Tweet
In order to understand where words like "Hellenization" came from we must look at how erroneous it is to use such words like these when it comes to certain eras. According to Melbourne University professor Gocha Tsetskhladzhe "The terminology deployed by modern academics usually fails to penetrate the intrinsic nature of the historical or cultural events in antiquity that it is used to describe. This is as true of the term "orientalization" as it is of "Hellenization". What is being described in both cases is the spread and intermixing of different cultures. In the Hellenistic period different ethnic groups absorbed Hellenic culture and transmitted aspects of their own culture to the Greeks. This was a side affect to political developments. If a label has to be attatched to this, then "cosmopolitanization", would be more appropriate than either "orientalization" or "Hellenization".
So we can fairly state then ,according to Professor Tsetskhladze, that the ancient Macedonian royal courts were not at all Hellenized but in fact Cosmopolitanized. Alexander the Great enjoyed many cultures and was the first recorded cosmopolitan figure in history. According to Websters Dictionary the definition of the word cosmopolitan is having worldwide rather than limited or provinicial scope or bearing as well as having a wide international sophistication and composed of persons, constituents, or elements from all or many parts of the world. Wouldn't these definitions fit Alexander's character?
Of course the debate of whether Alexander spread "hellenism" (another improper word of 19th century German creation) or not is obviously still up for debate considering new archaeological evidence suggests that ancient Hellenic culture spread way before his time. For further suggested reading into this please click here http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/5479 and read the University of California's article "How Great Was Alexander? New Research Challenges His Cultural Impact" as well as the University of Washington's article here http://www.artsci.washington.edu/new...g04/TelDor.htm entitled "Searching for Clues at Tel Dor".
Now when we move ahead in history we see modern historians employ the word "Hellenization" when it comes to the Slavs that settled in the Balkans. How improper is this term for this period in time? Consider what Professor Anthony Kaldellis writes; "Where modern historians say that the empire "Hellenized" the Slavs who settled in Greece in the seventh and eighth centuries by teaching them to speak Greek, what our source, Leon VI, actually says is that his father Basilieos I (867-886) persuaded them to abandon their ancient customs, accept Roman rule and take baptism, and that he "Graecized" them-i.e. he taught them Greek." He also writes; "After the sixth century "the Roman language" or "the language of the Romans" could signify Greek as well as Latin. In otherwords what we call "Greek" the Byzantines could call "Roman" simply because they were Romans and that was their language." And professor Kaldellis aptly states "The Byzantines were Romans who happened to speak Greek, and not Greeks who happened to call themselves Romans."
So what would be the proper terminology for what happened to the Slavs in the East Roman empire or ,the recent term for this empire, Byzantine empire?
Well for starters it is common knowledge that the East Roman empire was the first great Christian empire. Also the inhabitants of the empire rarely referred to themselves with modern national terms we use today. British historian David Nicolle wrote the following when describing locally recruited troops from Epirus and Albania between the 11th and 13th centuries; "Both Greek and Albanian speakers, plus Slavs who may today be identified as Serbs and Macedonians but at that time simply thought of themselves as Christians of the orthodox persuasion."
As Kaldellis already told us from Leo VI own words Basil The Macedonian persuaded the Slavs to abandon their ancient pagan ways and to take baptism. It would be proper to say that the Slavs were Christianized and accepted Roman rule.
But we can also state that they were Romanized considering that the Byzantine Empire was indeed a Roman Empire and not anything else.
Historian Charles William Chadwick Oman used the term properly when he stated "the ' Thracians' and ' Macedonians'—or more properly the semi-Romanized Slavs—in Europe, were considered the best material by the recruiting officer."
So we can now rest assured that terms like Hellenization and Hellenized are both improper terminologies when we consider Ancient Macedonia and the Slavs of the 7th and 8th centuries in the East Roman Empire. Both eras and empires that do not exclusively belong to modern "greece".
So when does the term "hellenization" come into play? Well if we want to use it properly then we can say that the Western Philhellenes in the 19th century "Hellenized" the inhabitants of the land mass that became modern "greece". According to Antonis Liakos "The common Greek language in the last quarter of the twentieth century was neither a restored version of the tongue of the popular heroes of the Greek Revolution, nor the demotic of the diaspora intellectuals. It was passed through the filter of Katharevousa, just as national ideology passed through the filter of the "Hellenization" process. In the Greek language of the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries the word "Hellenic" meant the language of ancient Greece. In Greek today, the word "Hellenic" means modern Greek and one needs to add the adjective "ancient" to refer to the language of the Classical Era. In the academic programs in the English-speaking world,though,"Greek" refers to Classical language programs. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, modern Greece was "Hellenized" and "Hellenism" acquired a modern Greek version.
Sources:
- Hellenization by Gocha R. Tsetskhladzhe, page 346 (Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece edited by Nigel Wilson).
- Hellenism in Byzantium, by Anthony Kaldellis ,pages 111-114.
- Crusader Warfare Volume I, by David Nicolle ,page 167.
- The Art of War in the Middle Ages, A. D. 378-1515 By Charles William Chadwick Oman ,page 41.
- Hellenism and the Making of Modern Greece by Antonis Liakos, page 229 (Hellenisms edited by Katerina Zacharia)
So we can fairly state then ,according to Professor Tsetskhladze, that the ancient Macedonian royal courts were not at all Hellenized but in fact Cosmopolitanized. Alexander the Great enjoyed many cultures and was the first recorded cosmopolitan figure in history. According to Websters Dictionary the definition of the word cosmopolitan is having worldwide rather than limited or provinicial scope or bearing as well as having a wide international sophistication and composed of persons, constituents, or elements from all or many parts of the world. Wouldn't these definitions fit Alexander's character?
Of course the debate of whether Alexander spread "hellenism" (another improper word of 19th century German creation) or not is obviously still up for debate considering new archaeological evidence suggests that ancient Hellenic culture spread way before his time. For further suggested reading into this please click here http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/5479 and read the University of California's article "How Great Was Alexander? New Research Challenges His Cultural Impact" as well as the University of Washington's article here http://www.artsci.washington.edu/new...g04/TelDor.htm entitled "Searching for Clues at Tel Dor".
Now when we move ahead in history we see modern historians employ the word "Hellenization" when it comes to the Slavs that settled in the Balkans. How improper is this term for this period in time? Consider what Professor Anthony Kaldellis writes; "Where modern historians say that the empire "Hellenized" the Slavs who settled in Greece in the seventh and eighth centuries by teaching them to speak Greek, what our source, Leon VI, actually says is that his father Basilieos I (867-886) persuaded them to abandon their ancient customs, accept Roman rule and take baptism, and that he "Graecized" them-i.e. he taught them Greek." He also writes; "After the sixth century "the Roman language" or "the language of the Romans" could signify Greek as well as Latin. In otherwords what we call "Greek" the Byzantines could call "Roman" simply because they were Romans and that was their language." And professor Kaldellis aptly states "The Byzantines were Romans who happened to speak Greek, and not Greeks who happened to call themselves Romans."
So what would be the proper terminology for what happened to the Slavs in the East Roman empire or ,the recent term for this empire, Byzantine empire?
Well for starters it is common knowledge that the East Roman empire was the first great Christian empire. Also the inhabitants of the empire rarely referred to themselves with modern national terms we use today. British historian David Nicolle wrote the following when describing locally recruited troops from Epirus and Albania between the 11th and 13th centuries; "Both Greek and Albanian speakers, plus Slavs who may today be identified as Serbs and Macedonians but at that time simply thought of themselves as Christians of the orthodox persuasion."
As Kaldellis already told us from Leo VI own words Basil The Macedonian persuaded the Slavs to abandon their ancient pagan ways and to take baptism. It would be proper to say that the Slavs were Christianized and accepted Roman rule.
But we can also state that they were Romanized considering that the Byzantine Empire was indeed a Roman Empire and not anything else.
Historian Charles William Chadwick Oman used the term properly when he stated "the ' Thracians' and ' Macedonians'—or more properly the semi-Romanized Slavs—in Europe, were considered the best material by the recruiting officer."
So we can now rest assured that terms like Hellenization and Hellenized are both improper terminologies when we consider Ancient Macedonia and the Slavs of the 7th and 8th centuries in the East Roman Empire. Both eras and empires that do not exclusively belong to modern "greece".
So when does the term "hellenization" come into play? Well if we want to use it properly then we can say that the Western Philhellenes in the 19th century "Hellenized" the inhabitants of the land mass that became modern "greece". According to Antonis Liakos "The common Greek language in the last quarter of the twentieth century was neither a restored version of the tongue of the popular heroes of the Greek Revolution, nor the demotic of the diaspora intellectuals. It was passed through the filter of Katharevousa, just as national ideology passed through the filter of the "Hellenization" process. In the Greek language of the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries the word "Hellenic" meant the language of ancient Greece. In Greek today, the word "Hellenic" means modern Greek and one needs to add the adjective "ancient" to refer to the language of the Classical Era. In the academic programs in the English-speaking world,though,"Greek" refers to Classical language programs. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, modern Greece was "Hellenized" and "Hellenism" acquired a modern Greek version.
Sources:
- Hellenization by Gocha R. Tsetskhladzhe, page 346 (Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece edited by Nigel Wilson).
- Hellenism in Byzantium, by Anthony Kaldellis ,pages 111-114.
- Crusader Warfare Volume I, by David Nicolle ,page 167.
- The Art of War in the Middle Ages, A. D. 378-1515 By Charles William Chadwick Oman ,page 41.
- Hellenism and the Making of Modern Greece by Antonis Liakos, page 229 (Hellenisms edited by Katerina Zacharia)
Comment