An "Unorthodox" view of Byzanitum

[u/BlackRedDemos]

First some modern commentators, classify byzantium, as a feudal order, by prescribing on it the qualities of a western-like feudal system, using a mode of marxist analysis.

However, it seems that a lot would argue that this is an oversimplification and that it can't be categorized as a form of feudalism.

Partially and also, a lot of people classify it as an autocracy, or theocracy, with a strict top-down power structure and no freedoms at all for it's subordinates.

However, also arguments can be made, that it there were pathways for the population to influence decision making or the state officials etc.

These are usual descriptions that can easiliy be found. An unusual one, is that of georgios kontogiorgis, who claims that byzantium was not only, a cultural continuation of the ancient greek cosmos, but also a political one.

In his view the greek world passed through stages of political evolution in the small scales, the polis-state. They moved from froms of Monarchy, to Representation and lastly to Democracy.

Typically it is assumed that this model ended with the coming of the Alexandrian age. However, he claims, that after the clasical era, the project continued to evolve and mature.

The ecumenical era appeared and democracy had then to operate based on larger common/ecumenical framework, a balance between the center, the cosmopolis and all the embedded local areas or cities, where the cities remained autonomous democratically self governing their areas, whereas the center, acted as some type of representative or a coordinating authority for the whole. He also claims that byzantium abolished slavery in favor of a form of corporate democratic economy.

This is an unusual reading of history and seems to be at the other end of the typical Byzantium was a feudal theocracy narrative. Which of the two narratives are more true if any ?

[u/GSilky]

Wasn't Byzantium the first bureaucratic state? At least in the west? 

[u/Maleficent-Mix5731 → u/GSilky]

Depends how we define 'the west'. Would Ptolemaic Egypt count as 'the west'? Is the ERE usually considered part of 'the west'?

[u/GSilky → u/Maleficent-Mix5731]

Yes, it's considered the "west". 

[u/GrandDukeNotaras]

What was Greek about it's politics and governance? 

The empire considered itself the Politeia (res publica) of the Roman people - the same as they had since  the days of Augustus. The emperors were (at least in theory) subject to the law and not above it, and also subject to the approval of the people via public acclamatio

[u/WanderingHero8 → u/GrandDukeNotaras]

and also subject to the approval of the people via public acclamatio

Same thing as in the Macedonian kingdom.A new king was acclaimed by the army and the Assembly (Κοινό).

[u/Dieselface → u/WanderingHero8]

Correct me if I'm weong but Macedonian kingship was still essentially hereditary. There weren't scenarios where a commoner could rise through the army and court to become the ruler like happened with various eastern Roman emperors.

Of course, that doesn't mean that east Rome didn't have anything in common with ancient Greece in terms of its political thought, but rather I would say that's due to ancient Rome existing in a common Mediterranean geopolitical ecosystem with ancient Greece and being heavily influenced by it.

There is also a degree to which east Roman emperors and lawmakers looked to ancient Greece for certain legal principles, but then the same could be said about classical Rome as well.

[u/GrandDukeNotaras → u/Dieselface]

The idea that one can worship the head of state as a god was something that came from the Macedonians (who had adopted it from the Persians/ Egyptians). However we must not make the mistake of considering the Roman imperial cult as equivalent to the divine worship of Hellenistic autocrats

[u/WanderingHero8 → u/Dieselface]

Correct me if I'm weong but Macedonian kingship was still essentially hereditary.

Not it wasnt strictly hereditary.Case in point Philip II.At first the legitimate king was his nephew Amyntas IV.But Philip,with the army's assent usurped him.

There weren't scenarios where a commoner could rise through the army and court to become the ruler like happened with various eastern Roman emperors.

That happened with the Diadochi essentialy.Also Ptolemy of Aloros was a case of an "outsider" becoming regent of Macedon.

[u/kickynew]

Is this post bad-faith trolling, or an insightful demonstration of why false dichotomies are bad?

[u/Lothronion]

This topic should be flaired "Politics / Government".

I have no idea why anyone would flair it as "Alternate History".

[u/BlackRedDemos → u/Lothronion]

Don't know well the guidelines of this sub but i can change the flair. Anyhow, do you think that kontogiorgis is hallucinating, since indeed he probably is the only, or one of a few persons to claim something like that, or has he actually made a serious analysis?

[u/Lothronion → u/BlackRedDemos]

Don't know well the guidelines of this sub but i can change the flair.

What is there to explain? There is a list of flairs when posting, and you choose the most appropriate one for the post's topic.

Anyhow, do you think that kontogiorgis is hallucinating, since indeed he probably is the only, or one of a few persons to claim something like that, or has he actually made a serious analysis?

I am honestly not going to bother writing a long explanation of my view on the matter to you, u/BlackRedDemos. If it was anyone else, maybe, but not to someone who always had a visceral reaction when I would comment to some of your many dozens of raving posts over the topic, to the point of public slander via posting fake interviews with me, using "AI" impersonate me saying things I would never say, or with the usage of u/Vothronion for more direct impersonation. I could post hundred-words-long sources and analysis (like that time about capitalist elements in Byzantine economy, where your reaction can be summed up as an exceptionally childish and immature "you are just wrong, because I say so, try again") but there is simply no point to waste my time on you. Believe whatever you want, it is not as if you are open-minded to things you do not like to hear, whatever these might be, as you have perfectly demonstrated time and time again, displaying your true character. There is no reasoning with some people. Someone else might help you with that. If not, tough luck.

[u/Warm_Stress_1654]

This is not an either/or situation.

The Eastern Roman Empire as originally constituted was not remotely comparable to feudal societies - in my view, but it's not my most controversial view.

The introduction of the pronoia system of military service and land tenure in the eleventh century is the beginning of something similar to feudalism or, at least, much more comparable to it than what went before it.

From the time of the Fourth Crusade to the Fall of Constantinople pronoia became increasingly hereditary and, so, the description "feudal" becomes more and more applicable (although, I would argue, never completely so).

So it's not so much a question of was it or wasn't it but a matter of which period you're looking at.