some Latin too later with the qui ex Patre Filioque procedit and τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον ... To your point the linguistic dialogues would continue from Photios onward. What is is interesting (previous to Photios) is the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) with Emperor Constantine VI and the Patriarch St. Tarasios of Constantinople would profess the Per Filium clause in the Greek Symbol (Filioque and Per Filium can mean the same thing Latinly as equivalent as ablative of means or accusative of means): Πιστεύω εις ένα θεόν πατέρα παντοκράτορα καί εις ένα κύριον Ίησοΰν Χριστόν τόν υίόν του θεού καί θεόν ημών, γεννηθέντα έκ τοϋ πατρός άχρόνως καί άϊδίως, καί εις τό πνεύμα τό αγιον, τό κύριον καί ζωοποιόν, τό έκ του πατρός δι' υιού έκπορευόμενον...Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem, et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum Filium Dei et Deum nostrum, natum ex Patre sine tempore coaeternum: et in Spiritum sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, ex Patre per Filium procedentem.... ua-cam.com/video/K4BLALlEgE4/v-deo.html
There were many controversies in East - West for some reason this Photian schism keeps coming up in history as it has later repercussions in A.D. 1054, 1202, etc.
Damn, latin is the hell of an ancient language. Cases, roots, verbs, tenses, and even a clear simplified pronuntiation that makes greek sound more barbaric then it was.
“What’s that you were acclaimed by senatus populusque romanus? Oh AND the army! Nah true Roman Augustiī are appointed by the popes only. Examples? I DONT NEED EXAMPLES GREEKOID ITS JUST A FACT!!!”
He will be bullied more if he's in /his/ and /pol/ boards if he did that, coupled with kys posts (Roman emperors are known for unironically kys if shit goes bad).
This was very insightful, I remember seeing this comment once somewhere but cannot remember where. I chose to dismiss it because, if I could not reproduce the evidence I should not treat it is as fact and here you are to show it is not fact at all. Considering that the Romans still used Latin on their coins until the tenth century should well indicate just how fondly they viewed the barbarians and Scythians.
@@Samuil-iq6eb That's correct, however I specifically mentioned France, NOT ITALY, which still spoke a language relatively close to Latin compared to West Frankia.
Nonsense. I find it rather absurd that Michael III considered Latin a barbarian language. Latin was used in the Imperial court and among the ranks of the Roman army for many more centuries after Greek became officially the language of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Latin was primarily an administrative language due to Latin Romans having conquered the region. When the Roman capital moved to Byzantium (renamed Constantinople) the majority of the population were Greeks. There were more Latin speakers in what we today call Germany under the Holy Roman empire than there were in the eastern Roman empire. The Holy Roman empire insisted for centuries that they were the "real" Roman empire and that the other Roman empire were Greeks.
@@mydogsbutlerActually, Constantinople was originally a primarily Latin speaking city in the 4th and 5th centuries. Many of the original inhabitants settled by Constantine and Constantius were former soldiers. There are accounts of Greek Orators visiting there and being frustrated that no one could understand them or appreciate their talents. Prior to Constantine, Byzantium has already been leveled and rebuilt as a Roman colony around the year 200. It was no longer an old Greek fishing village by the time Constantine chose it. As more people gravitated towards the capital, Greek became the dominant language of the city in the late 5th and 6th centuries, but Latin continued to be spoken and taught there. There were still Latin schools in the time of Justinian II(around 700ce).
This man may have began one of the most exhausting arguments in historiography just because he hated the Eastern Romans so much. What even motivated him? Patriotism, his conviction that the see of Rome was superior and correct, some grudge because his career didn't pan out the way he wanted, or simple knee-jerk racism? So many possibilities, great work recontextualising this!
More likely Politics and Religion, its like the Modern day Political landscape, both sides like to talk smack about the other no matter how true or false it is. (As in calling all Pro Life People Bigots or all Pro Abortion People Degens and such)
Latin Greek as a barbarian language probably comes from the 3rd wave of Graecic invasion into Europe, circa 2600BC. The invasion came from Southern Russia (known as Scythia at that time) and they populated Central Europe and the mainland Greek peninsula, and then a 1000 years after that, Southern Italy where writing in a disused western Greek alphabet, the colonists of Latinos quickly diversified into Greek dialect and then into a different language like Italian, Spanish, Romanian and Portuguese etc in later years..
As a Greek, I could cite an infinite number of instances where emperors (Anna Komnena, Nikephoros, Michael III, etc.) and chroniclers call Latin and Latins barbarian alike. I don't know why it would be a novelty knowing the great cultural division. (Even court philosopher Michael Psellos called Italians barbarians). And Anastasius is certainly not the origin of Byzantine anti-Romanity, from the time of Justinian we have a letter from the population of Rome complaining about the management of things by Narses and how the Gothic government was preferable to the "Greek" one.
Μπορείς σε παρακαλώ να μου δώσεις μια πηγή για το γράμμα των κατοίκων της Ρώμης στα χρόνια του Ιουστινιανού, έστω και δευτερεύουσα; Κάπου το είχα διαβάσει το περιστατικό αλλά δεν θυμάμαι από που.
Religious context, not anti Roman but pro Roman anti Catholic...there were literally romance speakers inside Eastern Roman Empire...but guess you like pseudo-history
Is it true though, Michael Psellos, despite being one of the smartest minds of the time, could barely discern Cicero from Caesar? Proving the state of division in East-West communication at the time. Also which letter was this please?
@@seronymus It really was: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy Here's the source: "Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590-752." Really great book if you want the deeps of it.
Great video. Don't be surprised if I tell you that even the Great Schism occurred most likely due to those misinterpretations. In other words, both the East and West were lost in translation, sometimes intentionally. The Coronation of Charles by the ambitious Bishop of Rome created a completely unnecessary rivalry between the East and the West. IMO, the arrogant, at times, Constantinople, also held a great responsibility because it was looking down on the Westerners by considering them crude barbarian offspring; therefore the "hurt" latter would do or say almost everything to support consolidating the Roman name for themselves after Charle's coronation. I believe that it was in another great video of yours that you mentioned Basil I's letter to Louis II, insulting him by saying "You will never be Romans".
@@عليياسر-ذ5بIn the end of the day, The East Romans is still considered themselves as Romans/Rhomoi and they are Greek Romans, Greeknized Balkan, Greeknized Latin. And they enrich Greek civilization nothing else. Culture, Language is the most important not DNA because there is no such thing as pure race especially towards Mediterranean peoples because all of them are decendants of neolithic Anatolians farmers, Indo European etc..
It began during the developing Schism between the Catholic and Orthadox Churches and the Cultural and Ethnic divide between East and West, basically it was a biproduct of the 2 Sides of Christendom at the time, By saying "The Byzantines aren't Roman" or 'The Frankish Empire and later the HRE aren't Roman" the 2 were also saying by extension "Your Church and People are in the Wrong", its less the Debate itself and more the Geopolitical and Cultural context of it.
In the end of the day, The East Romans is still considered themselves as Romans/Rhomoi and they are Greek Romans, Greeknized Balkan, Greeknized Latin. And they enrich Greek civilization nothing else. Culture, Language is the most important not DNA because there is no such thing as pure race especially towards Mediterranean peoples because all of them are decendants of neolithic Anatolians farmers, Indo European etc..
Romaboo, your position about Michael III calling Latin barbaric is pretty much the norm in the academic circle, so I really don't get why 'Byzantines-aren't-Roman' guys still use it. Source: Byzantium & Friends Podcast Episode 32: Anastasius the Librarian, the greatest enemy of Byzantium you probably never heard of. (The issue was mentioned in a passing near the end if I recall correctly).
oh..the delegates didn't want to cause trouble and gave the green light only to have their boss overrule them? shouldn't something that basic have been ironed out when the pope sent them? or...did they get put on assignment beforehand and just assumed that their job was to keep things friendly? (with no email or telephones at the time...even so if it's that important they should know what needs a confirmation via messenger and what doesn't... i wonder what became of them...could they find work after that? or were they shunned by everyone they knew for the rest of their lives...poor things...)
The initially were instructed not to ratify any decision and just observe, but Photios insisted that the decisions should be made before they leave, so they agreed to confirm him
It is common knowledge that Latin was the basic Greek spoken by Lacedaemonians from around 2500BC and written down in a disused Western Greek script from 1200BC onwards by Latinos, the younger son of Odysseus of Ithaca who needed it to record his form of Greek in a written language to support his successful colonisation of Italy. The Lacedaemonians were those who attacked and destroyed Troy and were wrongly described as being the Greeks by 18th/19th century academics, whereas, it was the Trojans who were the true Greeks, speaking the sophisticated Aegean Greek, the same language as spoken in the late Minoan period, and the same language that was written using the current Greek alphabet from circa 700BC onwards. Yes, the Romans were Greek speakers, but they employed the barbaric Lacedaemonian Latins to form their Roman Armies because they were so aggressive and brutal. This is the reason that both Romans and Greeks saw Latins and Lacedaemonians as barbaric.
if ever, this schism is the true time when the romans got divided. It's important to know though, that in the western parts the term greek was alive and well, and also insultinf :o still today it means 'stingy' in sardinian ( grecu ) and it also got used in french as an insult, the greek speakers (not standard greek ofc ) of southern italy got called grico by southern italians. Yet the pope, before the schism, called the emperor to not forget about them as fellow romans. I don't know, maybe the schism was a bigger event than people make it to be for the average western roman, after all the info they received was mainly from priests, that would have certainly been pro-pope
It seems that some Greek politician / philosopher / nobleman called Latin barbaric, who rejoiced in the rejection of Roman traditions and, in particular, Latin out of use. The fall of Rome was like the fall of any colonial empire
Who is that philosopher or politician? See no evidence! No the Greeks didn't hate Rome, they were mostly loyal subjects. They served in the senate, in the legions, in the imperial court and as prefects. The Eastern Romans (they are called this way for a reason) don't have Alexander the Great as their founding father but Augustus and Constantine.
Controversial opinion: The Frankish system that bestows the title of Emperor by the Pope is much better than the Roman system. Reason: The Roman system caused so much civil wars, that it disintegrated asunder by the ottomans. The Frankish system was more stable in comparision.
It sounds like an ancient flame war. I think your theory is pretty plausible, but I am not entirely convinced the papal letters are totally misrepresenting what Michael said to the degree you are suggesting. It is entirely possible that they were, and we'll never know exactly what Michael said. That aside, the Byzantines did adopt Greek, and the elite in Rome since the founding often spoke Greek as a sign of education, civilization, and sophistication. So, I can totally see the Latin on the coinage as a symbolic "we are Roman" thing, while Michael and the nobility felt that Latin was a vulgar, barbaric language (especially with the drift between Western and Eastern Roman administrations happening for so long). Love you videos!
Except that doesn’t track with the continued use of Latin in Court Ceremony and religious holidays or with other Byzantine sources from the period. Emperor Constantine VII, (Michael’s plausible grandson), a Classicalism snob that called the Greeks in Greece itself Slavs for their culture, for ex calls Latin the Ancestral language of the Romans, considers its lost by the Emperors a pity and treats the language with respect all throughout his books. I think saying Michael either meant the modern corrupted Frankish Latin spoken by Anastasius or that it was never actually said or said by Photius and not him, are the only plausible explanations.
@@DaDa-ui3sw 1. Because we don’t have the letter that Michael sent and 2. Because Anastasius often wrote in the Pope’s name as was the standard for the time, same with Photius writing for Michael
@@tylerellis9097I lean more to it being an intentional mistranslation to make the Byzantines look bad, both sides in this period liked to talk smack at the other like in a modern Presidental Debate to further their own cause so I wouldn't be suprised
In case you don't care about what the Romans said about themselves, and you don't care about where the Romans actually came from and why they had an affinity with Greek speakers rather than Latin Greek speakers, then I'm here to fill you in about who and what the Romans were and what they stood for. Rome was founded by escapees from the ancient Minoan City of Troy and they spoke AEGEAN Greek not LATIN Greek. It was the Latins who spoke Latin Greek and this language was very ancient Greek from way before circa 1200BC, but written down in the Western Greek script taken to the Mycenaean and Argive colonies in Italy, by LATINOS, the youngest son of Odysseus of Ithaca. You might also be aware of that massive Greek War (The 3 Minoan Wars ending with the Trojan War) fought between Lacedaemonian Greek speakers and Aegean Greek speakers and the massive explosion of the island of Thera which precipitated the end of the Minoan Empire. There was also a massive difference between the two Greek worlds which I'm not getting into here but if you know about how the Lacedaemonian Greeks brutally destroyed the civilised city of Troy by deceit and deception, then you'll get an in your face education of the different cultures. One barbaric and one civilised. The Hellenes are the ones who fought for Helen of Troy, the other Greek speakers like the Helots in the southern Peloponnese were Minoans who were forced unwillingly, to capitulate to the Argives who took great pleasure in raiding them for war practice and booty. The Troyans and and the Minoans wrote in a script called Linear A, but, the Lacedaemonians only started writing their Greek after the 2nd Minoan War (around 1400BC) and they had to adapt it quite a lot, because of the different Greek which they spoke, and the different culture and priorities which they possessed, and this became known as Linear B. When the latter started taking winning advantage of their subsequent victories over the Minoans, they started founding colonies all over the Mediterraneum, and especially in Italy, which was just a short hop away from their homeland in Western Greece and just a half a day's sail away over the Ionian and Adriatic Seas. By 1200BC the Lacedaemonians had substantial numbers of colonies in Italy, mostly in the South & East, because the gradually escaping Minoans (and Rassunai who worked closely with the Minoans) founded cities in the North and West of Italy in order to keep as far away from the barbarian brutes which destroyed their Empire and their cities. Since Italy was a hotch potch of Greek and other languages, Greek was the most widely spoken language but rapidly diversifying because of the separation of the two cultures separated by hate. The Lacedaemonians of Latinos, found it difficult reading and recording Greek because of their dialectical and cultural differences with the Minoans and also with the Rassunal (who started calling themselves Etruscans after the name of the tribe which originally occupied their space), He simplified HIS Lacedaemonian Greek with an alphabet which he brought with him from Ithaca and Western Greece which seemed too simple, but with the introduction of BREATHINGS over the letters, made reading the language much easier for all Greek speakers in Italy. As most language specialists will confirm: if you write down an already dialectically separating language in a different alphabet, this has the effect of accelerating the diversification to such an extent, that after 500 years, Latin Greek was hardly recognisable as Aegean Greek, and additionally, it couldn't be read by Aegean Greeks, who often didn't even use the same words for the same things, nor did they recognise the letters. Around 700BC, the Aegean Greeks started using the current Greek alphabet, but borrowed the breathings from over the Latin alphabet to be able to pronounce their Greek, in the same way that the Latin Greeks needed to pronounce their words using their alphabet. Let's be clear about this, the Latin Greeks were all about colonial conquest, theft and destruction, whereas the Aegean Greeks, which were the Romans, Alba Longians (and one other which I can't remember) as well as the Etruscans were all about building, creating and peaceful trading. Language aside, you decide which is civilised and which is barbaric and why the Latins could be thought of as barbarians by a Roman Emperor which usually employed them to be soldiers in his army mostly.
Michael was jelus and bitter remember that the old rome named as emperor a barbarian German king. Plus violates the Roman law and holy synods Emperor first patriarch second
The fact that he specifically criticized the Romans for Picking their emperors via the Senate, the People, and the Army, as if those are not literally the defining features of being emperor throughout all of imperial history is kinda hilarious
Its worth noting that; This could well have been the Eastern Romans actually talking about the catholics themselves (Latins) as they called them. And the fact it was written by Anastasius the L*tinoid, tells you all you need to know about this fan fiction.
Your evidence seems to contridict your thesis that there is some sort of misunderstanding of context of the claim Michael called Latin a Barbarian language. Anastasius keeps referencing the eastern Romans as Greeks which implies they were ethnically Greeks. And he wasn't some outlier.. From 800 century onwards the western Holy Roman empire calls the eastern one Greeks. Even when the Pope crown Charlemagne Roman emperor in Saint Peter's Basicala in 800 he supposedly said. "Decretalium, Romanourm imperium in persona magnifici Caroli a Grecis transtuli in Germanos"… Latin for "transferred Roman imperial authority from the Greeks to the Germans, in the name of His Greatness, Charles". Irene the Athenian, eastern Roman empress at the time, was a Greek. In other words, the context of "Roman" during the middle ages was in a sort of assimilating civic nationality context not an ethnic designation like say early Latin era Rome in antiquity. Anyone could be Roman but in terms of who were demographically the most numerous of Romans it was Germans in the west and Greeks in the east.
I think you're missing the part about not having the letter the emperor wrote, and not knowing what he said, but the hint at a context having something to do with translating, and/or relating to Scythians(i.e. Bulgarians). We just don't know what Michael was talking about. Anastasius was notoriously hostile to Constantinople and used "Greeks" as an insult and derogatory. When westerners wanted to polite, they would say "Emperor of Constantinople," and if they wanted to suck up, "Emperor of New Rome." When the Latins took Constantinople in the 4th crusade, they just called it the Roman empire, lands of the Romans, Romania, etc, showing that westerners did indeed recognize the prestige and wanted to claim it.
@@histguy101 I think you are missing the part that not only Anastasius claimed the eastern Roman empire were Greeks... not in quotes and not just Greek speakers.
@@histguy101 The context of Roman in either the western or eastern empire was not as an ethnic designiation but as a citizen and/or imperial authority. Roman could mean someone who saw their roots as German, Greeks, Armenian, Slavic, and so on.. Greek being the most common elements in the eastern Roman empire and German in the west.
In the end of the day, The East Romans is still considered themselves as Romans/Rhomoi and they are Greek Romans, Greeknized Balkan, Greeknized Latin. And they enrich Greek civilization nothing else. Culture, Language is the most important not DNA because there is no such thing as pure race especially towards Mediterranean peoples because all of them are decendants of neolithic Anatolians farmers, Indo European etc..
Being of Frankish extraction, I am completely on board with trash talking the Greek kings. But in no way can any honorable person use twisted and misconstrued words in the trash talk game. What Anastasius did was disgraceful and to be expected from a man who was an anti-pope, guilty of undermining the authority he represented. Had Anastasius been an honest man, he would have embraced the Greek accusations of barbarism and proclaimed that God favors our barbarian inflections more than effete Grecian simpering.
Well since the original Roman Latin identity ceased to exist by that time and the new Latin identity was technically Frankish, Gothic and Germanic, it makes sense to call their borrowed language barbaric.
Well , Byzantium was the hereditary line from Konstantinopole! ( through Anna Maria Sofia). Ilin regards of the language it can be investigated through fonetics!
Pope Nicholas I ,of barbaric origin did not know or he pretended not to know that Rome is NOT a Latin word. There is a Latin language,not a Roman language. Rome is a Greek word means power,strength. 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. Check out the script ΡΩΜΗ on a 5th century BC marble inscription. in the Vatican museum Rome- 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. Thus, the title Basileus of the Romans has nothing to do with Latin, and it is very likely that for the Hellenists Photius and Michael III, Latin was considered a barbarian language, as the ancient Greeks also considered it.
Man, those doctrinal debates like the Filoque one seem so strange in modern times. They are literally debating an unfalsifiable question, if there is no conceivable way to check where does the holy spit originate from then why does it even matter? How many angels can dance on a head of a pin? Who cares, it’s unfalsifiable, so it’s not even worth thinking about. I’m so glad I was born after we came up with the scientific method and with empiricism.
Proto Greek is the original Indo European language. It is the father of all Indo-European languages including Latin Greek, Aegean Greek AND Old German.
@@AndreaMoletta-s3c Yes, but before that there is evidence that they were in NE Asia and also SE Asia. It depends upon how far back in time you want to go.
It's because the original Romans were highly civilized Aegean Greek speakers from Troy. They imperialized the rough speaking Latins (also originally Lacedaemonian Greeks who attacked Troy in 1200BC) and Rome paid them to be violent and barbaric murdering soldiers for Rome. In Byzantine times, the barbaric and murdering influence of the Latin soldier was nearly gone, replaced by Christianity, love and a desire of peace.
it's just greek nationalist propaganda. the "original" romans were latins. an italic tribe in centre italy. some years later etruscans were also romans.@@seronymus
You're referring to emperor Michael III the Drunk. You might wanna do some more research before you publish these things especially about the Roman world that is very difficult for people today to understand.
“Accused him of being a Jew…and the Anti Christ.”
Lmfaoooo
Should have come with a MEMRI TV clip
That part made me burst out laughing
I would say based, but Photios is a canonized Saint. So may St. Photios pray for us
@@seronymusphotios was condemned by an eccumenical council and is in hell.
@@julessamuels4588 Cope he was restored by an Ecumenical Council in 879 with Papal Approval and is a Saint, he’s more likely to be in Heaven than you ever will be.
"The so-called emperors were sometimes acclaimed by the Senate, the people, and the armies". That sounds very Roman to me.
Yeah, Anastasius apparently forgot to study Roman History. *3rd Century Crisis flashbacks*
Guy sounds like an absolute tool
Sounds like Mount and Blade: Bannerlord to me
I think the comment was on how the emperors had no strict way of being appointed.
@@velenteriushendeneros3251no, he thought that the Eastern Romans were less legitimate because unlike the Franks the Emperor wasn't crowned by the Pope.
@@karimmezghiche9921 Romans: What does Caesar want from you when you talk about legitimacy with military coups?
Much of your videos are helping us unlearn inaccurate history. And the result has always been something much deeper and interesting than simple falsities.
"You should be wary of the Greeks, for they may deceive you, as is their custom" sounds to me like a partial quote of the Aeneid, when a Trojan states "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes": "I am fearful of the Greeks, even when they bring gifts"...the gift was the Trojan Horse, so yeah...you can see the point...
Good point, Laocoon was the one who said that .
@@TeutonicEmperor1198 Yeah, you're right...poor guy, one of the few smart people in town...
@@alessandro_natali and how was his smartness repayed? By having his sons and himself devoured by sea snakes! The gods are cruel
Thats a false translation, original text doesn't write Greek, but Achaeans...
@@aokiaoki4238 "Danaans" to be precise
Anastasius claiming the Byzantines aren't Romans cause their Emperor is acclaimed by the Senate people and army. My brother in Christ do you not know how Roman emperors were made. The pope never named an emperor before the fall of Rome
The Pope never named an Emperor. Period.
Only some pretenders.
The Roman Emperors of the East were not named by the Patriarch, they were proclaimed by the army, Senate and People and lifted on a shield. The involvement of the Patriarch was not absolutely necessary.
@@AggelosKyriouRomans: We are military
We are talking about Frankish papacy ...
I think the thing which throws everybody is that the Roman aristocracy were native Aegean Greek speakers. Roman Greek was an aristocratic dialect which often used different words than other Greek speakers, such as instead of using the word "Homer", Roman aristocrats used the word "Maion". The reason that there were so many Latins in southern Italy is because they all used the Western Greek alphabet introduced by Latinos (youngest son of Odysseus of Ithaca) in order to colonise Italy. They were the Greek speakers who attacked Troy and destroyed it by deceit. 1,000 years later their Greek (using a different alphabet since 1200BC) had diversified so much that it was barely recognised as a Greek dialect.
@@aokiaoki4238 The Papacy never had any authority to name a Roman Emperor. The Ottonians may have been Emperors but they could never be Roman Emperors and there was nothing Roman in their laws, customs and traditions.
so the frankish king is more roman than the emperor in Constantinople because he was chosen by the pope, whereas the emperor was chosen by the senate, people and armies. i need to punch smth right now.
" The word of God is Government": The Frankish king bends his knee to the infallible Will of God, and the only legitimate worldly authority, the Church in Rome. - While the Eastern emperor does not; he comes to power via mob rule and corruption.
- A highly common thought figure, from the very early ( 5th century) medieval times onwards.
And, yes: The Rome of the Republic, before Christ, is very obviously " Not Rome".
The weakness of the Basileus and Eastern Patriarchs in the former Western Roman Empire made the pope-emperor connection very popular in Western Europe and formed modern Catholicism.
Lowkey want to build a time machine just to punch him
Neither was Rome. Rome fell in the 5th century. Roman = of Rome. An empire with a capital other than Rome and which did not control Rome for the majority of its history is not Rome.
Why? There was no emperor in the Roman Kingdom or Republic, and they were Roman despite a development in legitimacy, and this development did not end with Augustus. Otherwise an American president would fot your idea of a Eoman Emperor more than someone elected by the pope
Your investigations, treatment and investigations on primary sources are absolutely unmatched, you have become my favourite youtuber by far on roman history, especially medieval. Thank you.
"...he accused the patriarch of being a Jew... and also the antichrist." 😂😂😂
well now we're splitting *hairs*!
@@AlexiusVDucasYou mean a racist who hates Europeans?
whats the difference?
Here's a crackpot alternate take: what if it was that Michael called the Latin the Bulgarians were using barbaric? It'd certainly explain why he calls it Scythian, of all things - the Bulgarians were horse lords not too too long ago from when he was writing (unlike even Frankish-influenced Latin, to which Scythian is an odd comparison), and at that time it would have been within memory that both Rome and Constantinople had been courting the Bulgarians to convert to Christianity. Is it possible that there were some Latin speakers, or some Latin-speaking priests, still in the Khan's Court, and that Michael dropped some kind of "and you didn't even teach them the language correctly" style burn which Anastasius took as (or twisted into being) insulting all Latin? It'd also explain why Anastasius blames the translators - both Greek and Latin might've been relatively new to them, creating that translation rather than localisation effect.
Of course, I know next to nothing about this period, so take it as the ramblings of the madwoman it is.
Also, man, if I had a nickel for every time the Pope accused an 'Emperor of the Romans' of being the Antichrist, I'd have at least two nickels. Which isn't a lot but it's weird it's happened twice.
The tug-of-war over Bulgaria not only would've been within memory, it would've been the main agenda of the day
This does sound like mudslinging something out of context about a SPECIFIC communication in Latin to be an insult to the language as a whole. It also has rings of some recent fake kerfuffles in US politics. (This comment will remain timeless unless youtube outlives the US because there's always gonna be SOMETHING like this slung as mud though in this specific context it was about a US party primary zeroing in on the word "Smart" and removing all context.)
Byzantines loved to use classical terms and language, it was called Classicizousa. They probably meant the Huns also
@@aokiaoki4238France is still called Gaul aka Gallia in Greek
Well, that makes sense because they called the Bulgarians Scythian, and many Bulgarians spoke vulgar Latin back then.
A man who styled himself as Emperor of the Romans would have to be a fool to call Latin barbaric. This theory makes a lot more sense.
Well Comparing to Greek who was the Eastern Romans spoked, every other language look barbarian. Greek language is the most rich language with 5 million words and 70 million word types. For that reason all the languages use Greek words but Greek language don't use foreign words because have it's own. Every scientific word is Greek because only Greek language can born new words.
Now that time the only Romans who remain was the Greek speakers. The Latin speakers of north Italy was Germanic people who invade Italy and destroy the western Roman empire.
YOU missing history lessons mate. Eastern Romans till 10th century always wanted to take revenge from Germanics who invade and destroy western Roman empire
@@lamastu2156 larp
There is a bit more context: For the emperor, the Latin spoken in the west during the 9th century is no longer the high language of the Romans, but indeed just a heavily modified lingua franca of germanic barbarians: Facts. - Hence the counter: "We" , as christendom in the west, may look like barbarians in your eyes. You on the other hand, not accepting the full authority of the Church in Rome, never received "the True Message" , " like the Jews" .
Latin was a barbaric language for Greeks.
Barbarian simply meant a language inferior to Greek.
Between us, no offense, it still applies.
Low iq comment
"...whereas in the East the so-called Emperors were sometimes acclaimed by the Senate, the People and the armies." - Anastasius not understanding how SPQR works, circa AD 871.
"If these so-called 'Romans' are so Roman, how come their emperors are acclaimed in the ancient Roman way?"
- Anastasius (paraphrased), ca. AD 871
This is just some Holy 'Roman' German propaganda
I agree.
It actually predates the HRE and its more Catholic Slander on the Byzantines
Like Greeks many Germans were also part of roman empire so why a greek empire or kingdom is accepted as roman empire while the German one is not? Hell why Ottomans empire is not roman, considering early romans weren't even Christians, of christian can be Romans why can't muslims?
Scythians are like 'Yo wtf did we do to you bro?'
Scythians were seen as the prototypical barbarians for centuries. Ironically, Germans would later claim to be their successors as a sort of noble savage theme. There were some blondes among them. Ultimately in the line of "Ashkenaz", from Japheth, son of Noah.
@@seronymusthe scythians were generally blond
@@jaif7327Because of their mixing with the Slav peoples
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب the slavs as a people didn’t come into “existence” till much later
@@jaif7327 But they lived there when the Goths ruled Ukraine or parts of Russia and Belarus
The original anti Byzantine shitposter
Fascinating, had never actually read the source for this so thank you!
2:48 Anastasius the Translator is absolutely projecting with #5. He himself just sucks at translation 😂
On the Latin-Greek issues in the Roman Imperial identity I strongly recommend Schwerpunkt's Byzantine history series: including the inflamatory ones on why it's not the end of the world to use the term Byzantine of course :D
You know the mob has low historical conscience when the use of "Byzantine" is inflamatory for it.
Schwerpunkt is really popular in others' comment sections.
Schwerpunkt does not even think that Eastern Romans (not “‘byzantines””) are real Romans. His content clearly has effort put into it, But his takes on Eastern Rome are just idiotic.
@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded No. You're that.
@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetardedIn the end of the day, The East Romans is still considered themselves as Romans/Rhomoi and they are Greek Romans, Greeknized Balkan, Greeknized Latin. And they enrich Greek civilization nothing else. Culture, Language is the most important not DNA because there is no such thing as pure race especially towards Mediterranean peoples because all of them are decendants of neolithic Anatolians farmers, Indo European etc..
The use of the term "byzantine" to describe the mostly Greek eastern Roman empire arose because the Frankish western Holy Roman empire insisted they were the "real" Roman empire well into the modern era. During the middle ages the Frankish empire called the eastern Greek one "Imperium Grecorium" , empire of the Greeks, with hostility. With the rise of the Renaissance Greek came into fashion again. So the Holy Roman empire further insulted Greeks by renaming them "Byzantines" thus implying they were neither Greeks nor Romans.
This subject is like a drug to me, thank you. I need to know: this is FAR from the 1st time the Franks had a chip on their soldier about the Byzantines' Romanness. Why were they so adamant against Greek, compared to other Westerners? As far as I studied, not even the British or Spanish contested like the Franks did. One early English king used Greek "Basileus" on his coins. Is this all because of Charlemagne being crowned as Caesar? The East West Schism which culminated then in 1054 is so heartbreaking as an Orthodox. So much might have been prevented. ;_;
They weren't against the Greeks per se, they just wanted to give an identity to the Eastern Roman Empire that wasn't Roman. The majority of the Eastern Romans were either Greek or Greek speaking so it was a very good excuse for the Franks to call them just Greek.
The British and the Spanish people weren't established nations in that era. The Iberian peninsula was half conquered by the Moors and the British isles were governed by numerous petty kingdoms which weren't strong enough to claim anything away from what their eyes could see. On the other hand, the French (or the Franks) had had an already established and powerful kingdom (or rather 3 after 843). They had defeated the Muslims, they had conquered Germany so they were strong enough to compete and try to devaluate the ERE
@@TeutonicEmperor1198 I meant British and Spanish as colloquial terms for the contemporaneous Saxons, Visigoths, Celts etc sorry. Thank you for the effort in reply though and you have a point
@@seronymus thank you for the reply
on behalf of the Latin Church, I hold the "fourth crusade" in anathema and consider it an own-goal.
iirc Innocent III thought about the same; he'd excommunicated the expedition. unfortunately the "crusade" had left an amber-heard on his bed so he had limited-options on how to clean it up.
To be fair we do have Kings of France(like Louis VII) and even a later HRE emperor(Frederick II) calling them Romans.
Often it was more a matter of political policy than genuine beliefs
I can easily see the Pope dictating something and Anastasius writing something else xd creating a little "misunderstanding".
No, on the contrary, the Romans were racist against the Europeans
Can you please analyse and put in historical context the letter from John III Doukas Vatatzes to Pope Gregorius IX??
It would be great. Thanks
What is this letter? I am not aware of what you are referring to, this same John III was the Emperor of Nicaea correct? If so, what is this letter?
I support this theory! Outstandingly well done, good job :D
Can you make a video about CKIII's depiction of the Byzantine Empire (along with Bulgaria, Georgia, Rus' and such)? You already use the models for the characters and the music from it.
Ck3 is not really accurate in general so
@@RestitutorEuropa That's precisely why I would like for him to review its historicity
The Finns and other balto-finnic groups in the game are humourously displayed as asian looking too. Someone at paradox fell for the turan meme
@@RaffieFaffie Finngolians and HungARYANs are Asian doe
@@MausOfTheHouse It would vulgarize the channel.
Imagine accusing a state that selects its leaders through the senate,people and army as "non roman" because of that fact.
Romans: When did slaves and barbarians become Romans? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
If Roman is a person who speaks Latin as a native language, that means after 193 all Roman emperors where not Roman’s. Do you guys think that Aurelian was less Roman than Trajan ?
Wow! I've known that quote from the letter of Louis to Basil for almost six years now, and I have often referred to it, but I had no idea Anastasius the Librarian was behind that too! Thank you so much for doing your research and producing such enlightening videos!
I love this channel.
Fascinating stuff! You’re explanation makes sense.
Ok, with Anatasios entering the equation, now it makes more sense. At first I wanted to say "how the heck this is possible", thinking Michael went wacky / crazy / ridiculous.
He used the word “Scythian” to describe the language??
That is incredibly fascinating
"Scythian" at the time meant "Most Barbaric", as Scythians were perceived to be the most Unroman / Ungreek, the most distant peoples to their civilization and culture.
@@paulmayson3129We have to bring those terms back.
I do not see any reason for that.@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded
@@paulmayson3129 I do. Xenophobia is based
Are you even Greek to begin with?@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded
Could you do a video on what the Byzantines in general though about Latin and classical Rome? It would be a good companion piece to this video
Solidi continued to be issued with Latin throughout their existence (aka Late 11th century). The coin of Basil II for example has text like BASIL(EUS) ET CONSTANT AUGG (trans. Basil and Constantine Augusti- Basil's brother Constantine VIII was co-emperor aka symbasileus with him), ICXC REX REGNATIVM (ICXC- Latin transliteration of Christogram and Rex Regnatium means King of Kings- referring to Jesus Christ)
Latin continued to be studied in the Universities of Constantinople in some capacity as late as 11th century mainly by scholars who needed to translate or study the old Roman texts and scrolls as well as Imperial tutors preparing curricula for the would-be Emperors, nobility, the rich and the intelligentsia, educating them on the history of their thousand year old Empire.
Leo the Wise is said to have been able to speak many languages including Arabic and Latin. Transliterated Latin terms and phrases were commonly used in both administration and day to day language.
In the Early Byzantine Period, Latin was seen as the "language of their ancestors". As seen in the edict of Justinian when he compiled the Corpus Iuris Civilis (Justinian's Code) declaring that the copy in Imperial possession would be in the "language of their ancestors" aka Latin while the copies distributed for day to day local level use would be in "the language of the people" aka Koine Greek.
Very good analysis indeed. I want to put one more aspect of the whole issue which influenced the Church and politics of the time. Michael III was the last of a line of non-Roman Barbarian dynasty which happened to rule over the Roman state - the Amorian dynasty. This was not the first such Barbarian dynasty which happened to rule over the Romans with the notable example of the Isaurian dynasty. The Amorians were well known not only with the reintroduction of the Asian forged Iconoclasm which ripped apart the Roman world as a way for the Barbarians to Barbarize and divide the Romans and make them their servants, but the vary same grandfather of Michael III - the founder of this illegitimate dynasty was well known for not speaking Greek properly. He was not native speaker of the Greek language and was nick-named ὁ Τραυλός or ὁ Ψελλός by the Romans of the time. This family trauma was inherited by his grand-son who was pure Barbarian without a single drop of Roman blood (Greek-Romaioi or Latin-Romani) like his grandfather. Therefore I do not exclude that Michael III could possibly gave a good reason to the Papal scribe for his comment.
Love your Channel! More eastern Roman videos please!
So this topic needs a little more background and development, but thanks for putting up the video. There was another patriarch named Ignatius before Photios, so you'd need to dive more into* that context to understand the story (but your video does touch into it). There was the Eighth Ecumenical Council (869/870) - attended by papal legates and the Emperor that anathematized Photios and reinstated Ignatius. Something that came out of this was the Azymes controversy and also the Filioque as you mentioned and Bulgarian territory. Eventually the schism was healed and Photios was in communion with the Pope of Old Rome with his excommunication lifted. But certainly there were linguistic challenges and I think you are onto something. Another note is that the Byzantine Liturgy had Latin readings kept for stationary churches in New Rome. Pope St Nicholas argued if it's barbarian and Scythian language, then why celebrate the Byzantine Liturgy with Latin parts and why keep the title Emperor of the Romans? So Nicholas really thought Michael was saying that so it seems (based perhaps on Anastasius the Librarian's translation!), however, to your point the Emperor was most likely speaking about usage of Frankish Latin and all its variants and not even the Ecclesiastical Liturgical Latin which Constantinople made use of still. Actually there is a similar story about the term Ecumenical Patriarch. If interpreted to mean Universal Bishop as St Gregory the Great was reading into it, then it's considered a heresy, but reading into it to mean the Imperial Bishop (that is in the Roman Known World) that is orthodox. Again it was limited understanding of Greek terminology and even some Latin too later with the qui ex Patre Filioque procedit and τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον ... To your point the linguistic dialogues would continue from Photios onward. What is is interesting (previous to Photios) is the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) with Emperor Constantine VI and the Patriarch St. Tarasios of Constantinople would profess the Per Filium clause in the Greek Symbol (Filioque and Per Filium can mean the same thing Latinly as equivalent as ablative of means or accusative of means): Πιστεύω εις ένα θεόν πατέρα παντοκράτορα καί εις ένα κύριον Ίησοΰν Χριστόν τόν υίόν του θεού καί θεόν ημών, γεννηθέντα έκ τοϋ πατρός άχρόνως καί άϊδίως, καί εις τό πνεύμα τό αγιον, τό κύριον καί ζωοποιόν, τό έκ του πατρός δι' υιού έκπορευόμενον...Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem, et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum Filium Dei et Deum nostrum, natum ex Patre sine tempore coaeternum: et in Spiritum sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, ex Patre per Filium procedentem....
ua-cam.com/video/K4BLALlEgE4/v-deo.html
Also here's the Greek version of the video I pointed to: ua-cam.com/video/uCBld1msHSM/v-deo.html
There were many controversies in East - West for some reason this Photian schism keeps coming up in history as it has later repercussions in A.D. 1054, 1202, etc.
Always excellent work !
Damn, latin is the hell of an ancient language. Cases, roots, verbs, tenses, and even a clear simplified pronuntiation that makes greek sound more barbaric then it was.
Imagine being so good at your job that your boss re-hires you after you invade the workplace and try to take it over by force, Lol.
“What’s that you were acclaimed by senatus populusque romanus? Oh AND the army! Nah true Roman Augustiī are appointed by the popes only. Examples? I DONT NEED EXAMPLES GREEKOID ITS JUST A FACT!!!”
He will be bullied more if he's in /his/ and /pol/ boards if he did that, coupled with kys posts (Roman emperors are known for unironically kys if shit goes bad).
Romans: One word, you barbarians, and you will lose your head
2:13 This has the same literary tone as an internet argument, and that unsettles me.
What's the issue?
Love your content brother
This was very insightful, I remember seeing this comment once somewhere but cannot remember where. I chose to dismiss it because, if I could not reproduce the evidence I should not treat it is as fact and here you are to show it is not fact at all. Considering that the Romans still used Latin on their coins until the tenth century should well indicate just how fondly they viewed the barbarians and Scythians.
11th century actually, ended with the reform and replacement of the Solidus.
So, basically, Michael III said to stop speaking French and speak Latin?
Seems like it.
*Frankish.
No, I meant French, since pretty much all the Carolingians in the western third spoke a very early version of French at the time.
@@Pandadude-eg9li Guess what, Italy is not in the western third.
@@Samuil-iq6eb That's correct, however I specifically mentioned France, NOT ITALY, which still spoke a language relatively close to Latin compared to West Frankia.
Nonsense. I find it rather absurd that Michael III considered Latin a barbarian language. Latin was used in the Imperial court and among the ranks of the Roman army for many more centuries after Greek became officially the language of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Romans: Isn't this the language of the German barbarians? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Considering how Frankish 1.2 aka French sticks out like an infected wound amongst the Romance languages, Michael calling it barbaric is on point
@@davidantoniocamposbarros7528 No, the Romans just no longer spoke Latin because the foolish Hercules changed the language from Latin to Greek.
Latin was primarily an administrative language due to Latin Romans having conquered the region. When the Roman capital moved to Byzantium (renamed Constantinople) the majority of the population were Greeks. There were more Latin speakers in what we today call Germany under the Holy Roman empire than there were in the eastern Roman empire. The Holy Roman empire insisted for centuries that they were the "real" Roman empire and that the other Roman empire were Greeks.
@@mydogsbutlerActually, Constantinople was originally a primarily Latin speaking city in the 4th and 5th centuries. Many of the original inhabitants settled by Constantine and Constantius were former soldiers. There are accounts of Greek Orators visiting there and being frustrated that no one could understand them or appreciate their talents.
Prior to Constantine, Byzantium has already been leveled and rebuilt as a Roman colony around the year 200. It was no longer an old Greek fishing village by the time Constantine chose it.
As more people gravitated towards the capital, Greek became the dominant language of the city in the late 5th and 6th centuries, but Latin continued to be spoken and taught there. There were still Latin schools in the time of Justinian II(around 700ce).
Your theory makes much more sense
Cool video
This man may have began one of the most exhausting arguments in historiography just because he hated the Eastern Romans so much. What even motivated him? Patriotism, his conviction that the see of Rome was superior and correct, some grudge because his career didn't pan out the way he wanted, or simple knee-jerk racism? So many possibilities, great work recontextualising this!
More likely Politics and Religion, its like the Modern day Political landscape, both sides like to talk smack about the other no matter how true or false it is. (As in calling all Pro Life People Bigots or all Pro Abortion People Degens and such)
Latin Greek as a barbarian language probably comes from the 3rd wave of Graecic invasion into Europe, circa 2600BC. The invasion came from Southern Russia (known as Scythia at that time) and they populated Central Europe and the mainland Greek peninsula, and then a 1000 years after that, Southern Italy where writing in a disused western Greek alphabet, the colonists of Latinos quickly diversified into Greek dialect and then into a different language like Italian, Spanish, Romanian and Portuguese etc in later years..
Anastasius, son of Conan the Librarian
Seems very plausible, good setting up of the logic and evidence behind your hypothesis.
As a Greek, I could cite an infinite number of instances where emperors (Anna Komnena, Nikephoros, Michael III, etc.) and chroniclers call Latin and Latins barbarian alike. I don't know why it would be a novelty knowing the great cultural division. (Even court philosopher Michael Psellos called Italians barbarians).
And Anastasius is certainly not the origin of Byzantine anti-Romanity, from the time of Justinian we have a letter from the population of Rome complaining about the management of things by Narses and how the Gothic government was preferable to the "Greek" one.
Μπορείς σε παρακαλώ να μου δώσεις μια πηγή για το γράμμα των κατοίκων της Ρώμης στα χρόνια του Ιουστινιανού, έστω και δευτερεύουσα; Κάπου το είχα διαβάσει το περιστατικό αλλά δεν θυμάμαι από που.
Religious context, not anti Roman but pro Roman anti Catholic...there were literally romance speakers inside Eastern Roman Empire...but guess you like pseudo-history
Is it true though, Michael Psellos, despite being one of the smartest minds of the time, could barely discern Cicero from Caesar? Proving the state of division in East-West communication at the time. Also which letter was this please?
@@seronymus It really was:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy
Here's the source:
"Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590-752."
Really great book if you want the deeps of it.
@@besileiarhomaion8726 That's why i said Latins and not Romans...
Great video. Don't be surprised if I tell you that even the Great Schism occurred most likely due to those misinterpretations. In other words, both the East and West were lost in translation, sometimes intentionally. The Coronation of Charles by the ambitious Bishop of Rome created a completely unnecessary rivalry between the East and the West. IMO, the arrogant, at times, Constantinople, also held a great responsibility because it was looking down on the Westerners by considering them crude barbarian offspring; therefore the "hurt" latter would do or say almost everything to support consolidating the Roman name for themselves after Charle's coronation. I believe that it was in another great video of yours that you mentioned Basil I's letter to Louis II, insulting him by saying "You will never be Romans".
This might have been the case had the Latin church not gone on to codify their heresies.
Getting into the whole Frankish-Greek animosity is a wild ride.
Which Greek? These are just Roman slaves who started speaking the Greek language because of the stupid Emperor Heraclius.
@@عليياسر-ذ5بHeraclius never changed the language, This was disproven by a video made by this channel.
@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded So why did people in his time change the book from Latin to Greek?
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب Which book?
@@عليياسر-ذ5بIn the end of the day, The East Romans is still considered themselves as Romans/Rhomoi and they are Greek Romans, Greeknized Balkan, Greeknized Latin. And they enrich Greek civilization nothing else. Culture, Language is the most important not DNA because there is no such thing as pure race especially towards Mediterranean peoples because all of them are decendants of neolithic Anatolians farmers, Indo European etc..
Top tier research
The “Is Eastern Rome/Byzantine really Rome?” Question is older than I thought it was.
It began during the developing Schism between the Catholic and Orthadox Churches and the Cultural and Ethnic divide between East and West, basically it was a biproduct of the 2 Sides of Christendom at the time,
By saying "The Byzantines aren't Roman" or 'The Frankish Empire and later the HRE aren't Roman" the 2 were also saying by extension "Your Church and People are in the Wrong", its less the Debate itself and more the Geopolitical and Cultural context of it.
In the end of the day, The East Romans is still considered themselves as Romans/Rhomoi and they are Greek Romans, Greeknized Balkan, Greeknized Latin. And they enrich Greek civilization nothing else. Culture, Language is the most important not DNA because there is no such thing as pure race especially towards Mediterranean peoples because all of them are decendants of neolithic Anatolians farmers, Indo European etc..
Wonderful video.
Romaboo, your position about Michael III calling Latin barbaric is pretty much the norm in the academic circle, so I really don't get why 'Byzantines-aren't-Roman' guys still use it.
Source: Byzantium & Friends Podcast Episode 32: Anastasius the Librarian, the greatest enemy of Byzantium you probably never heard of.
(The issue was mentioned in a passing near the end if I recall correctly).
oh..the delegates didn't want to cause trouble and gave the green light only to have their boss overrule them? shouldn't something that basic have been ironed out when the pope sent them? or...did they get put on assignment beforehand and just assumed that their job was to keep things friendly? (with no email or telephones at the time...even so if it's that important they should know what needs a confirmation via messenger and what doesn't... i wonder what became of them...could they find work after that? or were they shunned by everyone they knew for the rest of their lives...poor things...)
The initially were instructed not to ratify any decision and just observe, but Photios insisted that the decisions should be made before they leave, so they agreed to confirm him
It is common knowledge that Latin was the basic Greek spoken by Lacedaemonians from around 2500BC and written down in a disused Western Greek script from 1200BC onwards by Latinos, the younger son of Odysseus of Ithaca who needed it to record his form of Greek in a written language to support his successful colonisation of Italy. The Lacedaemonians were those who attacked and destroyed Troy and were wrongly described as being the Greeks by 18th/19th century academics, whereas, it was the Trojans who were the true Greeks, speaking the sophisticated Aegean Greek, the same language as spoken in the late Minoan period, and the same language that was written using the current Greek alphabet from circa 700BC onwards. Yes, the Romans were Greek speakers, but they employed the barbaric Lacedaemonian Latins to form their Roman Armies because they were so aggressive and brutal. This is the reason that both Romans and Greeks saw Latins and Lacedaemonians as barbaric.
"No, mai Latin isn't wrong, you just hate Latin!1one" - some barbarian from early medieval Catholic Church.
Some Scythian barbarian, even.
just subbed
nice channel
What's up Leo, I am dating the wife of your grandson, if you don't mind.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard lol
This could be a valid theory. I don’t think romans would say such things about the latin language.
Romans: You mean how to pronounce German Berbers
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب ?
Could you a video about the diplomatic relations of The HRE and The Byzantines?
Yeah, that is a great topic
Learned this from Dovahs Byzantine live stream
That stream was horrible and anti-byzantine
if ever, this schism is the true time when the romans got divided. It's important to know though, that in the western parts the term greek was alive and well, and also insultinf :o still today it means 'stingy' in sardinian ( grecu ) and it also got used in french as an insult, the greek speakers (not standard greek ofc ) of southern italy got called grico by southern italians. Yet the pope, before the schism, called the emperor to not forget about them as fellow romans. I don't know, maybe the schism was a bigger event than people make it to be for the average western roman, after all the info they received was mainly from priests, that would have certainly been pro-pope
Romans: Didn't you notice that the barbarians and German slaves took control of Europe?
Even back then they were naming the Jews ahahhaha
It seems that some Greek politician / philosopher / nobleman called Latin barbaric, who rejoiced in the rejection of Roman traditions and, in particular, Latin out of use.
The fall of Rome was like the fall of any colonial empire
Who is that philosopher or politician?
See no evidence!
No the Greeks didn't hate Rome, they were mostly loyal subjects. They served in the senate, in the legions, in the imperial court and as prefects. The Eastern Romans (they are called this way for a reason) don't have Alexander the Great as their founding father but Augustus and Constantine.
Controversial opinion: The Frankish system that bestows the title of Emperor by the Pope is much better than the Roman system.
Reason: The Roman system caused so much civil wars, that it disintegrated asunder by the ottomans. The Frankish system was more stable in comparision.
It sounds like an ancient flame war.
I think your theory is pretty plausible, but I am not entirely convinced the papal letters are totally misrepresenting what Michael said to the degree you are suggesting. It is entirely possible that they were, and we'll never know exactly what Michael said. That aside, the Byzantines did adopt Greek, and the elite in Rome since the founding often spoke Greek as a sign of education, civilization, and sophistication. So, I can totally see the Latin on the coinage as a symbolic "we are Roman" thing, while Michael and the nobility felt that Latin was a vulgar, barbaric language (especially with the drift between Western and Eastern Roman administrations happening for so long).
Love you videos!
Except that doesn’t track with the continued use of Latin in Court Ceremony and religious holidays or with other Byzantine sources from the period. Emperor Constantine VII, (Michael’s plausible grandson), a Classicalism snob that called the Greeks in Greece itself Slavs for their culture, for ex calls Latin the Ancestral language of the Romans, considers its lost by the Emperors a pity and treats the language with respect all throughout his books.
I think saying Michael either meant the modern corrupted Frankish Latin spoken by Anastasius or that it was never actually said or said by Photius and not him, are the only plausible explanations.
@@tylerellis9097 you could be right, I am not a Byzantine historian. But we’ll never know for sure, and I like my take better.
@@tylerellis9097 The letter was adressed to the pope, not Anastasius, how could the insult be directed to the "Frankish latin spoken by Anastasius"...
@@DaDa-ui3sw 1. Because we don’t have the letter that Michael sent and 2. Because Anastasius often wrote in the Pope’s name as was the standard for the time, same with Photius writing for Michael
@@tylerellis9097I lean more to it being an intentional mistranslation to make the Byzantines look bad, both sides in this period liked to talk smack at the other like in a modern Presidental Debate to further their own cause so I wouldn't be suprised
Fun Fact: Nerva is older than Nero
Wow
In case you don't care about what the Romans said about themselves, and you don't care about where the Romans actually came from and why they had an affinity with Greek speakers rather than Latin Greek speakers, then I'm here to fill you in about who and what the Romans were and what they stood for.
Rome was founded by escapees from the ancient Minoan City of Troy and they spoke AEGEAN Greek not LATIN Greek. It was the Latins who spoke Latin Greek and this language was very ancient Greek from way before circa 1200BC, but written down in the Western Greek script taken to the Mycenaean and Argive colonies in Italy, by LATINOS, the youngest son of Odysseus of Ithaca. You might also be aware of that massive Greek War (The 3 Minoan Wars ending with the Trojan War) fought between Lacedaemonian Greek speakers and Aegean Greek speakers and the massive explosion of the island of Thera which precipitated the end of the Minoan Empire. There was also a massive difference between the two Greek worlds which I'm not getting into here but if you know about how the Lacedaemonian Greeks brutally destroyed the civilised city of Troy by deceit and deception, then you'll get an in your face education of the different cultures. One barbaric and one civilised. The Hellenes are the ones who fought for Helen of Troy, the other Greek speakers like the Helots in the southern Peloponnese were Minoans who were forced unwillingly, to capitulate to the Argives who took great pleasure in raiding them for war practice and booty.
The Troyans and and the Minoans wrote in a script called Linear A, but, the Lacedaemonians only started writing their Greek after the 2nd Minoan War (around 1400BC) and they had to adapt it quite a lot, because of the different Greek which they spoke, and the different culture and priorities which they possessed, and this became known as Linear B.
When the latter started taking winning advantage of their subsequent victories over the Minoans, they started founding colonies all over the Mediterraneum, and especially in Italy, which was just a short hop away from their homeland in Western Greece and just a half a day's sail away over the Ionian and Adriatic Seas. By 1200BC the Lacedaemonians had substantial numbers of colonies in Italy, mostly in the South & East, because the gradually escaping Minoans (and Rassunai who worked closely with the Minoans) founded cities in the North and West of Italy in order to keep as far away from the barbarian brutes which destroyed their Empire and their cities. Since Italy was a hotch potch of Greek and other languages, Greek was the most widely spoken language but rapidly diversifying because of the separation of the two cultures separated by hate. The Lacedaemonians of Latinos, found it difficult reading and recording Greek because of their dialectical and cultural differences with the Minoans and also with the Rassunal (who started calling themselves Etruscans after the name of the tribe which originally occupied their space), He simplified HIS Lacedaemonian Greek with an alphabet which he brought with him from Ithaca and Western Greece which seemed too simple, but with the introduction of BREATHINGS over the letters, made reading the language much easier for all Greek speakers in Italy.
As most language specialists will confirm: if you write down an already dialectically separating language in a different alphabet, this has the effect of accelerating the diversification to such an extent, that after 500 years, Latin Greek was hardly recognisable as Aegean Greek, and additionally, it couldn't be read by Aegean Greeks, who often didn't even use the same words for the same things, nor did they recognise the letters. Around 700BC, the Aegean Greeks started using the current Greek alphabet, but borrowed the breathings from over the Latin alphabet to be able to pronounce their Greek, in the same way that the Latin Greeks needed to pronounce their words using their alphabet.
Let's be clear about this, the Latin Greeks were all about colonial conquest, theft and destruction, whereas the Aegean Greeks, which were the Romans, Alba Longians (and one other which I can't remember) as well as the Etruscans were all about building, creating and peaceful trading. Language aside, you decide which is civilised and which is barbaric and why the Latins could be thought of as barbarians by a Roman Emperor which usually employed them to be soldiers in his army mostly.
I heared about it but about a later emperor.
1:51 this sounds more like something from MemriTV than history lol
"I will beat you with 30 anathemas for this insolence."
- Pope Nicholas I (as transcribed by Anastasius the Librarian)
Michael was jelus and bitter remember that the old rome named as emperor a barbarian German king.
Plus violates the Roman law and holy synods
Emperor first patriarch second
The fact that he specifically criticized the Romans for Picking their emperors via the Senate, the People, and the Army, as if those are not literally the defining features of being emperor throughout all of imperial history is kinda hilarious
Its worth noting that; This could well have been the Eastern Romans actually talking about the catholics themselves (Latins) as they called them.
And the fact it was written by Anastasius the L*tinoid, tells you all you need to know about this fan fiction.
Okay greekoid, if shun us as "barbarians", then we can perfectly abandon you to the Turks.
I can't believe the Pope used the J-word it's so disgusting.
Oy vey
Say it with me everyone. The Byzantine Empire is the Eastern Roman Empire.
actually just the roman empire. eastern roman empire is also a "false" term. they were still the continious roman empire.
I like the way you think@@ItalMiser117
@@ItalMiser117it was the Eastern Roman Empire until 476. After that it was the only one standing.
The Byzantine empire was "Roman" in the sense the Holy Roman empire was "Roman". They were mostly Greeks and Germans that adopted the term "Roman".
maybe he was calling the “romans” as in the holy romans barbarian and scythian and not the language?
4:03 who is that David Wenham (Faramir) lookalike
Never, at any point, was s Roman Emperor proclaimed by the Pope.
Your evidence seems to contridict your thesis that there is some sort of misunderstanding of context of the claim Michael called Latin a Barbarian language. Anastasius keeps referencing the eastern Romans as Greeks which implies they were ethnically Greeks. And he wasn't some outlier.. From 800 century onwards the western Holy Roman empire calls the eastern one Greeks. Even when the Pope crown Charlemagne Roman emperor in Saint Peter's Basicala in 800 he supposedly said. "Decretalium, Romanourm imperium in persona magnifici Caroli a Grecis transtuli in Germanos"… Latin for "transferred Roman imperial authority from the Greeks to the Germans, in the name of His Greatness, Charles". Irene the Athenian, eastern Roman empress at the time, was a Greek.
In other words, the context of "Roman" during the middle ages was in a sort of assimilating civic nationality context not an ethnic designation like say early Latin era Rome in antiquity. Anyone could be Roman but in terms of who were demographically the most numerous of Romans it was Germans in the west and Greeks in the east.
I think you're missing the part about not having the letter the emperor wrote, and not knowing what he said, but the hint at a context having something to do with translating, and/or relating to Scythians(i.e. Bulgarians). We just don't know what Michael was talking about.
Anastasius was notoriously hostile to Constantinople and used "Greeks" as an insult and derogatory. When westerners wanted to polite, they would say "Emperor of Constantinople," and if they wanted to suck up, "Emperor of New Rome."
When the Latins took Constantinople in the 4th crusade, they just called it the Roman empire, lands of the Romans, Romania, etc, showing that westerners did indeed recognize the prestige and wanted to claim it.
@@histguy101 I think you are missing the part that not only Anastasius claimed the eastern Roman empire were Greeks... not in quotes and not just Greek speakers.
@@histguy101 The context of Roman in either the western or eastern empire was not as an ethnic designiation but as a citizen and/or imperial authority. Roman could mean someone who saw their roots as German, Greeks, Armenian, Slavic, and so on.. Greek being the most common elements in the eastern Roman empire and German in the west.
In the end of the day, The East Romans is still considered themselves as Romans/Rhomoi and they are Greek Romans, Greeknized Balkan, Greeknized Latin. And they enrich Greek civilization nothing else. Culture, Language is the most important not DNA because there is no such thing as pure race especially towards Mediterranean peoples because all of them are decendants of neolithic Anatolians farmers, Indo European etc..
I'm going to guess that, if it did happen, it was in regard to non-Romans speaking Latin.
Incredible
Being of Frankish extraction, I am completely on board with trash talking the Greek kings. But in no way can any honorable person use twisted and misconstrued words in the trash talk game. What Anastasius did was disgraceful and to be expected from a man who was an anti-pope, guilty of undermining the authority he represented.
Had Anastasius been an honest man, he would have embraced the Greek accusations of barbarism and proclaimed that God favors our barbarian inflections more than effete Grecian simpering.
Sry unlike your barbarian Frankish kinsmen they are actual Roman Emperors.
@@Michael_the_Drunkardcringe Byzaboo vs Based Kaiserboo
Well since the original Roman Latin identity ceased to exist by that time and the new Latin identity was technically Frankish, Gothic and Germanic, it makes sense to call their borrowed language barbaric.
Moderns Russians still use the "Rus" identity Wich is vikings scandanavian invader. So Russians today were swedish people?😂
Classic frankish "cope and seethe" moment
It would make perfect sense if he did so. Barbarian literally means non-Greek since the very beginning of the antiquity.
Why would the same emperor issue coins in a barbarian language for his Italian subjects
Sorry man Constantine the great move Rome to Constantinople
So....
Rome changed capital city and the old rome together with Michael was secondary
Well , Byzantium was the hereditary line from Konstantinopole! ( through Anna Maria Sofia). Ilin regards of the language it can be investigated through fonetics!
ha, funny how he roman emperor used to claim that the byzies weren't roman turned out to be a roman purist
😂😂😂Berbers talk about their Roman masters
Pope Nicholas I ,of barbaric origin did not know or he pretended not to know that Rome is NOT a Latin word.
There is a Latin language,not a Roman language.
Rome is a Greek word means power,strength.
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.
Check out the script ΡΩΜΗ on a 5th century BC marble inscription. in the Vatican museum
Rome- 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.
Thus, the title Basileus of the Romans has nothing to do with Latin, and it is very likely that for the Hellenists Photius and Michael III, Latin was considered a barbarian language, as the ancient Greeks also considered it.
based Anastasius
Lmao greetings from İstanbul 🤣
Constantinople* turkoid.
Byzantine, capital of kreeks assholes@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded
@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded Istanbul, not costantinople.
Should have made this an 865 youtube slop video
A big Ευχαριστώ from a deceitful Greek
Man, those doctrinal debates like the Filoque one seem so strange in modern times. They are literally debating an unfalsifiable question, if there is no conceivable way to check where does the holy spit originate from then why does it even matter? How many angels can dance on a head of a pin? Who cares, it’s unfalsifiable, so it’s not even worth thinking about. I’m so glad I was born after we came up with the scientific method and with empiricism.
Proto Greek is the original Indo European language. It is the father of all Indo-European languages including Latin Greek, Aegean Greek AND Old German.
@@OKay-ox3khUr only proving him right by saying this.
@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded A pair of 18th century academic lackey mooks.
The indo-europeans came from Western Siberia thought.
@@AndreaMoletta-s3c Yes, but before that there is evidence that they were in NE Asia and also SE Asia. It depends upon how far back in time you want to go.
It's because the original Romans were highly civilized Aegean Greek speakers from Troy. They imperialized the rough speaking Latins (also originally Lacedaemonian Greeks who attacked Troy in 1200BC) and Rome paid them to be violent and barbaric murdering soldiers for Rome. In Byzantine times, the barbaric and murdering influence of the Latin soldier was nearly gone, replaced by Christianity, love and a desire of peace.
Then why doesn't Old Latin show Greek influence?
Bruh the aneid is fiction
@@seronymusLook up Aeolism: Latin as a Dialect of Greek
It is a plausible theory
@@lightfurysmash63 interesting but I'm highly skeptical, please link resources that aren't paywalled!
it's just greek nationalist propaganda. the "original" romans were latins. an italic tribe in centre italy. some years later etruscans were also romans.@@seronymus
Too much Ado about papal or muslim supremacy... or not enough? Latin is not a barbarian language.
It seems that one of these Roman emperors was influenced by Arab Muslims. He said that pictures and icons are forbidden.
You're referring to emperor Michael III the Drunk. You might wanna do some more research before you publish these things especially about the Roman world that is very difficult for people today to understand.
Romans: No, my theory will not change from the European barbarians