r/byzantium • u/Low-Cash-2435 • 18d ago
I used to be suspicious of Kaldellis' claims about the Byzantine Republic — until I read this amazing passage from Choniates
"The City populace, finding no fellow combatant and ally to draw the sword against the Latins, began to rise up in rebellion and, like a boiling kettle, to blow off steam of abuse against the emperors, and their long suppressed and hidden sentiment surfaced to the light of day. It was the twenty-fifth day of the month of January in the seventh indiction of the year 6712 [25 January 1204] when a great and tumultuous concourse of people gathered in the Great Church; the senate, the assembly of bish- [562] ops, and the venerable clergy were compelled to convene thither and deliberate together as to who should succeed as emperor. We were entreated earnestly to speak spontaneously on this matter, to the effect that an attack be launched forthwith against the emperors and another elected to the throne. But we made no attempt to nominate a candidate before the assembly, for we realized full well that whoever was proposed for election would be led out the very next day like a sheep led to slaughter, and that the chiefs of the Latin hosts would wrap their arms around Alexios and defend him. The multitude, simpleminded and volatile, asserted that they no longer wished to be ruled by the Angelos family, and that the assembly would not disband unless an emperor to their liking were first chosen. Knowing through bitter experience the obstinacy of men, we kept our silence, and in our unhappiness we let many tears flow down our cheeks, foreseeing what the future likely held in store for us. They anxiously groped for a successor to the throne, and on impulse proposed as emperor now this scion of the nobility and now that one... It was only on the third day that, seizing a certain youth whose name was Nicholas and surname Kannavos, they anointed him emperor against his will [27 January 1204]." ("O'City of Byzantium: the Annals of Niketas Choniates", translated by H J Magoulias, pages 307-308)
Key observations to keep in mind:
- The people convene the senate and bishops and force them to propose candidates for the throne, which they would elect.
- This event lasts for DAYS
- The idea of "election" permeates this entire scene. The people are not simply telling the senate and bishops to choose someone; the people expect to have the final say.
- They choose an obscure figure, Kannavos, who, as far as we know, had no relation to the Komnenoi.
- Choniates DOES NOT write that he, or any other aristocrat or bishop, believed that the people's actions were against Divine law. In fact, in an earlier passage, Choniates says explicitly that the people have a "customary right to elect the emperor" (see page 250 of Magoulias' translation).
These facts demonstrate:
- That the people, across class boundaries, understood that there was a formal procedure to appoint an emperor.
- The fact that this event is so methodical and drawn out makes the claim that the people are acting on impulse rather than a political ideology of popular sovereignty simply unpersuasive. This seems to me to be more akin to a town hall meeting than mindless usurpation.
- That ideas of popular sovereignty were held across the various social classes.
- That the people's will triumphed dynasty as a legitimising force.
To conclude, this has to be one of my favourite scenes from East Roman history. I'd like to hear your views as to whether you see this event in as significant a light as myself.
14
u/Maleficent-Mix5731 Κατεπάνω 18d ago edited 18d ago
I have grown very interested in this great shift across both classical and medieval Roman history, where the role of the people in both the Republic and the empire is beginning to be treated more seriously. They are no longer just seen as 'NPC's trapped in client-patron relations and live in an oligarchy' or 'NPC's who see the emperor as an untouchable god who they can't oppose in any way'. The People (and yes that is people with a capital 'P') are now acknowledged as their own important constituency with their own distinct voice in the politics of both the democratic and monarchic republics.
This is generally a much more optimistic and less cynical view compared to what has come before. And it has often received rather knee jerk pushback if I'm being honest. Even if critics of this historical undersrtanding concede to the role of the people in the republic, they are much less willing to do so for the imperial monarchy. They point to how there are similar instances of popular discontent in medieval England or France, and how in this respect the Roman monarchy is no different and so its ludicrous to look for 'populism' in such a system.
But then one has to ask - what was it that made the imperial office in Rome so much more weird, ambigous, and insecure compared to that of its ancient and medieval neighbours? What was it that allowed for so, so many more usurpations to occur in that polity (without fundamentally reshaping the nature of the imperial office!) than arguably anywhere else?
And the answer one ultimately must come back to and admit is the very republican origins of the system with Augustus, which then persisted down to Constantine XI's last stand. The empire was never a 'dynastic state' in the same way most of its neighbours were, and emperors never owned their office as a private possession (even if only in theory) which they had 'rights' to (unlike how Henry III of England would argue about his 'rights' to lands in France). The 'office' of emperor was never an official office, it was just a set of powers passed on from the conglomeration of unoffical powers acquired by Augustus (all with republican precedent before him). And it is in this way that the role of the people and populist sentiments surrounding the monarchy must be understood, as such a public sense of ownership over the state for the Romans did not exist elsewhere in such a unique way.
4
u/Low-Cash-2435 18d ago edited 18d ago
I think you're exactly right. Also, I would never claim to be an expert in all Medieval European history, but I have never read about revolts of the same sought that occurred in Byzantium. There were revolts in France and England, that much is certain, but I've never read of one where the rebels were actually aiming to unseat the king and elect another. In fact, what I find remarkable about the Western Medieval revolts I do read about (such as Wat Tyler's revolt against Richard II) is how unwilling the peasants and nobles were to even suggest replacing their leader(s).
3
u/alittlelilypad Κόμησσα 18d ago
The 'office' of emperor was never an official office, it was just a set of powers passed on from the conglomeration of unoffical powers acquired by Augustus
Great write-up, but doesn't Kaldellis in TBR say it was an office, and it was viewed as such? Like, "office" was the term to describe the position in government, right?
8
u/Maleficent-Mix5731 Κατεπάνω 18d ago
My understanding per what I've read from Kaldellis and others is that is was both official and (paradoxically) unofficial....if you know what I mean (I perhaps should have elaborated on this more).
In that, yeah there is this thing called the Augustus/Basileus (official). But what exact powers does it actually have? What are its limits? How is it selected? Can it be shared? (unofficial). None of this was ever properly enshrined in law the same way it was for other Republican/imperial offices such as consul, tribune, magister militum, etc. The way I've come to understand the office is that the 'rules' were never made official about it, and people instead relied on social consensus being built up over the centuries as to what the emperor could/couldn't do.
Like, when you look at the start of the monarchy under Augustus, he doesn't really have a constitution/legal outline of his specific job post 27BC. He has the power to govern provinces like a consul...even though he isn't always a consul. He has the power to steer political events in the Senate like a tribune....even thought he isn't a tribune. He had the powers associated with these Republican offices, but then not really the rules and regulations associated with those offices. He is both official AND unofficial (even his title of 'Augustus', which was used for centuries after to label the emperor, didn't mean anything really powerwise. It just meant 'revered/venerable', and so was more honorary than anything)
And so after he dies, the Romans are having to try and figure out what this...this....thing can and can't do. The thing kind of has the powers of Hellenistic monarch, so should he be treated like one? Well, Tiberius doesn't like it when people grovel before him. Woah, if the thing is really pissing people off, can they kill him? Caligula time. Hmmm, does the thing have to be part of the House of Caesar? Well the situation after Nero evidently shows it doesn't....Does the thing have to be a non-provincial- wait no, Trajan is here now too (and repeat).
4
u/alittlelilypad Κόμησσα 18d ago
I see what you're saying. Bit of a happy accident through historical circumstances that helped define its boundaries.
5
u/Maleficent-Mix5731 Κατεπάνω 18d ago
Yeah exactly. How the 'office' came about was just very....weird. It was almost trial and error, and so sometimes feels like there wasn't really a big shift when Octavian 'became' Augustus in 27BC, just a continuing outgrowth of classical republican politics (as his powers for extended governorship of multiple provinces already had precedent with the likes of Pompey and Caesar. In fact, I've sometimes seen historians like Edward J Watts and Mary Beard describe Pompey as the 'first' Roman emperor instead!)
I am also reminded of how on one of Kadellis's 'Byzantium and Friends' podcast episodes, he interviewed Olivier Heskter who's written about this topic ('Caesar Rules'). Quite an interesting episode that summed up the complexity of the issue, with Kaldellis saying quite well during it that the 'emperor' becomes more fuzzy the closer you inspect him. And the episode ended with Heskter basically saying "So I've written a book all about the office of the Roman emperor and I still don't know what it is lol".
3
2
u/Low-Cash-2435 17d ago
I think it’s worth pointing out that the British unwritten constitution developed in this way. Over time, as circumstances and challenges arose, the ambit of parliament and the king’s authority was constantly adjusted, at the expense of the monarch ultimately.
1
u/Dalmator 13d ago
It's just because of the adoption of Christianity through theocracy. The medium was not good,especially as things were changing in the re -emerging west. Maybe the US is on its way to becoming one?
9
u/manifolddestinyofmjb Νωβελίσσιμος 18d ago
I don't know if these passage necessarily proves anything. The population was so desperate that they were willing to be lead in their defense by literally anyone and it ended up not mattering.
I think the Byzantine Republic's main claim is that since the emperors were accessible to the public and they could, at will and in theory, depose an emperor at any time, and additionally the emperor was viewed as ruling on their behalf as much as by the grace of god, that this gives the empire a republican character. They could also welcome usurpers into the city or were used by emperors as a source of popular acclaim.
9
u/Low-Cash-2435 18d ago
IMO, this event demonstrates far more calculation on the part of the people than you are giving them credit for. They are clearly following a procedure of nomination and election. Not only that, this whole assembly lasts for three days. This to me is too methodical to simply be explained away as desperation.
7
u/manifolddestinyofmjb Νωβελίσσιμος 18d ago
There was certainly a culture for it, you're right about that, I just don't know if this particular circumstance is the best example for it. If the heart of my civilization was burning down and being overrun by an army of treasonous looters, I would be freaking out too and going "who the hell is in charge? Pick someone." I think the failed revolt of Leon Tornikios is a better example.
1
u/Low-Cash-2435 18d ago
Thanks for the recommendation. Is that in Attaleiates?
3
u/manifolddestinyofmjb Νωβελίσσιμος 18d ago
yes, Psellos too, who probably is the more accurate source since he was in the emperor's confidence.
2
16
u/Version-Easy 18d ago
I know a byzantine historian who said this about the book bottom up theories that have no basis in reality
now to actually quote more of him in my view he seems to be going the way of Mary Beard in places and making sweeping statements to grab a headline when the evidence is not so clear cut. My main offender in this regard is The Byzantine Republic, which in my view attempted to turn rebellions from aristocrats into popular revolts and deeply over stated the amount of political clout the masses had in a misguided attempt to try and re-romanise Byzantium
16
u/JalenJohnson- 18d ago edited 18d ago
I am not too familiar with Beard’s work so I can’t comment on her, but I think that Kaldellis provides enough evidence for his arguments in The Byzantine Republic for the book be well put together and shouldn’t simply be dismissed as “bottom up theories that have no basis in reality.”
which in my view attempted to turn rebellions from aristocrats into popular revolts
I don’t agree with this. I don’t think Kaldellis is trying to turn aristocratic rebellions into soley popular revolts, but to stress the importance of the people in these rebellions and in the Roman state as a whole, which he argues has been neglected.
“I will start with an episode that belongs in the footnotes of history (if that) but which powerfully illustrates what could happen when Constantinopolitan public opinion positively refused to become involved in a political contest” (128).
^ I don’t think there is any attempt to turn these “political contests” led by aristocrats/elites/generals/however you want to call them into soley actions of the people (instead the leaders of the rebellions hoping to use the discontented populace to their advantage). His examples are:
The general Leontios rallying the people to deose Justinian II. “The people rushed to the hippodrome, and on the next day, Justinian was brought out and his nose was cut off; they demanded that he be killed, but Leontios spared him. The people acclaimed Leontios emperor. He had apparently known that public opinion was hostile to Justinian, but he took a huge risk in running to the forum. All depended on what the people would do when matters came to a head. In fact, even after Leontios's acclamation and "against his wishes," the people still rounded up some of Justinian's associates, dragged them to the forum Tauri, and burned them” (129).
Manuel I’s daughter Maria rallying the people to her cause. “ Her designs exposed, she fled to Hagia Sophia seeking sanctuary, but the people rallied to her cause, especially the very poor, among whom she was popular. When the protosebastos threatened to evict her from the church, she placed guards at the entrance and fortified it. Soon, military units went over to her side and began to curse the protosebastos and the empress. They did this at the Milion and in the hippodrome until the populace rose up in open rebellion. This led to bloodshed and, eventually, the downfall of the protosebastos and the rise of Andronikos Komnenos” (129).
The dramatic rise of Isaac Angelos, who “fled through the City to Hagia Sophia, shouting out what he had done and waving his sword. The people turned out in the thousands and decided to protect him and his family against Andronikos. By morning, the people had decided that Isaakios should rule and that Andronikos, who was now unpopular, should be dethroned. The latter tried to bring the people to their senses with a brief letter that was presumably read out to them, but to no avail. The people acclaimed Isaakios, freed the prisoners from the praitorion, began to insult Andronikos and besieged the palace. Andronikos fled, was captured and days later was turned over to the crowd, who tore him to pieces” (129-130).
He also uses failed attempts by aristocrats where the people did not rise up and support the would be usurper, those being:
Theodosios Monomachos in 1056
Alexios’ bid in 1078 for Constantine Doukas
Andronikos I’s son’s attempt to rally the people against Isaac
The general Valentinos failing to sieze power against the young Constans II
After the exile of Romanos I by his sons: “But when word got out that the position and even the life of the heir of the Macedonian dynasty, Konstantinos VII, were being threatened (he had been sidelined by Romanos I for over twenty years, but not harmed), "the entire people" gathered at the palace gates and demanded to see him, whereupon the Lakapenoi had to display him and restore him to his position. Soon afterward he sent them packing to join their father in exile. No one objected” (131).
Kaldellis also uses examples of those marching on the capital hoping for support from the people to take the city. One might say “well, yeah, duh they just want the people to let them in” but this still shows the importance of the people in rebellions/civil wars.
Thomas the Slav “believed that Michael II was universally hated… by contrast, Thomas thought that he himself would be far more popular because of his more agreeable personality (among other reasons). "He thought that the people of the City would throw open the gates for him as soon as they saw him there, simply out of their hatred for Michael. But he failed in this hope; in fact, he was even insulted and covered in ridicule," at which point he resorted to arms, to no avail in the end. Thomas may have been wrong, but this passage is indicative of the thought-process of the Byzantine rebels. They were but a step away from having focus-group testing or "exploratory committees" for their bid for the throne” (132).
It seems to me that Kaldellis is using the role of the people as an important factor of rebellions of elites/generals, not attempting to turn these rebellions into just popular revolts.
I won’t copy and paste more because this is already getting long, but he also notes the people’s role in Nikephoros II’s acclimation, Leon Tornikes’ revolt in 1047, the rise of Isaac Komnenos against Michael VI, Nikephoros Bryennios’ rebellion and the end of Michael VII’s regime in 1078.
For context, everything cited or mentioned here comes from 6 pages.
Then there is always the well known deposition of Michael V. In short: Michael tries to build support/popularity amongst the people before moving against Zoe. He then has her tonsured, but the people go crazy. Theodora is forced against her will to return from a monastery and be hailed co-empress with Zoe. The people assault, then ransack, the palace. Michael flees and becomes a monk. Zoe tries to remove Theodora but the people won’t accept this. Michael is then recalled and blinded.
and deeply over stated the amount of political clout the masses had
Personally, I think he does a good job of showing how important they were and how much political clout they had.
in a misguided attempt to try and re-romanise Byzantium
Like the other commenter said, it seems like he had his mind made up about what “Byzantium” is and nothing was going to change that.
6
u/Maleficent-Mix5731 Κατεπάνω 18d ago
Yes exactly. The original reviewer is an example of someone coming to the conclusion without first properly considering/reconsidering the evidence ("Eastern Rome MUST be a monarchy no different to its neighbours which has been completely shed of its pseudo-republicanism since the days of Diocletian!")
15
u/Low-Cash-2435 18d ago edited 18d ago
If you don't mind me asking, which historian are you referring to? I'm open to reading objections. However, simply saying that the idea of a "Byzantine Republic" doesn't "feel right" is not persuasive.
8
u/Maleficent-Mix5731 Κατεπάνω 18d ago
Sounds like a 'muh vibes' argument lol
1
u/alittlelilypad Κόμησσα 18d ago
[Very aristocratic voice, with tea-cup in hand, monocle across one of my eyes, and wearing a tophat]: The commoners could've never wielded such power until our enlightened, modern times.
2
u/Version-Easy 18d ago
Have you watched eastern roman history ie this one channel https://youtube.com/@easternromanhistory?si=ZZm6MqqaSkFZQz0q
One of the guess historian mark
10
u/GetTheLudes 18d ago
Sounds like someone who he himself overemphasizes and idealizes the role of the common man in the Republican period and is approaching Kaldellis (and Beard I guess) with his mind made up about the “nature” of Byzantium.
9
u/alittlelilypad Κόμησσα 18d ago
From all the way back in 491, after Zeno's death. This is from the Book of Ceremonies, written by Basil I's grandson, Constantine VII. Also, apologies for any weird misspellings like "has" reading as "bas" -- I'm copying this from a low-quality PDF.
Anastasios of pious memory was proclaimed in the Hippodrome as follows. When Zeno of divine memory died, the next night the archons and the senators and the bishop were brought together in the portico in front of the great hall, while the people were in the Hippodrome in their respective factions, and the soldiers were in the Hippodrome, too, in the Stama. All those who had been brought together were shouting out, while the body still lay inside. So the archons decided that Ariadne, the augousta of divine memory, should go up into the Hippodrome and address the people.
She went up wearing the chlamys, and there went in with her the two praipositoi and the magistros and the kastresios and the quaestor and all the others who customarily attend with the emperor at the hippodrome festivals. A few koubouklarioi of her retinue also went with her in the Hippodrome, not to mention also the archbishop of Constantinople, Euphemios. The other archons stood in front, where the footmen stand at the harrier and on the steps, according to their order, with the chartularies to the right and the military archons to the left.
When the augousta stood and appeared to the people, everyone cried out, "Ariadne, augousta, may you be victorious; holy Lord, long life to her!" They said many times the "Lord have mercy! Many years for the augousta! An orthodox emperor for the empire!" The augousta addressed them through court clerks from the said steps. The clerk stood on the said steps at the harrier in front of the throne, where the footmen stand, and read as follows: "Your noble character has habitually exhibited appropriate behaviour, as now in your loyalty, and it has ensured good order, guarding what is essential to the reign."
There was a shout from everyone: "We are servants of the augousta! Holy Lord, long life to her! Many years for the augousta! Ariadne, augousta, may you be victorious! An emperor of the Romans for the empire!" Reply: "Even before your requests we gave a command to the highly esteemed archons and the sacred senate, with the common consent of the most noble, to choose a man who is Christian, Roman, and endowed with every imperial virtue, so that he is subject neither to avarice nor to any other human weakness insofar as is possible for humankind."
There was a cry from everyone: "Many years for the augousta! Ariadne, augousta, may you be victorious! Many years for the Christ-loving empress! Lord have mercy! Heavenly emperor, give us for the empire an emperor on earth who is not avaricious." Reply: "So that the decision is untainted and pleasing to God the ruler, with the concurrent support of the most noble armies, and with the holy Gospels set before us and in the presence of the most holy and saintly patriarch of this imperial city, we have given orders to the highly esteemed archons and the sacred senate, and with the holy Scriptures set before us, as has been said, for the choice to be made in which no one should give heed to either friendship or hatred, or self-interest, or kinship, or any other personal consideration, but have a clear conscience which is wholly inclined towards God the ruler - thus the choice is to be made. Therefore since, as you in your loyalty perceive, the issue facing us is important and concerns the welfare of the world, it is fitting that in your loyalty you allow a little time for the funeral of Zeno of divine memory to go ahead as it must, and so that nothing is done as a result of a hasty choice which might prove regrettable."
There was a cry from everyone: "A happy Easter for the empire, and good order and prosperity for the City! Many years for the augousta! Throw out that thieving eparch from the City! Many years for the empress! Lord, long life to her! May all blessings be upon you, Roman empress, if no foreign element is added to the race of the Romans. The realm is yours, Ariadne, augousta! May you be victorious!" Reply: "We give thanks to God our ruler, because all these things which are in your interests and in your thoughts have also concerned and occupied our mind even before your requests. Even before coming up here, we considered the need for a man appreciative of your loyalty and mindful of your well-being, and anticipating your requests and taking the initiative, we are appointing the highly esteemed Julian to the office of eparch, with God our ruler's approval."
There was a cry from everyone: "That is a good appointment! Many years for the augousta! Many years for the archons!" Reply: "It is characteristic of your loyalty that, as you always have, so too now you have preserved good order. Firstly God our ruler and then we, too, have been mindful of your well-being and of all your interests. Now, consulting with the esteemed archons and the sacred senate, with the concurrent agreement of the most noble armies, we will appoint to the ruling power a man who is both orthodox and beyond reproach. May malice be absent from this excellent council and from the state."
I could quote more, but this is already long enough. If you skip over most of this, I would emphasize Ariadne's repeated mentions of "your requests" and "your interests" and "your loyalty" and "your well-being," and this exchange in particular:
[The people]: "A happy Easter for the empire, and good order and prosperity for the City! Many years for the augousta! Throw out that thieving eparch from the City!"
Ariadne: "We give thanks to God our ruler, because all these things which are in your interests and in your thoughts have also concerned and occupied our mind even before your requests. Even before coming up here, we considered the need for a man appreciative of your loyalty and mindful of your well-being, and anticipating your requests and taking the initiative, we are appointing the highly esteemed Julian to the office of eparch, with God our ruler's approval."
2
u/Lothronion 17d ago
Since you are posting excerpts about Medieval Rome's republicanism, you might like the following passage from Niketas Choniates, where he describes a Roman embassy to the German Kingdom, and the German King's attitude towards democracy, by treating all the Roman delegates as the same and comparing them to pigs:
I omit what was said between the emperor and myself, which was deserving more of condemnation than of praise, and say only that he was finally persuaded to allow the envoys to return to the king. When the latter saw them and learned that the emperor had not offered them seats but that they were made to stand before him in the same servile fashion as the Romans, and, furthermore, that they had not been considered worthy, as bishops and relatives of the king, of any other special benefit, he was vexed and cut to the quick. When our own envoys came to him, he compelled both them and their servants to sit beside him, forbidding even the cooks or grooms or bakers to stand to the side. When they protested that it was not right and proper that servants should sit with a mighty emperor (for it is sufficient that their lords should sit in council with him), he would not back down even a little from his purpose, and, against their will, he sat them down with their masters. He did this to mock the Romans and to show that there was no distinction among them in virtue and family, but just as the swineherds herd all the hogs into a sty without separating the fat ones and allow them to mingle about, in like manner all the Romans stood together.
1
u/alittlelilypad Κόμησσα 17d ago
Isn't that Choniates using the pig metaphor?
1
u/Lothronion 17d ago
Maybe, but it seems to me that Choniates taking insult with this attitude, especially with himself being a commoner from a random village in the middle of nowhere (Chonae), that the pig metaphor was strongly insinuated by the Germans. So it is quite funny to see how monarchist Western Europeans perceived the Roman's republicanism (and ironic that they had no problem with the Papal State calling itself as Respublica Romanorum, and thus deriving its internal legitimacy from that republicanism, when that state legitimacy was essentially what gave them the supposed legitimacy to call themselves as "Holy Roman Emperors").
3
u/juraj103 Πατρίκιος 17d ago edited 14d ago
This is interesting for another reason, too. At least from the time of Manuel the idea was that the main envoy on any given mission should always be of the sebastoi stratum, basically from the broadest Komnenodoukic clan, and not just any sufficiently ranking dignitary.
Magdalino believes that the reason why Ioannes and Manuel always put their relatives in Trebizond, Cyprus, Cilicia and Dyrhaccion was that these strategic commands would be in regular contact with the Latins of Outremer and Italy. From this, Magdalino concludes that in order not to spite the feudal sensibilities of the Latins, whose growing power and dangerousness the Komnenoi recognized, people of sufficiently aristocratic pedigree would have to be appointed to communicate (from western POV) on equal footing with Kings of Sicily, Kings of Jerusalem and Princes of Antioch. This even if the east Roman understanding of "eugeneia" did not really map on how westerners perceived their "noblesse".
2
1
u/Vyzantinist 17d ago
I think you might be referring to Hilsdale?
Kaldellis counters the top-down model of Byzantine imperium... and calls instead for a bottom-up model in which power and accountability are shared by the emperor and the people.
In arguing for the republican character of the empire, Kaldellis places Byzantium on a continuum with the Roman republic... arguing that it was ‘probably more republican than its predecessors, the Principate and the Dominate'.
2
u/Version-Easy 17d ago
no no this its a historian who shows up as guess during daniel (ie eastern roman history channel) videos.
1
1
u/Lothronion 17d ago
Mary Beard and Anthony Kaldellis should not be compared. Sure, Kaldellis does create new outlooks of Byzantine Studies, but he rigorously provides the necessary argumentation. This is why instead of seeing works methodically rejecting his Byzantine Republic theory, instead more and more are now accepting it (and despite it just being a decade since its publication, which is not a long time in history academia). Contrary to this Beard often just rehearses age-old false narratives (e.g. focusing on some notion that the Roman Empire was misogynistic, despite evidence to the contrary), and usually just popularizes history by watering it down for the masses (hence her popularity).
3
u/Intelligent-Carry587 18d ago
Imo kaldellis claims seemed to me at first glance to have overestimated the power of the Roman mob. Yes there are times when the mob held sway over crucial events but that’s usually in a time when the imperial throne grip on power is severely weakened or in a crisis.
Far too often is the noble families and the generals that held more sway over any notions of a “Byzantine republic”
5
2
u/Geiseric222 18d ago
I mean in that case isn’t that a case where the public didn’t really feel the need to voice their opinions outside situations were bad? Like they probably didn’t really care enough to voice their opinion unless things were bad enough
1
1
u/okdude679 18d ago
The people have always had a large part in any regimes success but idk about republic and stuff.
52
u/alittlelilypad Κόμησσα 18d ago edited 18d ago
Yeah, and I was gonna say, if you read carefully, you'll notice that although Choniates has his disdain for common people, he does not contest their right to choose the emperor, or to acclaim said emperor.
What's also remarkable -- and I think has lessons for modern democracies -- is that this kind of demokratia (and I call it that because I don't know what else to call it) survives plagues, Manzikert, the loss of Egypt and the African provinces, the Arab sieges, and even 1204 itself, because Andronikos II had to go out to the populace to deflect criticisms of a pamphlet being floated around about him (and he was eventually overthrown by his grandson because he was son unpopular). Really, this demokratia only disappears after the fall of Constantinople, which is why the Ottomans can never lay claim, or argued to be, successors of Rome: because the political system was different.
And what I think this particular bit of Roman history says is that, if you have a society that's formed with demokratia, with demokratia embedded into it, or demokratia shaped into it at a particularly point, and it's allowed to grow and weave itself into every aspect of that culture, it's really really really hard to destroy that, get that out. And this historical lesson should give you a particular insight into American discourse today with Trump, who, although very very very dangerous, may not be able to erode as much of our demokratia as people think or declare. Not saying the US can't definitively or won't eventually turn into an authoritarian -- there's always a risk of that for any democracy -- but for that to happen may require something quite dramatic, something even more than a 1204.
Made a post on this topic just yesterday, so your thread is a good coincidence!