There was a question the other day that asked "What names did the Byzantines call other realms or former imperial provinces under barbarians?" Unfortunately the user deleted their account and the question as I was in the middle of posting my answer, so I'll post it here again.

It's a very good question because the answer gives us some insight into how the Byzantine Empire, which was really the Eastern Roman Empire, viewed the former territories of the empire as well as their new medieval neighbours. In general, the medieval Byzantines used the familiar names we know from classical Latin and Greek. Greek was always the everyday spoken language in the eastern half of the empire, and Greek replaced Latin as the administrative and legal language in the 6th century, but Latin terminology was still used in the Middle Ages too (along with new Greek terms, or Latin terms translated into Greek). So, for places that were known in the ancient world and already had Greek/Latin names, the names they used in the Middle Ages were usually still the same (Italy, Persia, Egypt). For new peoples and places that weren’t around in the ancient empire, the Byzantines either used whatever names those people called themselves and their territories (e.g., France, Germany, Hungary), or they used ancient names, even if those names were no longer accurate (e.g., Iberia, Scythia, Dacia).

I'm sure we could find examples in numerous other places, but here I've used three well-known authors who happen to be easily available in English translation - the De Adminstrando Imperio by Constantine Porphyrogenitos, the Alexiad by Anna Komnene, and the chronicle of Niketas Choniates.

Constantine Porphyrogenitos (the emperor Constantine VII) wrote a sort of gazetteer of the empire’s neighbours, and how the empire should deal with them in military and diplomatic terms. He was writing in the 10th century so the work has a strange title, “On Administering the Empire” in Latin. But why Latin? Well that’s just what the modern printers called it since it doesn’t really have a title in Greek (it’s simply addressed to his son, the future emperor Romanos II). Constantine was sometimes using older geographical works from the 8th and 9th centuries (there are some big sections taken directly from Theophanes the Confessor), and sometimes those works use even older works as sources, so sometimes the terminology doesn’t quite match what the people he’s describing would have really called themselves in the 10th century.

But Constantine uses names that are pretty familiar to us today. Spain, for example, is called Iberia or Hispania. This Iberia shouldn’t be confused with the other Iberia in the Caucasus, which is also an archaic term - at the time Caucasian Iberia was inhabited by Armenians and Georgians. The whole peninsula of Italy was still known as Italia, but it was also called Lombardy (Lagoubardia). The actual city of Rome (Roma) was still well-known. Constantine also refers to the Franks and Germans who live in Francia and Germania; he also knows about the king of France Hugh Capet. in the parts quotes from Theophanes the Confessor he mentions the ancient names of Britain (Brettania) and Gaul (Gallia), but 10th-century Byzantines probably didn’t know much (if anything) about Britain/England or Ireland.

Other neighbours of the empire included Dalmatia (Delmatia), Moravia, Bulgaria (Boulgaria), Armenia, Serbia, Croatia, Russia (Rhosia, which was ruled by the Scandinavian “Rhos” or Rus). He uses some ancient names for places further away - Syria, Palestine (Palaistina), Egypt (Aigyptos), Africa (Aphrika), and Persia, although those places were ruled by various Muslim dynasties at the time. He was aware of Muhammad and his family (Ali and Fatima) and the basics of the Sunni/Shia split.

There were also “Scythians” and “Turks” (Tourkoi) - Scythians could refer to any nomadic people who came from anywhere in the east, wherever the ancient Scythians lived (or were believed to have lived. “Turks” could also be Magyars or what we would call Hungarians, nomads living in ancient Pannonia. There was no name for “Hungary” yet. “Turks” later came to mean the Seljuks and other central Asian nomads who settled in Byzantine Anatolia, but they hadn't arrived yet in the 10th century.

A couple of hundred years later in the 12th century, the borders of the empire looked a bit different, and the Byzantines were at least more aware of the Latin Christian states to the west, thanks to the arrival of a constant stream of crusaders. Anna Komnene, the daughter of emperor Alexios I, was very interested in the empire’s neighbours to the west. But she was also very interested in showing off her classical education and her knowledge of literature like Herodotus and Homer, so she uses a lot of archaic terminology. She knew Germany and the Germans, France and the Franks, but they were also called “Celts” (Keltoi) because the ancient Celts had lived there. In Spain there were, of course, Iberian Celts (Keltiberoi). She knew Italy and Lombardy - Lombardy now referred mostly to northern Italy, since the south had now been conquered by Normans. She probably didn’t know the Normans ultimately came from Scandinavia (or that they had also conquered England) but she knew they were the people who ruled Sicily and southern Italy. The Normans were one of Alexios’ greatest enemies and Anna was sure that the crusade was simply an excuse for them to invade the empire.

Further away there was “island of Thule”, which might refer to Britain and Ireland, or Scandinavia (which they also thought was an island) or anything in the north in general. By this point, after the Norman conquest of England, there were English refugees living in Constantinople. The rulers of Russia were also descended from Scandinavians from Thule. And as always, anyone from very far away, not just from Central Asia but from Scandinavia too, could be called “Scythians”. The Varangian Guard, the emperor’s bodyguards who were at this point mostly Scandinavians, Russians, or English, were often still called Scythians.

Western Europeans also start to be grouped together as “Latins” rather than disconnected individual peoples and countries:

“…before the twelfth century, the Byzantines saw the West as composed of separate territories and distinct peoples (Italians, Spaniards, Germanic tribes, and so on), while the concept of Latin language entered Greek literature of the late tenth century in a specific area, South Italy. By the twelfth century, the notion of Latin peoples (and of Latin habits) was firmly established: wrongly or rightly, Byzantine intellectuals began to consider the West as a unified entity.” (Kazhdan, pg. 86)

Another hundred years later, Byzantines fears had been realized and this united group of Latins had conquered Constantinople and destroyed the empire. Niketas Choniates, writing in the 13th century, typically uses more practical terminology based on actual contemporary usage, rather than showing off his classical knowledge like Anna did. He knows Italy, France, Germany, Sicily, England, Palestine, Egypt, Serbia, Wallachia, Bulgaria, etc. Hungary is now a distinct kingdom, separate from the Turks; "Turks" now refers exclusively to the Seljuks living in Anatolia. But he’s not immune to mentioning “Scythians” or “Persians” either, when he really means Russians or Turks.

Despite gradually learning over the centuries about the political realities of former parts of the empire, for the Byzantines the empire was always simply the Roman Empire, the Basileia Rhomaion. From Britain to Egypt, other lands may have been lost, but conceivably they might one day get all those territories back and restore the old borders of the empire. Today we tend to see the Byzantine Empire as something distinct from Rome, but the Byzantines definitely didn't see it that way.

So, ideologically, their empire was the only empire, and there couldn’t be any competing ones. When the Holy Roman Empire emerged as another claimant to be the true empire, the Byzantines typically didn’t recognize the claim at all. The Holy Roman Emperor and other western Latin rulers at least admitted the Byzantine Empire was an empire and ruled by an emperor, but he was the “emperor of Constantinople” or the “Greek emperor”, terms that the Byzantine emperor considered insulting. And he likewise insulted the west by by calling the HRE the “king of Germany” (not even the “German emperor”).

They still used Latin-derived terms for other political leaders too (rex, prinkeps, doux, komes), and a new Latin-derived Greek term was invented to describe western kingdoms and empires - “regaton”, the equivalent of a Latin “regnum”. Modern Greek tends to use “basileia” and “basileos” to describe medieval European kings and kingdoms, but that was definitely not the medieval Greek usage.

So in brief, the answer is that they used ancient names when they were trying to show off their education and knowledge of ancient literature, and they used contemporary names when they learned about them from their neighbours, and sometimes they used both at the same time.

The Story of Local Veterans

Since January I have taken a keen interest in both the American Expeditionary Force during the First World War and the people from my hometown who ended up either enlisting or being drafted (in most cases, drafted) into the military during the war. This is a story primarily of research and of some of these men.

I have two groups of veterans related to my hometown, the first are those who were born or living here during and before the First World War. The second group comprises veterans who moved here after the war. While technically they may not have been from my hometown, they do end up contributing to the history and fabric of where I’m from, so they get counted as a part of that group. How did I go about determining who belongs in each group?

The first group was deceptively simple. First, I took note of all the names on my town’s two monuments dedicated to the First World War. The original monument, from 1921, lists 24 names. The second monument is from the 1990s and is the same list, except for two additions. So with the monuments I can account for 26 veterans. I didn’t stop there, however, and cross-referenced those twenty-six with my state’s published list of First World War veterans (published in the late 30s/early 40s, and organized by town). This is where things start to get interesting, as there are only 23 names listed. However, the monuments list thirteen people who are not in the state roster of veterans for my hometown. So, in this first group there are a grand total of 36 veterans of the First World War. Additionally, my home state sent questionnaires out after the war to veterans about their military experience. I cross check both of my lists with these questionnaires as if they filled it out it is possible to not only learn something specific about their service, but also to see a photograph or two of them. The state encouraged veterans to include photographs when returning the questionnaires. I’m happy to report that of the veterans from my hometown who filled out the questionnaire, many of them did actually include photographs. This has greatly helped in identifying individuals in group pictures from the early 1920s when they’re in uniform, or even in other photographs with some of these people. Why do some of the differences between the monuments and roster exist? One of the first reasons there is a difference between them has to do with mailing addresses. This is a rural area, and in town there were a few options for mail delivery that depended on where you lived. Part of the town had a Rural Free Delivery system, and these individuals are listed as living in my hometown. But those not necessarily from the town “center” (as much of one as there is) picked up their mail from the post office in neighboring towns or villages. That accounts for a number of the differences, but not all of them.

At this point, there are still nine veterans listed in the roster for my hometown but aren’t on either monument. Three of those individuals were actually “claimed” by another town (per the roster). So that leaves us with six. One of these six had been discharged from training camp for being underaged. The rest aren’t claimed by other towns. I can’t say why these men weren’t listed on the monuments, except for one. First I’ll discuss the two additions to the 1990s monument (these two names were in the state roster).

The 1990s monument added the name of the sole individual from my hometown who was killed in action. That’s right, in 1921 they neglected to put his name on a monument. He was a Polish immigrant and was killed during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, and has known grave in the American Meuse-Argonne Cemetery. When first doing this research, I thought perhaps he was excluded, as awful as it was, because of his ethnicity or religion (he listed Catholicism in his forms, my hometown is mainly Congregationalist). Neither of those theories stood as other immigrants were listed on the monument as well as other Catholics. For example, a German immigrant is listed on the monument and while drafted, the war ended while he was in training camp. There are even other Polish Catholics listed. I think his omission may have been administrative, as his next of kin lived in New York, and he was erroneously added to a New York registry of those killed, even though he listed his address as being my hometown. It’s strange that his neighbors would have essentially forgotten him, but at the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised.

The other individual added to the 1990s monument was also a Polish immigrant and he died while still in the army in 1920s of disease. He had actually enlisted in the military in 1915 and seemed to be making a career out of it as a Supply Sergeant in the Coastal Artillery Corps. I have no idea why he wasn’t included, while he didn’t serve overseas during the war, many of the people on the 1921 monument did not. So again, it’s a bit of a mystery.

Out of the remaining omissions on the newer monument, there is only one man I can say for certain why he was excluded. This man was Black and was born in a neighboring town, he was living and working in my hometown as a farmhand. According to his draft card, he could not write. He was drafted in early 1918 and assigned to the 367th Infantry Regiment, 184th Infantry Brigade, 92nd Division. The 92nd Division was one of only two African American combat divisions during the First World War. The other was the (more famous) 93rd Division who fought under the French flag. The 92nd Division actually fought under the American flag. It had a contingent of African American officers, who were part of the only graduating class from a Des Moines officer training school for African Americans. However, they were limited in their advancement and the unit was ultimately commanded by white Americans who tended to judge the 92nd Division through their ever-present racial prejudices.

The man from my hometown who was in the 367th was “Slightly Wounded in Action” only days after they began their first tour in the trenches and were learning the ropes from the French. Local newspapers and the state roster both state he was “slightly wounded”, but what this actually means is unclear and it was distinctly severe enough to state in both newspapers and the state roster. He ended up serving through the rest of the war, and sadly when he came home was the victim of police brutality. He disappears from local records after about 1921, although this is partly because the major local newspaper doesn’t actually have digitized papers for after that year so I haven’t had a chance yet to see their microfilm. He in the 1930s, when he was in his early 40s.

His absence is inexcusable and I have been working to have his named added to the 1990s monument. Clearly the people who put together the 1990s monument looked at the state roster for veterans as they located those two names of people who are listed in that source, yet neglected to add this man. It’s an absolute shame.

Out of the names on the state roster, 11 saw some kind of foreign service (one of whom was in the Philippine Scouts and stationed there). 12 did not. Only four of the foreign service veterans were actually born in my hometown, the rest were either immigrants or from other parts of the state. Interestingly enough, only four of the men who did not see foreign service were also born in my hometown, the rest were also born in either different parts of the state or were immigrants. This to me suggests a decent amount of movement in the state for work purposes, at least in the agricultural sector.