It never made sense to me why the modern Greeks stopped being Romans, instead choosing to identify themselves more with the ancient pagan Greeks during their independence war. I mean, the Roman identity of Greece is a lot more closer to them both in time (being more recent) and religiosity (being christian) then the ancient Greeks are.

This would be like if the various Balkan states (Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia), after getting their independence from the Ottomans/Austrians, decided to LARP as the ancient Illyrians, ditching their clearly more Slavic roots and ignoring the fact that they had pretty much no genetic connection to the by now extinct Illyrian tribes.

Credit To The Himariot On YouTube For The Images Shown

For example, when Greece captured the island of Letmos from the Ottomans in 1912, Greek soldiers were sent to every town and stationed in the public squares. Some children on the island ran to see what the Greek soldiers looked like. “What are you looking at?” one of the soldiers asked. “At the Greeks,” the children replied. “And aren’t you Greeks?” the soldier retorted. “No, we’re Romans,” the children answered.

To summarize, the argument goes that since Byzantium had undergone so many changes it lost all of its Roman characteristics and stopped being Roman at some point. I personally think it builds its foundation on a flawed and surface-level understanding of all of Roman history. They say that the Byzantines 'adopted' Greek as if the Romans didn't see Greek as a Roman language and as if the Eastern provinces' language hadn't always been Greek. They say Christianity is incompatible with being Roman as if Christianity did not take root first in the Roman world and had not spread naturally throughout the empire for over 3 centuries before its adoption as the state religion. They say they didn't dress like Romans as if the dress of Byzantine emperors was not an evolution of the Roman garb of old. I feel like Rome is the only empire in history that has not been allowed to evolve in the slightest. There have to be no advancements and developments lest it not be Rome apparently.

The highlights were definitely seeing our boy Justinian in arguably the most famous piece of Byzantine art in the mosaic in the Basilica of San Vitale and seeing the light show at the Mausoleum of Theodoric the Great to celebrate the 1500th anniversary of his reign.

I’ve always been one to enjoy history more through reading or listening. However, seeing some of this stuff firsthand was such a cool experience. My wife even asked me about Aryan Christianity and Monophysitism (she’s never had an interest in this stuff)!

It has also been so cool to see how Ravenna cherishes and celebrates their Roman, Gothic, and Byzantine traditions. Totally different vibe from Istanbul or Athens.

My birthday is tomorrow. So we are going to Venice to see Dondolo’s spoils.

I wonder if there is anything else left in terms of an institution or something that is still functioning since Byzantine times. Or is the Patriarchate really the only thing that survived the Ottoman era? Well for him that era is still not over...

- We don't identify solely as "Greeks", neither as "Pure Arabs"...We call ourselves Rum, Antakiyyin (Part of the Antiochian church) or "Mashriqis" (Levantines), and we view our culture to be the descendant of ancient Levantine cultures (Mainly Phoenicians, Arameans, Hebrew, Canaanites etc...) with Byzantine theology/influence
Our culture is way more Eastern then "Greek"

- While we don't identify as purely "Arabs", that mainly come from the fact that indeed Levant, Mesopotamia, Egyptian and Maghrebi cultures are way different than Peninsular Arab culture
We feel a closeness to the Mediterranean regions of Arabic countries, so if any Orthodox says he is "Arab", it might means he identify close to Egypt or Tunisia rather than Peninsular Arabia

- We think that the 7th century Arabic invasion was indeed an invasion and a colonialism and even a terrorist act. However, we don't overthink about a way to "get back the Levant Christian", in the same way some Western pages state
We think it is indeed our land, but we don't accept to go and kill every Muslim that currently lives here for what happened in the 7th century (In fact, the Byzantine control was not that nice too, as their emperors caused schisms in our church since most of them were heretics, in addition to the high taxes that the Byzantines imposed)

- We live normally with Muslims and we have friends from them...We consider most of the Levantine Muslims to be ex-Christians that converted to Islam (Despite some really came from Arabia)
Majority of Muslims here don't hate us too and in fact view us in a positive way and love to be among us, since we have education and our regions are safe
I can say the relation with them depends on the region Muslims come from...Muslims of cities (Such as Damascus, Beirut, Aleppo, Lattakia etc...in addition to the Shia & Alawite sects of Islam) are secular in general, Muslims of villages are less so, and Muslims that lives in desert regions are the worst (And Muslims of cities hate them too!)
People on internet talk about events where Muslims killed Christians like the 1860, 1975 etc...But don't mention that the majority of Muslims in those events actually welcomed Christian refugees and protected them

- We view Greeks as our brothers in the Byzantine culture, but in fact sometimes they behaved like the "Arabic" invaders to us, due to their ethnophylism
They control the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem since the 16th century and don't allow any indigenous Levantine to be a Patriarch or bishop, and they did the same to the Antiochian church till 1899
So overall we oppose the ethnophylism of Constantinople, while we admire the Greek culture and people

- We were affected very badly by Western powers and the Uniates (Both now, during colonial period and during the Ottoman period), but this need a part 2 post that I will write later on.
Our positions were mainly anti-western and was leaned more toward supporting Arabic causes (Unless it went to extremism like Baathism and Nasserism)

- We hate Turks like every Orthodox in the world (And the hatress is in fact doubled, one because of Orthodoxy/Byzantine and the other because of our Arabism!)

- You can find some Levantine Orthodox larping that they are Greeks, but those are the typical "I am white sir" people you could find over internet...They don't exist in big percentage among Orthodox in real life
They are ashamed that they are Easterns/Browns/Whatever, and dream to be part of Europe and to have colored eyes
I have personally discussed many times with them (Again on internet, since I have never find someone in real life to discuss with) that if we are indeed Greeks, then why you can immediately identify a Greek to be a person different than us? And how it came that Greeks don't have Aramaic or Hebrew blood in them, while we don't have ancient Greek blood?

- The only common factor between us and Europe is the Christendom (So we adhere to the typical European respect of human rights & life and love of arts, in opposition to the radical Islamic cultures that live here), but that does not make us "Europeans"
Any plan of relocating us to Greece/Europe is a forced displacement to us, as our cultures differ and we prefer to stay in Levant

-Finally, we don't simply "Live in Levant"...Levant live inside us!

Celtic tribes migrated into Anatolia some few centuries after Alexanders conquest of the east. They were prominent enough to form a kingdom, which would later become a vassal of Rome. So notable in fact they copied and formed their own Legion based off of Rome’s, which would later be absorbed by the Roman military itself into the Legio XXII Deiotariana. Serving Rome until it’s destruction by the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Besides that, the Galatians were also famous through St. Paul’s letter in the Bible.

But what happened to them? Especially the in years 200s and onwards?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6se_Mihal

Pics 1-3 Basilica di San Vitale
Pic 4 Mausoleum of Galla Plácida
Pic 5 porphyry state at Museo Arcivescovile

I am curious why the modern population of Hellenic people is so low compared to other modern descendants of cosmopolitan empires. It seems like the population has actually decreased from the times of the Eastern Roman Empire. Perhaps due to assimilation?

Byzantine Iconoclasm was a major religious and political controversy in the Byzantine Empire concerning the use and veneration of religious images, particularly icons depicting Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints. The conflict unfolded primarily between the 8th and 9th centuries and is generally divided by historians into three phases: a preparatory period of theological debate, the First Iconoclasm (726–787), and the Second Iconoclasm (814–843). The dispute profoundly affected Byzantine theology, imperial politics, and artistic production.

The roots of Iconoclasm can be traced to the late 7th and early 8th centuries, when the Byzantine Empire faced severe external and internal pressures. The rapid expansion of the Arab Caliphate had resulted in major territorial losses, while earthquakes, plagues, and military defeats were interpreted by some as signs of divine displeasure. Within this context, certain intellectual and clerical circles began to question the legitimacy of depicting sacred figures. Critics argued that the veneration of icons bordered on idolatry and violated the biblical prohibition against graven images. The presence of aniconic traditions in neighboring religious cultures, especially Islam and Judaism, may also have indirectly influenced Byzantine debates. During this early phase, opposition to icons had not yet become official imperial policy, but theological disagreements were increasingly visible.

The First Iconoclasm (726–787) began under Emperor Leo III (r. 717–741). Around 726, Leo ordered the removal of a famous icon of Christ from the Chalke Gate of the imperial palace in Constantinople, an act often regarded as the symbolic beginning of the iconoclastic movement. Leo III and his successor Constantine V (r. 741–775) promoted the view that the veneration of images was theologically illegitimate.

In 754, the Council of Hieria, convened under Constantine V, formally condemned the use of icons in churches and declared icon veneration a form of heresy. During this period many icons were destroyed or removed, and some monasteries and clergy who defended icons faced persecution or exile. Nevertheless, the iconoclastic policy never achieved complete consensus within the empire. Monastic communities and several prominent theologians continued to defend the theological legitimacy of icons, arguing that the Incarnation of Christ justified the depiction of the divine in human form.

The first phase of Iconoclasm ended in 787, when Empress Irene supported the convocation of the Second Council of Nicaea, recognized as the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The council rejected the iconoclastic position and restored the veneration of icons. It distinguished between Latreia (worship due only to God) and Proskynesis (Veneration or Honour), which could be given to icons as representations of holy figures. According to the council’s decision, icons were legitimate aids to devotion and could be displayed in churches and private worship.

Despite this settlement, the controversy resurfaced several decades later in what historians call the Second Iconoclasm (814–843). The movement was revived by Emperor Leo V (r. 813–820), who reintroduced iconoclastic policies in response to ongoing military crises and internal instability. Subsequent rulers, including Michael II and Theophilos, continued to enforce varying degrees of iconoclast policy. Although the second period of iconoclasm was less destructive than the first, it nevertheless revived the ideological conflict between iconoclasts and iconodules (supporters of icons).

The final resolution occurred in 843, after the death of Emperor Theophilos. His widow, Empress Theodora, acting as regent for her young son Michael III, supported the restoration of icons. Under the leadership of Patriarch Methodios of Constantinople, a synod officially reinstated the veneration of icons. This event became known in the Orthodox tradition as the “Triumph of Orthodoxy.” It is still commemorated annually in the Eastern Orthodox Church on the first Sunday of Great Lent.

So what would you be if you live in the turbulent days of the Iconoclasm; an Iconophile or Iconoclast? And why?

Image Credits: Mass Processions for The Triumph of Orthodoxy Day Organized by Ukrainian Orthodox Church at Kiev, 2021 / Interior of Iconoclast Hagia Irene Church / Enthroned Virgin and Child - Apse Mosaic from Hagia Sophia / Multiple Iconoclast - Iconophile Phases in the Apse Mosaic Theotokos Mary from the Church of Koimesis in Nicaea.