> That's fair enough too. By the way, which date or period would you > consider as marking the beginning of the Byzantine empire?
Well, I guess it depends on how you define what the Byzantine Empire is. As I mentioned in the previous post, even despite the fact that the Empire's language, customs, culture, and attitutes were decisively Greek in nature, the people still thought of themselves as being Romans. I think this is because of the transformation of the meaning "Roman" during the Late Imperial period, and why authority in the West collapsed in the middle to latter 5th C. It was no longer sufficient to withdraw and shorten borders; everyone was Roman then. But if I were to date it, it would certainly be after the reign of Justinian, probably sometime in the 7th C (perhaps at the end of Emp. Heraclius?). Nice review BTW. I also liked the one on the Late Roman Empire. I've been looking around for such a book... > Speaking of Annales, I recently read Braudel's _The Mediterranean in the > Ancient World_, which I thought was quite brilliant (especially those > parts on the most ancient civilisations of the Mediterranean). It's > pleasantly concise too (it is only its length that has so far > discouraged me from reading his _Civilization and Capitalism_, which > was recommended by Brad amongst others). Huh. I'll have to dig out my lecture notes on Braudel. If you're interested in this school, there's a nice book on it called _The French Historical Revolution: The Annales School 1929-89_ by Peter Burke. Damon. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
