Categories
books

The legacy of the Colonels

Book Review

The Greek Connection The Life of Elias Demetracopoulos And the Untold Story of Watergate by James H. Barron

Melville House 2020

Just as one has come to believe that the story of the Greek military dictatorship(s) from 1967 to 1974 has been fully told, a new account of that era has been put fourth that focuses on the heroic activities of journalist Elias Demetracopoulos. This is a very good book that tells a very important story and serves to remind Greeks of the way in which Greece has been mistreated by the great powers. This book is not only a fine work of history but an important contribution to the historical understanding of the nature of Greek politics and the politics and diplomacy of the American foreign policy establishment.

The release of this book comes at a time when political extremism veers toward the left wing of the political spectrum. This book is an important reminder of the time in both Greece and America when extremism veered toward the right wing. The story of Mr. Demetracopoulos is told and it is a very heroic one.

Elias Demetracopoulos was a boy in Nazi occupied Greece who resisted the Germans and was imprisoned. He became a very successful and prominent journalist in Greece who clashed with several American ambassadors. This was the period in history when the American government interfered in Greek internal affairs (and still does to a certain extent).

Elias Demetracopoulos established contacts not only in Greece but in the United States in which he took refuge following the imposition of the military dictatorship on Greece in April 1967. What is truly amazing is the slander that was directed against this moderate opponent of the Papadopoulos dictatorship. This journalist was moderate in his politics and was opposed to communism as well as the neo-fascism of the Colonels.

In America he established contacts with many prominent journalists, politicians, and military officials. Many of these individuals were staunch conservatives. This included the late Robert Novak and the late Rowland Evans. This biography of Elias Dematracopoulos is an affirmation that the Coup of 1967 was not about preventing the imposition of communist totalitarianism on Greece, but on eradicating the sovereignty and independence of Greece and eradicating Greek democracy.

This book recounts what has been previously documented regarding dictator George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos was a Nazi collaborator during the Second World War who served in the security battalions under the collaborationist government. Furthermore, as a working journalist in Athens Dematracopoulos infuriated Greek Prime Minister Constantine Karamanlis for revealing that America had installed nuclear weapons in Greece.

Dematracopoulos informed the Greek people about nuclear weapons in their country and the prospective consequences in the event of a confrontation with the Soviet Union in which Greece would have played a prominent offensive role and would have served as a prime target for Moscow. This revelation was a serious wake up call considering present day efforts of American officials in Athens such as Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt to promote conflict between Greece and present day Russia. Many things in the relationship between Greece and the United States have changed for the better and some things have not changed.

The most significant change from the era recounted in the book is that democracy in Greece has been for most part irreversible. There are two events in the past decade or so in which Greek democracy has been challenged. The first incident occurred in 2008 when the Government of Prime Minister Constantine Karamanlis (the nephew and namesake of the aforementioned Prime Minister) came under pressure to resign in the aftermath of an effort to establish an oil pipeline agreement with Russia and Bulgaria. Incidents such as these along with the collusion of the Simitis government in 1999 which surrendered Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan to the Turks indicate that the restoration of Greek sovereignty in the post dictatorship era has not been one hundred percent successful.

A second challenge to Greek democracy came from the rise of Golden Dawn in the elections of 2012. The legacy of the Greek dictatorship can be judged by its present day sympathizers. Only Golden Dawn expresses admiration for the Papadopoulos regime. Golden Dawn is a Neo-Nazi organization that promotes holocaust denial, anti semitism and other forms of racism, and neo paganism.

In the past two years, Greece has overcome both right wing extremism (Golden Dawn) and left wing extremism (the Marxist Syriza Party). The downfall of Syriza and the complete collapse of Golden Dawn bode well for the future of Greece. Liberal democracy appears to have recovered nicely under the leadership of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

The book recounts many troubling facts regarding the Greek dictatorship. For example, many Greek Americans supported the regime. The Nixon administration comes off as as especially vile in its disregard for the sadistic torture and brutality against political dissidents in Greece. There was a prominent Greek American who served as a supporter of both the dictatorship and the Nixon administration who comes off very poorly.

Theories abound that there was a Greek connection to Watergate. The Watergate break in may have been because the Colonels contributed $500,000 dollars to the Nixon campaign in 1968. Elias Demetracopoulos had sent evidence of this to the chairman of the Democratic Party and it is speculated this is what the Watergate burglars were looking for. The cash that the Colonels contributed to the Nixon campaign may very well have been from American aid from taxpayers which would have consisted of American taxpayers cash being used for partisan political purposes in funding the campaign of Richard Nixon.

Elias Demetracopoulos worked tirelessly against the Colonels as well as against the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department which not only slandered him but threatened to have him deported back to Athens. When the Greek journalist’s father was on his death bed, Demetracopoulos reached out to his political friends in Washington for help in obtaining safe passage for him to visit his father. He was warned by Senator Edward Kennedy to reject any offers of safe passage as such an offer would be a trick by the Colonels to lure him to Athens.

Mention is made of Henry Kissinger. This book very effectively conveys to the reader why Greeks absolutely loathe this former Secretary of State. Kissinger is a horrible human being and every new revelation regarding Greece and Cyprus at this time only reaffirms what a monster this man really is. Elias Dematracopoulos was friends with the late Christopher Hitchens. No one has ever done as much to expose Kissinger as Hitchens who publicly denounced him as a “war criminal” and called for him to be put on trial.

Mention is made of the events in Cyprus during the summer of 1974 and the role of Kissinger in the attempted ouster of President Makarios of Cyprus and the subsequent Turkish invasions. There is interesting information on how the Greek American community came together in 1974 to demand that Congress impose an arms embargo on Turkey. That achievement was one of the finest accomplishments of the Greek American community.

The book accurately describes the pro Turkish tilt of American administrations. It is recounted that the Greek American community supported the election of Jimmy Carter only to be disappointed by that administration which maintained support for Turkey over Greece. The support for the military dictatorship in Greece was never pro Greek but an effort to impose western dictates on Greece.

The real disregard that Washington had for Greece came to be seen after the overthrow of George Papadopoulos by another dictator Dimitrios Ioannides and following the restoration of Greek democracy when the elder Karamanlis returned to Greece. Kissinger made it very clear to the Ford administration that replaced the Nixon administration that Turkey was more important than Greece.

In the year 2020, things have changed. Most changes have been relatively positive. Some negatives remain such as the aforementioned strangle hold that Washington has over Greek foreign policy. The most important difference in relations between Athens and Washington today is that Turkey has lost its strategic value.

Turkey has defected from the western alliance and in its provocations of Greece, Athens seems to have American support. The challenge for Greeks is to win over the United States as a real and genuine ally in point of fact and not just on paper. If the United States commits itself fully to the isolation of Turkey and the territorial, legal, and moral rights of Greece and Cyprus all the negative connotations of past relations between Washington and Athens may disappear.

The late Elias Demetracopoulos is a very heroic figure who fought valiantly for the liberation of Greece from dictatorship and lobbied hard after the anti Makarios Coup in Cyprus to prevent the Turkish invasions. He established friendships with American conservatives and liberal alike. It is not likely that prominent Republican conservatives and military officials would have remained friends with someone who was a “communist”.

The end of the economic crisis in Greece and the rapid disappearance of Golden Dawn indicates that Greek politics have been stabilized. Greece does not need the likes of Golden Dawn or the Colonels which that party has repeatedly praised. In terms of national interest, the Colonels not only left Greece in a pathetically weakened state, they abandoned Cyprus to the Turks.

A previous work on the Colonels regime entitled, “The Rape of Greece” by Peter Murtagh published in 1994 recounted that the Colonels promoted “double enosis” for Cyprus. In other words, what the Turks called “taksim”meaning partition. It should not be forgotten that the Colonels betrayed both Greece and Cyprus.

This biography of Elias Demetracopoulos by James H. Barron has a great deal to commend it. The ongoing activities of Congress, the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department, and the media are all recounted here. Vivid examples are also given with regard to the collaboration between the foreign policy apparatus in Washington and various newspapers and media outlets. Many journalists acted in ways that were not in accordance with the objective aims of their profession.

In conclusion, this is a fine book on modern Greek history as well as on American foreign policy. Elias Demetracopoulos is an example of a Greek success story who was able to make a difference and to contribute greatly to the demise of the Colonels. He was not only a superb journalist but demonstrated great diplomatic prowess by alliances he established with many on both sides of the political spectrum.

His example should serve to inspire Greek Americans in their struggles to build support for Greece and Cyprus.

Categories
books

The Dictators

Book Reviews

Stalin Waiting for Hitler 1929-1941 by Stephen Kotkin. Penguin Press. 2017

Hitler by Peter Longerich. Oxford University Press. 2019.

The Stalin book is the second volume of a three volume set published by scholar Stephen Kotkin. Both the Kotkin book and the Hitler biography by Peter Longerich are the products of superb research. Both texts are over nine hundred pages and the footnotes and bibliography are very lengthy and impressive.

We live in an age where academic institutions have been corrupted by ideology. It is refreshing to see that there are real historians and scholars at work spending years compiling information and research to publish biographies of the two most notorious dictators of the twentieth century. Reexamining the totalitarian states of the twentieth century is of extreme importance in our day as free speech and independent thought have been challenged in both academia and much of the news media.

The Stalin book is a detailed recollection of the political rule and foreign and domestic policies of Joseph Stalin. There is a good deal of material on the great terror of the 1930’s. Stalin was the practitioner of a true totalitarian regime in which the control of the government over its citizenry was total. Under Stalin, no citizen was safe. Even ideological allies of the dictator were not safe and the leadership of the communist party, the red army, the NKVD (secret police) and the foreign ministry were subjected to purges which resulted in the mass murders of its leaders for no logical reason.

Stalin murdered most of his army officers. This would have serious consequences. Unbelievably, Stalin ignored warnings not only from the British and Americans that Hitler was planning an invasion of Russia, but he ignored warnings from his own spies that were working in Germany. Spies and Soviet diplomats in Germany warned the dictator that Germany would invade.

Even the gathering German troops near the Soviet border was not enough to convince Stalin that Hitler was planning an invasion. Military leaders and others thoroughly convinced the Nazis planned to invade had to choose their words carefully in trying to persuade Stalin that Germany was going to invade. Any wrong words could lead to that individuals death.

The Longerich biography of Hitler is one of the best. Not quite as good as the two volume biography by Ian Kershaw (which is still the best biography of Hitler) but it is excellent and thoroughly details Hitlers rise to power and the evolution of German domestic and foreign policies under Hitler. A superb piece of work.

Recent events have demonstrated the totalitarian mindset of political extremists within the United States. Academic institutions need to get out of the business of promoting “social change” and “diversity” and return to the business of educating students. The two aforementioned biographies are necessary reading for students in the social sciences.

These books are crucial to the study of history and how the ideologies which their subjects adhered to corrupted politics and destroyed their societies. These biographies are a reminder of the importance of moderation in politics and the need to reject all extremisms from the far left to the far right.

Categories
books

Recalling Hagia Sophia

Book Review

Hagia Sophia

Sound, Space, and Spirit in Byzantium by Bissera V. Pentcheva 2017.

A project took place in recent years by a Cappella group of singers to recapture the sound of the Great Church in Hagia Sophia and to imagine as much as possible what the Christian attending the divine liturgy in Justinian’s Church experienced and heard. Bissera V. Pentcheva (who is Russian Orthodox) has written about the project in this fine book entitled “Hagia Sophia, Sound Space and Spirit in Byzantium”. On Amazon there is also a wonderful CD and DVD available called “Lost Voices of Hagia Sophia” which is the outcome of the group’s experiments within Hagia Sophia.

The book is absolutely fascinating. It is wonderful that this group had access to Hagia Sophia. Considering that Hagia Sophia is no longer a Church, the activities undertaken Ms. Pentcheva and her associates are a wonderful way of giving glory to God. Indeed, these activities may have served as an alternative means for using the Great Church in service to Greek Orthodoxy.

The book describes the edifice of Hagia Sophia and the manner in which modern technology was utilized to capture the sound and acoustics in Hagia Sophia. Using modern recording devices and a wonderful choir the group produced an excellent recording on the aforementioned CD that allows the listener to hear as closely as possible what worshippers in Hagia Sophia heard before 1453.

In addition, the book is wonderful for educating the reader on the Divine Liturgy and worship of the Greek Orthodox Church. The reader will learn the detailed significance of the services of worship, and specifically how the Patriarch conducted services in Hagia Sophia. This book could and should be used for liturgics classes in Orthodox seminaries.

This book is a wonderful contribution to the study of Hagia Sophia and a terrific recollection on the historically and spiritually important activities that took place during this time. At a time when Turkey is threatening to convert Hagia Sophia into a Mosque, it is refreshing to see that it it still serves (albeit indirectly) as a house of Christian worship.

Both the book and CD-DVD “Lost Voices of Hagia Sophia” are available for purchase on Amazon.

Categories
books

Constantinople victorious

Book Review

The Avar Siege of Constantinople in 626 by Martin Hurbanic

Palgrave Macmillan. 2019

“The Avar Siege of Constantinople in 626” is an outstanding and very well researched book about the attack on the City by the Persians and the Avars in 626 AD. While the Emperor Heraclius was waging war on the Persians in the East in defense of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, the Avars were trying to take Constantinople by the Sea.

The book is an excellent recollection of the events as they transpired from contemporaneous accounts of the siege of Constantinople. There are numerous historical sources from later centuries that were likewise cited in the recounting of events that transpired. This assault on Constantinople remains in the memory and consciousness of the Orthodox Church up to the present time.

“The Akathist “Hymn” which is sung during the first five weeks of Great Lent is attributed to the victory over the Avars at this time. Certainly, the Christians of Constantinople believed that the victory over the Avars was a miracle. The Author cites numerous ecclesiastical sources who attributed the victory to the intercessions of the Holy Theotokos (Mother of God).

Sources cited from both Byzantines and Avars include eyewitness testimony that a woman appeared over the walls near the Blachernae section of the City. This was considered by the faithful to be the Mother of God who interceded to save the City as there was (and still is) a Church at Blachernae that was not only built in her honor, but which contained a holy garment that belonged to the Theotokos. Most interesting are the eyewitnesses among the Avars who claimed to have seen a mysterious woman over the walls.

The Byzantines interpreted the victory as a miracle. In addition, the Avars were compared to the Egyptians who drowned in the Red Sea. Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time was considered a new Moses.

This is indeed an excellent book on the history of Byzantium and the city of Constantinople. The author has done great research into when the inhabitants of the Empire considered their capital to be under the protection of the Theotokos. It appears that with the victory over the Avars after the appeals made to the Mother of God that Constantinople was considered to be under the protection of the Most Holy Theotokos.

That protection lasted until 1453 when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks. During that final and fateful siege, the last inhabitants of Christian Constantinople feared that the Theotokos withdrew her protection from the City when her Icon which was being carried in a procession fell down.

We live in interesting times today. The Turks are planning to turn the Great Church of Aghia Sophia into a Mosque. May the protection of the Holy Theotokos be restored over the Church of Aghia Sophia and over the Church of Constantinople itself which has badly stumbled and estranged itself from the Orthodox Church owing to the tragic events in Ukraine.

In the Akathistos Hymn, we sing,

“To you the champion leader, do I your city, ascribe thank offerings of victory,

For you O Mother of God, have delivered me from terrors; but as you have invincible power, do you free me from every kind of danger, so that to you I may cry: hail, o bride unwedded”

Categories
books

On the importance of bookstores

The closure of bookstores due to the coronavirus is politically significant. Books have always been a source of enlightenment and free expression. Bookstores are good places where an individual can go sit in the cafe, have a drink, and browse the magazine racks for the latest political and world news for any viewpoint ranging from conservative to liberal.

One can also browse for the latest books in history, politics, and religion. Like libraries, bookstores are intellectual centers. One can find books on current events as well as the latest books on history ranging from the Crusades to biographies of Stalin.

Bookstores and libraries are real bastions of democratic thought. Most or all viewpoints and interests are represented in one way or another. Bookstores are the “marketplace of ideas”.

Bookstores will carry books favorable to Hillary Clinton. They also carry books favorable to Donald Trump. All sides are represented. Everything from the far right to the far left has appeared in the social sciences and current affairs sections.

I tend to be more enlightened by visits to the local bookstores than by watching the twenty four hour cable news channels, the networks, or television news in general. At the bookstore, one can browse the latest conservative and liberal journals and publications and find something particularly informative.

In addition to the above mentioned categories, one can find books on true crime, cinema, and fiction. There are also the DVD’s and CDS that are sold in the back room. In recent years, vinyl LP’s have made a huge comeback. I last remember seeing vinyl record albums being sold around 1989, before compact disks replaced them. In addition to vinyl albums, record players are sold at bookstores.

I generally prefer the latest news in print to watching news on television. This is why I particularly like to go to the bookstore cafe and browse the latest magazines looking for current news and events. Come to think of it, even a visit to the doctor’s office has its uses considering that there is a wide selection of magazines to browse through while one waits.

With this damn disease that shut civilization down, I have to get my news from the internet. To a certain extent, the internet hosts anything you can find in the print media but I generally hate having to rely on technology. The local news is not too bad, but the cable news channels (with the exception of Tucker Carlson on Fox News) are simply intolerable. Having briefly watched CNN on youtube regarding current news lately, I can safely dismiss that channel as pure shit.

The print media is preferable because there is a greater deal of detailed knowledge and understanding on the part of the journalist or writer. Stories that appear in magazines (both conservative and liberal) or newspapers have a context and a historical background to them. Writers have an expertise that “journalists” on television simply do not. Writers are intellectuals, news anchors (with some exceptions) are celebrities.

A perfect example between a journalist (intellectual) and a news anchor or host (celebrity) can be seen by the treatment given to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Ted Koppel and other news “correspondents” on television have treated this psychopath as an elder statesman of international diplomacy. The late Christopher Hitchens wrote an article about Kissinger in a print magazine called Harper’s which later became a book, “The Trial of Henry Kissinger”.

Hitchens called Kissinger a war criminal. Having researched unclassified documents and researched Kissinger’s policies on Cyprus, Chile, Kurdistan, and elsewhere Hitchens made a very compelling case against Kissinger. What does this have to do with bookstores one might ask?

Well, the books of Christopher Hitchens are available in bookstores as are numerous other political books on subjects that do not receive treatment on television. A criminal like Kissinger has never received critical treatment from television news coverage. Bookstores and libraries are the authentic carriers of politics, philosophy, religion and the social sciences.

Books and bookstores make a far greater contribution to an enlightened society and civilization than television news channels and outlets. Reading feeds the intellect.

Categories
books

The Emperor of Byzantium

Book Review and response

The Byzantine Republic by Anthony Kaldellis

Harvard University Press. 2015

“The Byzantine Republic” is an excellent work on Byzantine political theory and the relationship of the Emperor to the people in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. The thesis of the book is that that the Empire was in fact a Republic, and not a monarchy. Many examples are provided that make it clear that the Emperor needed the support of the people in order to rule, and even when plots were under way for a seizure of power in Constantinople, the scheme would end in failure if the people did not turn out to give their support to the attempted transfer of power.

The author dismisses the traditional understanding of the role of the Emperor that we have from historians of Byzantium. It has been accepted by historians of Byzantium that the people of the Empire accepted that the Emperor’s rule emanated from God. I respectfully disagree with the author’s dismissal of what we understand to have been the theological basis for the Byzantine Emperors while admiring this book for breaking new ground and successfully demonstrating that Byzantium was indeed a Republic.

In the introduction to his book, the author asks why the Byzantines criticized their Emperors and why they rebelled and revolted against them, killed them, and blinded them. In the same introduction, the author answers his own question when he writes that, “it was not the person that mattered as much as the office”. Indeed, it was in fact the office that mattered much as in the Church it is the office of the clerics that is important and not necessarily the specific person when administering the mysteries.

For example, a footnote in the Rudder under Canon X of the twenty canons of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (D. Cummings published in 1957 page 179) asserts that “God is wont to operate also through unworthy persons, and the grace of baptism is in no respect injuriously affected by the life of the priest.” In other words, the priesthood of a man who was wrongly ordained or is not worthy of being a priest is still valid and functions until he has been officially laicized. The history of Byzantium shows that there have been many unworthy Patriarchs, Bishops, and Priests who were deposed for heresy or moral transgressions but that did not take away from the sacredness of the holy orders and priesthood they once possessed.

Therefore, it was entirely possible for an evil Emperor to be deposed (Justinian II comes to mind) and for each of his successors to serve as the vice regent of God. One is reminded of the Roman Catholic teaching that the Pope of Rome is infallible. In Byzantium, neither the Emperor nor the Patriarch were ever infallible. The concept of the Emperor as “vice regent of God” did not mean that the Emperor could do no wrong or was completely infallible.

Nor did it mean that the people of Constantinople who revolted against Emperors who were heretics and tyrants were revolting against God. If anything, the revolts against certain Emperors cleansed the office of an unworthy person. The concept of a ruler who could or should reign without limits to his authority is a totalitarian concept that did not exist in Byzantium.The Emperor’s power was necessarily constrained by Christianity itself otherwise a cult of personality could have emerged that would have resulted in idolatry.

In chapter two, the author writes that the Emperors “generally did behave in accordance with an ideology of custodianship: they were the stewards of a polity that did not belong to them. They had opportunity to abuse their power, but this had consequences”. The belief by the Emperors that they were custodians is consistent with Christian humility. In my opinion, this strengthens the view that the Emperors in Byzantium were perceived as instruments of God.

One of the most serious causes of the schism between the Latins and the Greek Church was due to the claims of the Papal primacy which claimed authority outside its own sphere and onto the universal Church. Beginning from the time of Saint Photius the Great in the ninth century, the Church of Constantinople gradually challenged the Papacy until the schism was manifested in 1054. Since the Byzantines refused to countenance absolute authority to the Pope who was a Churchman, it should not be surprised that there were in fact limits to the Emperor’s power notwithstanding the honors and responsibilities that were bestowed on his office.

Iconography within the narthex of Hagia Sophia shows the Theotokos with Christ in her lap. On the right side, Constantine is giving his City to Christ as a gift. Justinian on the left is giving the Great Church to Christ as his gift. Both Emperors are prostrating themselves before the incarnate logos.

In Byzantine art, Emperors are frequently seen with Christ who is the center of attention. For example, an image of Emperor Alexios Comnenos shows him being blessed by Christ at his enthronement. The Christian Emperors of Constantinople were indeed conscious of a kingdom greater than theirs, and there was a King far greater than they.

It is to the credit of Byzantium and the office of Emperor that the people would erupt in anger to overthrow a tyrannical or a heretical ruler. Consider the willingness of the faithful in Constantinople to resist the iconoclastic Emperor Leo III and Emperor John Paleologos who signed the Union of Florence. Both of these men were opposed because they betrayed God by embracing heresies and therefore could no longer be considered to be the vice regent of God.

There really is no conflict between the traditional view of historians that the Emperor was an instrument of God with the books thesis that Byzantium was a Republic. Among the Byzantines, Christ was God and came first. The Emperor came after and theological justifications for his reign were valid inso far as he was Orthodox in faith and dogma.

In the sixth chapter, the author cites the traditional historical view. “They (people of Byzantium) believed that the Emperor was appointed to rule by God and that they themselves had the right to depose him without impiety”. This is not a contradiction as is being implied. The implication being that God places the Emperor in power and the people remove him therefore the people inevitably oppose the will of God.

In Christianity we have the teaching on free will. God gave Adam and Eve free will and they chose to sin. An Emperor ascended to the office but he abused his power and/or taught heresy. At this point the Emperor would no longer be favored by God. In addition, consider the enthronement of an Orthodox Bishop. At the enthronement, the laos, or people of God give their approval by shouting AXIOS! If the Bishop is a teacher of heresy or engages in immoral conduct the laos will no longer respect or support him.

So it was with the Emperor. When Leo III began his campaign of burning and destroying icons and in fact became the persecutor of the Church, it was no longer possible for the people to accept him as being appointed by God. The Emperor maintained his standing as long as he was solidly Orthodox and ruled in a just manner.

At the beginning of chapter six, the author writes that “the alleged divine right of the Byzantine emperors is given such weight that some scholars separate the “Roman” and the “Byzantine” periods based on it alone”. Theoretically, it can be said that Byzantium up until 1453 was the Roman Empire but there are a number of important factors that divide Old Rome from “New Rome” and cannot be easily dismissed.

The Roman Empire underwent radical revolutionary upheavals in the fourth century. The legalization of Christianity and Constantine’s conversion changed Rome forever and not in insignificant ways. The abandonment of the city of Rome in the Latin west in favor of the Greek speaking town of Byzantium on the bosporus (renamed Constantinople) was another radical break from the past.

Constantine’s interest in theology and his call for the convening of Bishops at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 AD was the ultimate repudiation of Rome’s pagan past as the Emperor now took full responsibility for settling disputes within the Church and clarifying the truths of Christian faith and dogma. One must ask what would Roman persecutors of the Church such as Nero and Diocletian have thought of Constantine and Justinian? What would those Romans have thought of Nikephoras Phokas, Basil II, and the Comnenos Dynasty?

Finally, the title of this book is not the “Roman” Republic, but the “Byzantine” Republic. The term Byzantium was bestowed on the Empire in the sixteenth century by western Europeans who wanted to make a distinction between old Rome and new Rome. The term came from the name of the old town on the bosporus named for the Greek trader Byzas. Surely there is a reason why historians use the term Byzantine for the Christian Roman Empire.

On the question as to whether Byzantium is the Roman Empire my opinion is both yes and no. Yes in the sense that the Emperors of Byzantium were the successors of the Roman Emperors and Roman traditions. Yes also, in the sense that Mr. Kaldellis has made an excellent case that Byzantium was in fact a Republic in the tradition of the Roman Empire.

No in the sense that the Empire evolved over the course of many centuries. Professor Apostolos Vacolopoulos writing in his “Origins of the Greek Nation” has argued that in the fourteenth century during the occupation of Constantinople and other parts of the Greek world, Greek nationalism was born. This was only one of many changes that occurred by the time the Empire was eradicated in 1453.