PDA

View Full Version : The Mind of the Byzantine Peasant



Donnadogsoth
2012-11-01, 05:52 PM
Dear All,

I'm about to run a game set in a fantasy realm with loosely Byzantine overtones. Crescentium is the main enemy, the king is named Theodosius, and I'm wondering what a Byzantine peasant's mind would be like.

One example is floaters. I've decided floaters would be viewed as visions, fairies and the like, though in more suspicious times and climes they would be studiously unremarked upon by anyone.

I'm not sure if there would be any difference between a Byzantine and a Medieval peasant, and I'm not fussy so long as I have a better grasp how any such people might think and feel.

Any ideas?

Donnadogsoth

nedz
2012-11-01, 08:51 PM
Any particular period ? The Byzantine empire was around for quite a while.
Any particular region ? The Byzantine empire was quite large and diverse.

The Glyphstone
2012-11-01, 10:45 PM
Are you sure you'll be able to understand it? I'm told that the peasants of that era thought in a very byzantine fashion.

Blightedmarsh
2012-11-02, 03:29 AM
The Byzantines where a very clean people, we in the west derided them for that as womanly. It was only later when we began to adopt cleanliness as a good thing that we invented the idea that they where convoluted and backstabbing.

They saw themselves as Roman, inheritors of the ancient and powerful Roman legacy.

Analytica
2012-11-02, 05:10 AM
They saw themselves as Roman, inheritors of the ancient and powerful Roman legacy.

This, I think. Compare with Roman peasants, and also presumably ancient Greeks and Persians.

Donnadogsoth
2012-11-02, 12:05 PM
Any particular period ? The Byzantine empire was around for quite a while.
Any particular region ? The Byzantine empire was quite large and diverse.

Dear nedz,

Well, around or before the Middle Ages, and somewhat removed from Constantinople, say to the North, just before the barbarians are encountered.

Donnadogsoth

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-11-02, 12:07 PM
Are you sure you'll be able to understand it? I'm told that the peasants of that era thought in a very byzantine fashion.
You don't have to be so byzantine about the issue, you know.

nedz
2012-11-02, 01:51 PM
Thrace or Anatolia ?

Donnadogsoth
2012-11-02, 06:55 PM
Thrace, say.

Donnadogsoth

nedz
2012-11-02, 09:42 PM
OK - I'll try.

Around the Black Sea coast you have lots of Greek colonies dating from antiquity. Inland you have several Germanic tribes which moved around quite a bit. In late antiquity these were shoved around by the Huns, and later displaced by the Slavs. By the 6th Century the Slavs had colonised the lower Danube basin.
During the 9th Century, the Magyar arrived and pushed the Slavs south into Thrace, basically what is Bulgaria today.
The southern Balkan peninsula is pretty much Greek throughout this period, but they had extended further north in antiquity, well until the Slavs displaced them.

So we have several groups here, which one are you interested in ?
They all had different cultures.

Tvtyrant
2012-11-02, 09:48 PM
Inland Anatolia had a group called the Isaurians. They were famous for being mountain bandits and living outside of Byzantine rule.

Between Heraclius and Basil the Bulgar Slayer every male peasant was drafted into a militia, which were run by the local military government (called Thema or Themes.) Before Heraclius the military was heavily dependent on mercenaries, and again during and after Basil, so keep the militia draft in mind.

nedz
2012-11-03, 05:01 AM
I'm aware of the Themes, but I didn't think they extended to the Balkans.

Arcanist
2012-11-03, 10:02 AM
Are you sure you'll be able to understand it? I'm told that the peasants of that era thought in a very byzantine fashion.

HAHA! It took me two days to actually get that joke... :smallbiggrin:

Donnadogsoth
2012-11-03, 04:43 PM
OK - I'll try.

Around the Black Sea coast you have lots of Greek colonies dating from antiquity. Inland you have several Germanic tribes which moved around quite a bit. In late antiquity these were shoved around by the Huns, and later displaced by the Slavs. By the 6th Century the Slavs had colonised the lower Danube basin.
During the 9th Century, the Magyar arrived and pushed the Slavs south into Thrace, basically what is Bulgaria today.
The southern Balkan peninsula is pretty much Greek throughout this period, but they had extended further north in antiquity, well until the Slavs displaced them.

So we have several groups here, which one are you interested in ?
They all had different cultures.

Dear nedz,

How about the Slavs, in the 9th century, after they've been inducted into the empire?--people who are farmers and not constantly at war.

Donnadogsoth

Tvtyrant
2012-11-03, 04:58 PM
I'm aware of the Themes, but I didn't think they extended to the Balkans.

I am reasonably sure they had lost most of the Balkans by the time Heraclius invented the Themes. The Avars controlled Thrace during that period, and were only eliminated by the movement of the Bulgars (who ended up owning most of Greece as well as Macedonia and modern day Bulgaria) into the region. This was only reclaimed by the aforementioned Basil II, who conquered the Bulgars but reprofressionalized the military to do it.

So I think they did, but only to a small area as they did not then own the region.

nedz
2012-11-03, 05:27 PM
Yes, the 9th century is the time of the 1st Bulgar empire.
This was smashed in the early 10th century.
Almost continual warfare with Byzantium.

Culturally there are lots of Roman ruins, cities even. Not so much Byzantine stuff, though obviously they are related.

Adoption of Christianity in 864, of the orthodox variety so lots of Icons.
Lots of new churches and monasteries were built in this period.
Invention of the Cyrillic Alphabet in the early 11th century.

As to what the peasants thought about this though is hard to say. They, being regarded as unimportant, were usually ignored. But the new religion, and the assimilation/destruction of the previous population and the creation of a new nation must have been important.

Donnadogsoth
2012-11-03, 08:13 PM
Thank you, nedz,

How do you suppose they would have thought differently from us? The better I understood that, the less videogamey my game would feel, methinks.

Donnadogsoth

nedz
2012-11-03, 09:46 PM
Well there was no science, knowledge was all about an appeal to authority.
Even the intellectuals were rationalists rather than empiricists. Authority for them would be Aristotle etc.
There wasn't all that much education either, certainly not for peasants. So literacy and numeracy were low.
Practical knowledge about plants, animals and weather etc. would probably be quite high though since that was stuff they encountered every day. They would also be attuned to the seasons more.
Explanations for unusual phenomena would be religious, and probably a mix of the old religion and the new. I'm not sure what the old religion of the Slavs was, but these things take a long while to change.
Life expectancy was low, but that was mainly due to infant mortality. There was probably the sense that the afterlife was more important than the real, so life could be quite cheap.

The Glyphstone
2012-11-03, 09:51 PM
They would be very unlikely to have the pro-advancement, be-all-you-can-be mentality that comes with a modern first-world society as well. There might have been mobility within a social class, but peasants were peasants, artisans were artisans, nobility was nobility, and you were happy with what you got.

nedz
2012-11-04, 01:11 AM
They would be very unlikely to have the pro-advancement, be-all-you-can-be mentality that comes with a modern first-world society as well. There might have been mobility within a social class, but peasants were peasants, artisans were artisans, nobility was nobility, and you were happy with what you got.

A place for everyone, and everyone in his place.

Well probably true in the Byzantine empire, but the 1st Bulgar Empire is more of an unknown quantity I suspect. New states tend to be more dynamic.

The late Roman empire is where we see the emergence of serfs due apparently to tax reasons. Taxes were raised on land, in part based upon how many people lived on a given estate. People tended to move around a lot, which complicated the tax collecting; the solution: ban them from moving. Byzantium would have inherited that.

ProudGrognard
2012-11-07, 02:26 PM
Well there was no science, knowledge was all about an appeal to authority.
Even the intellectuals were rationalists rather than empiricists. Authority for them would be Aristotle etc.
There wasn't all that much education either, certainly not for peasants. So literacy and numeracy were low.
Practical knowledge about plants, animals and weather etc. would probably be quite high though since that was stuff they encountered every day. They would also be attuned to the seasons more.
Explanations for unusual phenomena would be religious, and probably a mix of the old religion and the new. I'm not sure what the old religion of the Slavs was, but these things take a long while to change.
Life expectancy was low, but that was mainly due to infant mortality. There was probably the sense that the afterlife was more important than the real, so life could be quite cheap.

Actually, this view of Byzantium is probably the result of lack of scholarship on the subject. No one has studied what Byzantines did with 'let's call it natural philosophy', so the distorted early 20th century history view of 'nothing happened there' was adopted as a substitute. The fact is that Constantinople had several Great Schools quite early and that their philosophical understanding was quite advanced. And nobles were known to best archbishops in theology. Last but not least, Aristotelian studies in mainstream Europe really started when Byzantine scholars left Constantinople after its sacking in 1204. And let's not forget that Liquid Fire had to come from some 'scientific' tradition.

All this was just to say that you can have advanced institutions of learning in
a Byzantine setting. And that religion played a big part and schisms within the faith were very important. And that different theologies brought different cosmologies. Perhaps different use of magic in game slang?

Nice idea Donnadogsoth!

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-11-07, 02:30 PM
Yeah, the "authoritarianism" of classical philosophy was really more a sense of tradition and recognizing solid thinkers. You saw a lot of divergence amongst the great minds, and there were all sorts of wild schools of thought.

It wasn't because they were seen as all-knowing, but because they had a reputation for being solid.

nedz
2012-11-07, 04:34 PM
Actually, this view of Byzantium is probably the result of lack of scholarship on the subject. No one has studied what Byzantines did with 'let's call it natural philosophy', so the distorted early 20th century history view of 'nothing happened there' was adopted as a substitute. The fact is that Constantinople had several Great Schools quite early and that their philosophical understanding was quite advanced. And nobles were known to best archbishops in theology. Last but not least, Aristotelian studies in mainstream Europe really started when Byzantine scholars left Constantinople after its sacking in 1204. And let's not forget that Liquid Fire had to come from some 'scientific' tradition.

All this was just to say that you can have advanced institutions of learning in
a Byzantine setting. And that religion played a big part and schisms within the faith were very important. And that different theologies brought different cosmologies. Perhaps different use of magic in game slang?

Nice idea Donnadogsoth!

When I was in Istanbul I was struck by the large amounts of 'Roman' ruins, or even extant 'Roman' buildings, were just lying around unexcavated. There is certainly a lot of work undone. The city did appear to be Roman, then Ottoman.

Do you know what the nature of these Great schools was?
I'm sure that their study of Theology was extensive, and their icons and murals were very advanced. So schools of these almost certainly existed, but anything else ?

The naval arsenal was also well developed, which probably explains the source of the incendiary weapon.

I know that whilst the renaissance was triggered by the fall of Constantinople, the real breakthroughs came when people started to cast aside the 'old books' and investigate things for themselves.

Falconer
2012-11-08, 03:02 AM
The Byzantine Empire really was "The Roman Empire in Greece in the Middle Ages". The Empire didn't die out, it just retreated to the East. You get two things from that:

a) The Byzantines didn't call themselves Byzantines. That's a modern scholarly invention to distinguish it from the Roman Empire of Antiquity. The Byzantines were Romans; they thought of themselves as Roman, they preserved a lot of Roman institutions (there was a Byzantine Senate that existed until around the 1200's), Roman laws, etc. Chariot racing was a major national pastime. Life in the Empire was still fairly urban, while in Western Europe it was rural.

b) There was a lot of the cosmopolitanism from Rome's days that was still a part of daily life in the Eastern Empire. Egyptians and Slavs and Arabs and Turks and Greeks and even Viking traders interacted and exchanged goods and ideas in the Byzantine Empire.

c) The Great Schism. There was a lot of religious animosity/quasi-nationalism that grew out of the east-west religious divide. I once read in a book on the Byzantine Empire that a very common name for dogs in Medieval Constantinople was "Roman Pontiff".

The Byzantine commoner compared to the Medieval Western European peasant was, broadly speaking, probably more cultured, wealthier, better educated, and had more experience with different cultures and places than his counterpart.

fusilier
2012-11-09, 04:34 AM
While I haven't read it, you might want to see if you can track down a copy of: Daily Life in the Byzantine Empire.

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Empire-Greenwood-Through-History/dp/0313324379

I've read other books of the series, and it might have the detailed information you are looking for. See if you can find it in a library if you are not into buying such reference books.

Wulfram
2012-11-09, 05:09 AM
"I hate these damn taxes" - Byzantine taxes were high - and assorted generic peasanty things about farms and stuff.

Saintheart
2012-11-09, 08:52 AM
I am reasonably sure they had lost most of the Balkans by the time Heraclius invented the Themes.

I think many authors over history have invented themes where none existed before. Maybe that's what thematic interpretation is all about. *b-boom tss* :smallbiggrin:

nedz
2012-11-09, 02:58 PM
I think many authors over history have invented themes where none existed before. Maybe that's what thematic interpretation is all about. *b-boom tss* :smallbiggrin:

A common confusion: The Themes were districts of Anatolia which organised their own militias.

Saintheart
2012-11-09, 05:56 PM
I know, I was just trying to make a--

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/texplainthejoke.jpg

--Oh, never mind. :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

BootStrapTommy
2012-11-09, 08:49 PM
The Byzantines were simply the Eastern Roman Empire. They were very late in adopting feudalism, so if you want to model them the best model would be more the Roman model than the Medieval. I would assume a Byzantine peasant would have a lot more power than a Medieval. In feudalism, peasants were often not allowed to be mobile, but force to stay and work the land by lords. The Byzantines wouldn't have adopted that model until very late, thus I would assume a Byzantine peasant would have had much more freedom. In attitude they would have been much more likely to speak their mind about a lord and much more likely to be angered by an ineffective lord than a tyrannical one. So half way between the Renaissance merchant middle class and the Medieval feudal serf. Free, but poor. Vocal, but uneducated. Respected and given a voice, but still at the bottom rung of society. Basically as Roman plebeian, just with a bit less social mobility.

nedz
2012-11-09, 09:44 PM
I was under the impression that Diocletion pretty much invented Serfs in the late 3rd century ?
This didn't apply to townsfolk, but that was true throughout the feudal period.

Glaurung
2012-11-10, 01:54 AM
A few thoughts (well, semi-informed speculation--its been a while since a ready the sources that I am trying to recall so I might get some of the details wrong):

1. The legacy of Roman Law in the surviving Eastern Empire, even diluted or changed over time, COULD mean peasants who both expect and respect well articulated lines of authority while expecting that those lines of authority would behave in predictable ways. Dare I say, more lawful in outlook than serfs and free peasants in Western Europe (where Germanic sensibilities such as order should be maintained by a strong leader who rewards well his loyal men had largely replaced Roman concepts of universally applicable law).

Now, if the peasants you speak of were Slavic (and therefore recent arrivals), they might be less interested in Roman concepts of law than the apparent strength and antiquity of the older culture and the apparent power of elements of the empire that remained, such as the hierarchy of Eastern Orthodox priests.

2. Assuming you are going to look at the Bulgars, consider old Slavic thinking. A while back I skimmed a fun book about Slavic ideas of magic. It described magical thinking that merged late adapted Christianity with older traditions. Lots of it focused on how and where to bury the dead. There was outright paranoia when it came to keeping the dead from rising again. I might misremember, but burying the dead had many rules such as never bury the dead at a crossroads. how to handle bodies, and even something about salt. The point is, you could have a whole class of low-grade necromancy practiced by local priests and village elders that was designed to protect society from the vengeful spirits and bodies of the dearly departed. Not an evil, zombiepocalypse necromancy, but a studies, civilized kind.

3. The monastic movement sprang up in the Byzantine Empire. People clustered around monasteries and monks were held to be the most holy people, closest to the divine. Popular stories included monks standing up to and advising emperors. While Emperor Diocletian had given early Christians the opportunity literally to sacrifice themselves (whether they liked it or not), showing their dedication to their religion and deity, his successor Constantine had made actual martyrdom unlikely for most Christians in the empire when he appointed their bishops to be the highest local state officials. After Constantine (and for two milenia now...still going) Christians, and early monks specifically, found ways to be martyrs through the perception of individual sacrifice and living by strict rules, which to common folk seemed to give the monks great power by bringing them closer to the divine. Aristotle did not inform the thinking and theology as much as neo-Platonic ideas did (body is bad--go ahead, sacrifice it and connect with the perfect, divine spark within you). Furthermore, monasteries and monks existed in their origins outside of the established state-church hierarchy managed by the emperor. I could see a Eastern Roman peasant and even more so a newly arrived Slavic peasant living in the fading grandeur of Roman Thrace being quite taken with local monks.

Ashtagon
2012-11-12, 07:56 AM
I'm aware of the Themes, but I didn't think they extended to the Balkans.

They were a common theme across the Byzantine empire.

Donnadogsoth
2013-01-17, 08:15 PM
Sorry for the late reply: Thanks, everyone for the ideas. I especially like Glaurung's about death paranoia magic.

Donnadogsoth