The Misunderstood Byzantine Princess and Her Magnum Opus

[Disir]

Though political power was usually a male privilege in Byzantium, a striking feature of the Byzantine tales is the prominence of women as political players, whether they were power-grabbing populists, slick backroom schemers, or principled reformers. It started with Empress Theodora, sometimes described as a kind of sixth-century Eva Perón, who interceded in a wave of riots that shook Constantinople, put an end to the fighting, won the adoration of the public, and saved her husband’s throne. Irene, an empress from the late eighth century, ruled for several years with a mixture of silky court diplomacy and unflinching ruthlessness—to maintain her grip on power, she ordered that her chief rival, who also happened to be her son, be blinded.

The princess Anna Komnene was another of these influential women. To Edward Gibbon, who framed her reputation for modern audiences with his book The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, she was a Lady Macbeth character who attempted to bump off her brother so she could rule the empire through her husband. The plot failed, and Anna was forced to flee to a monastery, where she spent the rest of her life stewing with resentment and thwarted ambition. Gibbon dismissed Anna as vain, vengeful, dissembling, and reckless, the embodiment of a particular type of unpleasant Byzantine woman. But to a generation of historians currently revisiting her reputation, Anna Komnene is not a lethal Machiavel but a sparkling litterateur, one of the great figures of her age who exhibited something that one might call distinctly, beguilingly Byzantine: a flair for disruptive innovation while, paradoxically, striving to keep centuries of tradition alive.

The Misunderstood Byzantine Princess and Her Magnum Opus

Excellent article on Anna Komnene.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The people in that area and time called themselves Romans.

 

[whitehall]

It's no secret that there were powerful women in ancient times. Why do modern feminists treat it as some sort of revelation when they run across a critical manuscript?

 

[Disir]

It's no secret that there were powerful women in ancient times. Why do modern feminists treat it as some sort of revelation when they run across a critical manuscript?

It's not a revelation. I have plenty of books on women in antiquity and late antiquity. Diotima and Perseus contain plenty o' information; however, it is rare to find a recent article on Anna Komnene. Powerful women became that way via money/marriage and used the Church as much as the Church used them. If they were in a certain class.....

I find it bizarre that there are people that still consider Gibbons to be a source and arguments are still made against his book. If the guy had access to what we have now then it would be a different story.

That said, why do modern men pretend that women did not work outside the home, were not single parents, etc. in the history of the US?

 

[Disir]

The people in that area and time called themselves Romans.

Or would have if Rome was still the seat of power. 'Cept it wasn't.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The people in that area and time called themselves Romans.

Or would have if Rome was still the seat of power. 'Cept it wasn't.

But they still considered themselves Romans regardless of where the capital of the Empire was. They never used the word Byzantine to describe themselves. The name wasn't used until 1557 over 100 years after the Eastern Empire fell.

 

[Disir]

The people in that area and time called themselves Romans.

Or would have if Rome was still the seat of power. 'Cept it wasn't.

But they still considered themselves Romans regardless of where the capital of the Empire was. They never used the word Byzantine to describe themselves. The name wasn't used until 1557 over 100 years after the Eastern Empire fell.

I'm absolutely ok with them not referring to themselves as Byzantines. Outside of ceremonial usage or attempts to claim legitimacy to rule by those in power or within that class...........I don't think the people referred to themselves Romans. They didn't always refer to themselves as Romans when Rome was the seat of power. It meant the Roman Empire came in, beat you up, took your lunch money and now you are a province-ha ha ha. I think that this has been repeated for over well over 100 years and presents significant issues and masks the complexity of the time period.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The people in that area and time called themselves Romans.

Or would have if Rome was still the seat of power. 'Cept it wasn't.

But they still considered themselves Romans regardless of where the capital of the Empire was. They never used the word Byzantine to describe themselves. The name wasn't used until 1557 over 100 years after the Eastern Empire fell.

I'm absolutely ok with them not referring to themselves as Byzantines. Outside of ceremonial usage or attempts to claim legitimacy to rule by those in power or within that class...........I don't think the people referred to themselves Romans. They didn't always refer to themselves as Romans when Rome was the seat of power. It meant the Roman Empire came in, beat you up, took your lunch money and now you are a province-ha ha ha. I think that this has been repeated for over well over 100 years and presents significant issues and masks the complexity of the time period.

The Roman Empire split into the West and East in 286 AD.The people of the Eastern Empire always considered themselves Romans except that they spoke Greek instead of Latin.

 

[Disir]

The people in that area and time called themselves Romans.

Or would have if Rome was still the seat of power. 'Cept it wasn't.

But they still considered themselves Romans regardless of where the capital of the Empire was. They never used the word Byzantine to describe themselves. The name wasn't used until 1557 over 100 years after the Eastern Empire fell.

I'm absolutely ok with them not referring to themselves as Byzantines. Outside of ceremonial usage or attempts to claim legitimacy to rule by those in power or within that class...........I don't think the people referred to themselves Romans. They didn't always refer to themselves as Romans when Rome was the seat of power. It meant the Roman Empire came in, beat you up, took your lunch money and now you are a province-ha ha ha. I think that this has been repeated for over well over 100 years and presents significant issues and masks the complexity of the time period.

The Roman Empire split into the West and East in 286 AD.The people of the Eastern Empire always considered themselves Romans except that they spoke Greek instead of Latin.

Greek, Aramaic, Coptic, Syriac.
The Empire was effectively split by the time Theodosius I died. That was the major break. Rome had not been the seat of power, had a significant population loss and could not be defended. Further, Christianity (Nicene) became the imperial religion. Regional cultural differences existed due to topography, there were different funerary practices , religions etc. before this point; however the top down approach exasperated differences.

In fact, you were more likely to be known from your city (and always had been) and would have referred to yourself from that city (Antiochenes).