Why the Losers Are not Listened To?

[TheButterflyComposer]

I think you're loosely defining the 'loser' tag.

After the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire it completely collapsed.

A lot of the scholars from that entity left for Italy mostly, the former lands of the Roman Empire, and were catalytical in the Renaissance period. The fact is that this isn't really common knowledge. Also, the Ottomans completely dominated everything and now every dish that comes from that region is called "Turkish" or "Ottoman", whether it was 'Byzantine', 'Greek', 'Armenian', 'Balkan', 'Persian' or whatever.

Apart from Greece under Ottoman occupation, no one else envisioned and plan a revival of the Byzantine Empire. It's the Roman Empire's ugly cousin anyway in terms of history. Only a few nerds like her


This is arguably an example of the complete opposite. Of how a victor completely overrun the losers.

The only case of Byzantine being the losers that were listened to is during the Serbian conquests and that's only because no one other than the Serbs and maybe the Bulgarians bother about that part of history. But that's also due to the Ottoman dominance in the region. No one cares about 50-100 years of brief occupation in the region during Ottomania.

Point.

 

[bz249]

I think you're loosely defining the 'loser' tag.

After the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire it completely collapsed.

A lot of the scholars from that entity left for Italy mostly, the former lands of the Roman Empire, and were catalytical in the Renaissance period. The fact is that this isn't really common knowledge. Also, the Ottomans completely dominated everything and now every dish that comes from that region is called "Turkish" or "Ottoman", whether it was 'Byzantine', 'Greek', 'Armenian', 'Balkan', 'Persian' or whatever.

Apart from Greece under Ottoman occupation, no one else envisioned and plan a revival of the Byzantine Empire. It's the Roman Empire's ugly cousin anyway in terms of history. Only a few nerds like her


This is arguably an example of the complete opposite. Of how a victor completely overrun the losers.

The only case of Byzantine being the losers that were listened to is during the Serbian conquests and that's only because no one other than the Serbs and maybe the Bulgarians bother about that part of history. But that's also due to the Ottoman dominance in the region. No one cares about 50-100 years of brief occupation in the region during Ottomania.

Btw Bulgaria is a nice example where the winners are absorbed by the losers (though the losers took the name because it was fancier).

 

[Rubidium]

The barbarians and the fall of Rome. The Vandals hardly have good publicity and most of the other barbarian nations hardly have a better reputation. Why? The losers wrote the histories of the time. The Catholic church is a surviving Roman institution and its perceptions of the barbarian peoples has dominated our perceptions of them for the better part of 1 1/2 millennium.

Ironically the Vandals had a decent reputation (showing up as romantic, exotic figures in literature occasionally, and generally being used as examples of heroic barbarians whenever they appeared) up until the French Revolution.

When a French cleric coined the term "vandalisme" as a comparison for the destruction carried out by the French revolutionaries, it proved catchy and popular, which is why it stuck. Otherwise they'd probably be another obscure Germanic people, largely ignored in popular culture, as opposed to the embodiment of wanton destruction.

And of course, you'll notice that some barbarians (the Franks, the Anglo-Saxons, Arminius and his rebels) get a glowing review in later popular history. It has more to do with later nationalism (the French claimed the Franks, the English sort of claimed the Anglo-Saxons, and everybody who could claimed Arminius) and whether some nationalists found it useful to praise a certain tribe as their ancestors.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Other well known and regarded 'losers'...hmm...the byzantine empire comes to mind. In decline for around 500 years and yet stuck around in pop consciousness for a lot longer...

Roman Empire or Basileia Rhomaion, we really need to replace that damned term Byzantine, even I'm guilty of repeatedly slipping into using it... and I make a massive effort not to.

 

[bz249]

Roman Empire or Basileia Rhomaion, we really need to replace that damned term Byzantine, even I'm guilty of repeatedly slipping into using it... and I make a massive effort not to.

It is a perfectly ok name... we have the Principate, the Dominate, the Eastern Empire and the Byzantine Empire. All of those are Roman Empire, like Tang, Ming etc are all China.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

the English sort of claimed the Anglo-Saxons

To be honest, it looks a lot more like the amercians claimed Anglo saxons, comparing contemporary writing. The British were a bit iffy on the whole tribal background thing.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

It is a perfectly ok name... we have the Principate, the Dominate, the Eastern Empire and the Byzantine Empire. All of those are Roman Empire, like Tang, Ming etc are all China.

Not really as it wasn't what the Rhomaioi called themselves.

 

[bz249]

Not really as it wasn't what the Rhomaioi called themselves.

Neither they spoke English... and they used at that time Greek alphabet anyway.

Edit: Btw if Vichy-France is an acceptable term, than what is the problem with the Byzantine Empire?

 

[Rubidium]

To be honest, it looks a lot more like the amercians claimed Anglo saxons, comparing contemporary writing. The British were a bit iffy on the whole tribal background thing.

Depends when we're talking about. 19th/early 20th century there was a significant strand of English thought that was all about the Anglo-Saxons and the "glorious Germanic heritage" as opposed to the "decadent Latins," even as they were busy studying Greek and Roman works in school. Generally with a heavy helping of racism, as you'd expect, crediting the "Teutonic blood" for the modern success of the English (and even the Americans, who were also seen as being of English blood even if they insisted on their bizarre republican ways).

A good example was Edward Creasey's 1851 book The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World. Which lists 15 battles that he felt had determined the shape of world history, such as Marathon, Tours, Hastings, Waterloo, etc. Most of them are fairly obvious why he picked them (even if often a bit Anglo-centric), but the chapter that jumps out at a casual skim is "The Victory of Arminius over the Roman Legions Under Varius." Which he explicitly chose due to its role in preserving "the Germanic race" from Roman domination (and he devotes a full paragraph to proving that "an Englishman is entitled to claim a closer degree of relationship with Arminius than can be claimed by any German of modern Germany," which basically boils down to saying that Arminius was a Saxon, and the English are descended from the Anglo-Saxons, QED).

You also see this in English studies of Anglo-Saxon history, where a lot of earlier works are heavily focused on demonstrating the derivation of later English governance structures from tribal Anglo-Saxon origins (as opposed to Roman or French models).

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Neither they spoke English... and they used at that time Greek alphabet anyway.

Edit: Btw if Vichy-France is an acceptable term, than what is the problem with the Byzantine Empire?

What point are you making about them not speaking English? of course they didn't and I'm also well aware they used the Greek alphabet and spoke the Greek language after around Heraclius reign onwards.

They considered and call themselves roman at the time hence the Basileia Rhomaion/Basileia ton Rhomaion for the empire and Rhomaioi for themselves. Might not be entirely accurate due to language differences but short of reading, writing and speaking Greek anglicanizing them as close as possible is the best that most people can do without calling the Byzantium and Byzantines.

 

[Darth Howard]

What point are you making about them not speaking English? of course they didn't and I'm also well aware they used the Greek alphabet and spoke the Greek language after around Heraclius reign onwards.

They considered and call themselves roman at the time hence the Basileia Rhomaion/Basileia ton Rhomaion for the empire and Rhomaioi for themselves. Might not be entirely accurate due to language differences but short of reading, writing and speaking Greek anglicanizing them as close as possible is the best that most people can do without calling the Byzantium and Byzantines.

I think he means more along the lines of "what harm is done calling them Byzantine?". It is a very semantic discussion, and lets be frank those who actually know of the Byzantines know they were the Eastern Roman Empire/considered themself Roman.

We already have so many Roman Empires, and different phases of the Empire itself, it is just a practical mean to differentiate between the various forms.

 

[Lord Tim]

And of course, you'll notice that some barbarians (the Franks, the Anglo-Saxons, Arminius and his rebels) get a glowing review in later popular history. It has more to do with later nationalism (the French claimed the Franks, the English sort of claimed the Anglo-Saxons, and everybody who could claimed Arminius) and whether some nationalists found it useful to praise a certain tribe as their ancestors.

If we relied for our knowledge of the Franks or Anglo-Saxons on the history they wrote about themselves in the first couple of centuries, they probably wouldn't seem so impressive to us now. But they lasted long enough in control of the territory they took over for their own literary tradition to develop and for them to tell their own histories. Which is also true, later, for the Lombards. But for the Ostrogoths in Italy, the Vandals in Africa, and the Visigoths in Spain, they didn't last long enough for that to happen so most of what we hear about them comes from outsiders. That's very much "winners writing their history".

he devotes a full paragraph to proving that "an Englishman is entitled to claim a closer degree of relationship with Arminius than can be claimed by any German of modern Germany," which basically boils down to saying that Arminius was a Saxon, and the English are descended from the Anglo-Saxons,

Somewhat strangely, considering the Kingdom/Duchy of Saxony had been one of the main states in Germany (used in the geographical sense) for a very long time.

 

[Rubidium]

If we relied for our knowledge of the Franks or Anglo-Saxons on the history they wrote about themselves in the first couple of centuries, they probably wouldn't seem so impressive to us now. But they lasted long enough in control of the territory they took over for their own literary tradition to develop and for them to tell their own histories. Which is also true, later, for the Lombards. But for the Ostrogoths in Italy, the Vandals in Africa, and the Visigoths in Spain, they didn't last long enough for that to happen so most of what we hear about them comes from outsiders. That's very much "winners writing their history".

The Spanish did make a go at claiming the Visigoths as well (Pelayo and that whole Reconquista thing, emphasis on the "Re").

But I'd argue it's not just that they lasted long enough to create literature, but that their descendants also chose to claim their legacy.

We have more contemporary knowledge about the Vandals than we do about the pre-conversion Norse in Scandinavia. We have Procopius's account from the Byzantine Conquest (which includes a pocket summary of Vandal history as reported by the Byzantine court), we have other historians from the late Roman period, we have several petitions by Catholic bishops complaining about their persecution by the Vandal monarchs, we have archaeology and surviving poems from their court. In comparison, all the sagas and the like were written centuries after the Norse had converted, and regularly fail to show any correlation with the few historical accounts we have of early Scandinavian politics or with archaeology.

And yet, pre-Christian Scandinavia has (and has long had) a massively outsized influence on popular culture. Novels, tv shows, video games... CK2/3 built an entire start date based on the Viking sagas (and portray the Norse as the real military powers of the age, as opposed to scattered raiders and traders divided up into small chiefdoms).

That's because the later Scandinavians looked back at the pre-Christian Norse as their ancestors and "claimed" them and their history, whereas no one claims the Vandals or the Ostrogoths, so they are essentially forgotten as anything other than miscellaneous barbarians who sacked Rome.

Somewhat strangely, considering the Kingdom/Duchy of Saxony had been one of the main states in Germany (used in the geographical sense) for a very long time.

When has nationalist chest-beating ever been required to make sense?