Film Review: God Loves Caviar/The Pirate

Beware spoilers from the start!

'God Loves Caviar', or 'The Pirate' as it seems to be called on Amazon, is a 2012 Greek film that follows the life of Ioannis Varvakis, who could be seen as a national hero of Greece. Ioannis rises from a pirate who raids Ottoman ships to an international caviar millionaire and to his eventual capture by the British. From the beginning we know his eventual fate, due to the fact that the film is being told by two people, his trustworthy servant and his sort of friend-enemy, just after he is sent to a sanitorium.

Where to watch?

Trying to avoid sounding like an advertisement, I watched it on Amazon Prime Instant Video, on which, at least in the UK, it is titled the Pirate. You might be fooled for thinking this an action film by looking at the cover on Amazon, which sadly I can find a high enough quality of image to show you, but there are probably less than two or three minutes of violence. The image below probably portrays the film a bit better. It appears you can also buy the DVD on Amazon, but not under the same banner as the Prime video (the cover below is of the DVD version.)

The story is quite interesting and he feels like a Greek (and actually not fictitious) version of James Onedin. Starting with his piracy against the Ottomans, Ioannis lend his helps to the Russians, in the Russo-Turkish war of 1768-1774, specifically in the Orlov Revolt. This makes him a hero and it does not take long for him to arrive in the court of Catherine the Great after even though his journey there is far from easy, where he is welcomed as a hero. The pace of the film perhaps slows here, previously it had been rapid fire, but even now it is fast. He now travels to the Caspian Sea, in the service of Catherine the Great, where he becomes a merchant (though not a caviar one at this point) and charts the sea. The issues of pace still remain here because I do not think enough time was given to explain why he was sent to Astrakhan, I also did not know he was charting it until he finished.

Like many dramatic characters he seems to have a rampant love life, so his relationships especially with his second and third wives are a quite important component of the film. But, Ioannis still comes across as genuine most of the time, even if at times the portrayal is idyllic, he is certainly human a lot of the time. However, sometimes his fervour for Greece's independence and the film's seems to turn into blind rhetoric against the Turks, as if they are the only people to have committed war crimes. This would be one of my few criticisms of the film.

Another is the pace, as I suggested, and as we reach the end this becomes clear and his role in the Greek War of Independence is barely glossed over. Though, seriously this is a great film and this is only a small criticism. In fact, the story is great and I feel like just under two hours is not enough to tell this eventful historical tale well enough. It would have been better as a 3 and half hour epic (or at least 3 hours) or TV Series that would somehow be ensured of not being cancelled until the whole story is somehow transmitted.

Theological themes are also present in the film, as the title 'God Loves Caviar' suggests, this is done well and adds an extra dimension to the film. The philosophy of a pirate like Ioannis, is also evident, the idea of the sea representing freedom, he is certainly not like a stereotypical pirate, in terms of plundering. It is important to note that despite the alternate title of 'The Pirate', he is only a pirate in proper terms for the first part, then he is really in service, although he retains his identity as a pirate.

A final, sort of criticism, is the fact that in the film Ioannis becomes part of the Order of St Anne (and receives at least another title) and is awarded this by Catherine the Great. After the briefest research I found this to be incorrect, Alexander I give him this reward and although Alexander is mentioned in the film, I understand Catherine was probably used as she is more well known throughout the world.

The film obviously had a limited budget, but most of the time you could barely tell this. There was the occasional use of bad CGI, but to be honest a low budget did not affect my enjoyment of the film. The acting was good, if not at least decent. The film, despite being Greek, was mainly spoken in English, although sometimes it felt dubbed, even though I am sure it was not.

The best part of the film was the story though and as I have hinted, he is truly an interesting character, even if we took some of the things that might have been added for dramatic effect. Towards the end the film gets quite emotional, as you feel Ioannis is slowly fading away into history in a slow decline, despite his re-energising  in terms of  involvement in the Greek War of Independence, the emotions stirred are those of a last gasp breath. A real painting of the hero's film can be seen below.

To summarise, God Loves Caviar, is a drama film that has a solid plot, that falls into the constraints of timing (as a lot of modern films do). He is certainly an interesting historical character and this film seems to do him justice. Despite, the criticisms posed I would certainly recommend watching it, a surprise when I put it on, for I was perhaps expecting over-cheesy action due to the front cover on Amazon which certainly does not do the film any favours, but I guess when I first looked at the film I was inspired to watch it by the description of the film rather than the advertisements. Sadly, it seems it's rebranding as 'The Pirate' was for non-Greeks, but at least it was not a cut down production. Unlike that  film about an admiral during the Russian Civil War, which is a cut down 10 episode TV Series. Because this film is good and enjoyable and because changes that go down in terms of quality and quantity annoy me, I wished other foreign productions would stop being hacked down, because it really puts me of watching them, rather than persuading me to watch them (that sounded a bit moany.) But anyway to end on a positive note, I thoroughly recommend the film.



Image Credit:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2181959/
http://www.altcine.com/movie.php?id=1535
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioannis_Varvakis#/media/File:Ioannis_varvakis.jpg

Rome's Greatest Enemies : Mithridates VI and the Rise of Pontus

It seems I am getting a bit classical, for a long time I have wished to do a post on Pontus, especially under its arguably greatest ruler Mithridates VI, but this has came at a time I find myself wanting to do a post on the Galatians and then I remembered I wanted to do a post on Zenobia and Palmyra a long time ago! Oh, bother, there are a lot of posts I wish to do and it seems that they have been lost in the trail of time, I remember writing in another post that I wanted to write a post on the Battle of Ayn Jalut! Well, I hope I will do all of these, but I have decided to start on Pontus. I must warn you though, that this topic would require a book to describe it fully and so yes I will most certainly miss out details, but I hope it inspires you to find out more!

Pontus is a historical Greek designation for a region that is now found within the Black Sea Region of Turkey. This historical region ( I must stress though that the Black Sea Region encompasses far more than just historic Pontus) not only includes its coastline, but also up the hinterland to the Pontic Alps. Throughout history the exact boundaries of this region have varied, but it generally extended from Colchis (a western part of modern day Georgia) to Paphlagonia to the west, separating it from Bithynia. Basically, what the maps show. The one below is actually interesting as it shows a proposed Pontic state for after WW1 and it seems quite an interesting topic, alas it is not the focus of this post. It is key to understand these varying definitions of the region of Pontus and so I hope for the sake of this I have defined its general location well enough (for those who do not know already). There are also different names for the region and it was actually only caused Pontus at a certain point, but this article shall not delve into this.

Mithridates I founded the Kingdom of Pontus in 281 BCE which lasted until its conquest by the Roman Republic in 63 BCE. The focus of this article, Mithridates VI, is renowned for not only his conquests, but also his challenge to Roman power in Asia Minor. Mithradates succeeded his father in 120 BCE, you can probably guess his father's name. Mithradates was a popular name at the time for rulers in Anatolia and literally means 'gift of the god (Mithra)'.  To distinguish himself from Mithridates Euergetes, his father,he was surnamed Eupator or Dionysus. 

Euergetes was actually an ally of Rome, ironic considering his son's actions and he helped them during the Third Punic War. This alliance proved beneficial for the Kingdom of Pontus, allowing him to expand his power from the shores of the Black Sea to the Central Anatolia, where he fought against King Ariarathes VI of Cappadocia. He also forced the Paphlagonian ruler Pylaemenes to bequeath his realm to Pontus. Sinope was Euergetes'  which had a Hellenistic court and he liked to present himself as the champion of Hellenistic culture within Anatolia. In 120 BCE however he was murdered and left his Kingdom to his wife, a Seleucid princess named Laodice, and his two sons. One of them being our Mithridates (Eupator) and the other being Mithridates Chrestus (I did say Mithridates was a popular name.) Chrestus was Laodice's favourite and Eupator may have avoided several plots against hum.

Both of them were young and their mother was able to postpone the inevitable conflict. It seems at some point Eupator was able to seize control from his mother. She may have been put in prison. Not long after these events Chrestus disappears from the scene and it appears Mithridates Eupator became undisputed King of Pontus. It is a possibility that the Seleucid Empire may have wished to intervene on behalf of Laodice, but they were facing a civil war under their leader Antiochus VIII Gryphus. With Mithridates VI now the sole ruler of Pontus, he would continue his father's expansionist policy.

The picture above shows Mithridates VI, the man who only now would become renowned for his military exploits. These conquests included Colchis which it seems he took via military expeditions. But, he also gained land through other means, the Greeks of the Cimmerian Bosporus and of the Tauric Chersonese ( these certainly include the Bosporan Kingdom itself) across the Black Sea, were by far willing to give up independence in return for protection against their old enemy, the Scythians. Who were defeated, with the lands Mithridates aided becoming protectorates of Pontus. The map below shows the early expansion of the Bosporan Kingdom before it became under the control of Mithridates VI.

Mithridates was to now to turn his attention to Anatolia, where Pontic control had weakened after his father's death. Paphlagonia had freed itself, whereas Phrygia had been linked to the Roman province of Asia. He conspired with Nicomedes III of Bithynia to partition Paphlagonia and Galatia between themselves, but they soon fell out over Cappadocia and because it seemed Nicomedes was steering his lands into anti-Pontic alliance with the Romans. Two times in 95 and 92 BCE he was intially successful against Nicomedes, but was deprived of success by the Romans. It soon became clear, if Mithridates VI wanted to carry on expanding his Kingdom, a Roman-Pontic war would become an inevitably. 

While initially appearing to not be too concerned, he soon tried to depose Nicomedes IV of Bithynia, who was completely subservient to Rome. This effort was in vain and soon instigated by the Romans, Nicomedes IV attacked Pontic territory. Mithridates protested, once again in vain, against this towards the Romans. In 89 BCE, a combined Roman and Bithynian army was defeated by Mithridates and they were flung back to the coasts of the Aegean and the Propontis. Much of the western part of the province of Asia welcomed Mithridates, allying with him, but some such as Rhodes held out against him, which he failed to siege. In 88 BCE Mithridates had carried out a massacre of around 80,000 Roman and Italian settlers in Anatolian cities, which nearly wiped out the Roman presence. 

Mithridates had been seen as a champion of Hellenism and so it comes as no surprise that many cities in Greece, including Athens, took his side, welcoming his armies onto the mainland. He also made an alliance with the King of Armenia, Tigranes the Great, who married one of his daughters, Cleopatra of Pontus. As mentioned above, he had Rhodes besieged, but as I should say by his fleet, though I still assume it was unsuccessful in the long run. But, nevertheless, the Romans did respond by sending an army under Lucius Cornelius Sulla.

The map above shows the Kingdom of Pontus. The dark purple shows the Kingdom before his reign, the purple his early conquests and the pink his conquests as part of the First Mithridatic War. Furthermore, the green shows his Armenian ally. Maps like these show you the great extent of his power, but his story is far from over. Sulla drove Mithridates out of Greece proper, but he was forced to rush home, due to the threat of his rival Gaius Marius, therefore peace talks were completed, which were not only lenient, but also never ratified by the Senate. Although, Lucius Licinius Murena, was left to command the Roman forces in Anatolia, the situation allowed Mithridates to recoup his forces.

In 83 BCE Murena attacked Mithridates and so began the Second Mithridatic War, however this ended with a victory for Pontus and peace was quickly signed again. However, disputes were common place and it was not long before the Third Mithridatic War broke out, which would be the longest of the wars between Mithridates VI's Pontus and Rome. This was caused by a Roman attempt to annex Bithynia (which was bequested to Rome by it's last king) which Mithridates attacked with an even larger army. 

During this war, Mithridates defeated Marius Aurelius Cotta at Chalcedon, but was defeated by Lucius Licinius Lucullus at Cyzicus (73 BCE). Lucullus drove him to take refuge with Tigranes in Armenia, who was his son-in-law. Lucullus spent much time in Armenia, with there being two important battles at Tigranocerta (69 BCE) and Artaxata the following year. However, before Lucullus could finish the job he was superseded by Pompey ( Pompey the Great), perhaps due to political moves against him. 

After Pompey defeated Mithridates in 63 BCE, he fled with a small army from Colchis over the Caucasus Mountains to Crimea, where he made plans to raise yet another army to take on the Romans. However, he was betrayed by his son Machares (his eldest living) who was viceroy of Cimmerian Bosporan, who refused to help him fight. Mithridates had him killed and he took the throne of the Bosporan Kingdom for himself. It was then that Mithridates ordered the conscriptions and preparations for war.

The coin above shows Mithridates, the man who for so long, had troubled the Romans, during the age of other troublemakers such as Spartacus. And yet he was soon to meet his end, in 63 BCE, one of his sons Pharnaces II of Pontus, with a core of Roman exiles, led a rebellion against him. Mithridates fled to the citadel in Panticapaeum, where he sadly committed suicide. Pompey buried Mithridates in the rock-cut tombs of his ancestors in Amasya, the old capital of Pontus.

After the Mithridatic Wars, part of Pontus was incorporated into the Roman Republic as the province of Bithynia et Pontus, whereas the eastern part survived as a client Kingdom. I have no doubt that Mithridates was a genuine fear of Rome, for not only because of the trouble he caused, but because of his possible championing of the Hellenistic/Greek cause. Although, there is no evidence to suggest this championing was a belief he personally held, I think it is though more often that it was simply a political tool, even so he was a genuine threat to Roman superiority. Mithridates was also a harsh ruler, as seen by the aforementioned massacred, but also by his leniency towards the Greeks becoming a harshness after the First Mithridatic War, against which he used deportation, murders and the freeing of slaves (that last crime is terrible!) Therefore, was he really a champion of Hellenism at all? Even, Pontus (at least the royal lineage) may have been of Persian and Greek heritage. Though his campaign in Greece as part of the First Mithridatic War, was only helped by Sulla who helped his troops to sack the city of Delphi.

So there we have it! What do you think, was Mithridates VI a champion of Hellenistic culture or a simply someone who saw a political savvy way to expand his kingdom? Share your opinion in the comments section if you want to!

Image credit goes to Wikipedia

Bibliography:

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Mithradates-VI-Eupator
http://www.livius.org/articles/person/mithridates/

Film Review : Alexander Nevsky (1938)

Beware this review will contain spoilers from the start!

Alexander Nevsky is a 1938 film directed by Sergei Eisenstein in association with  Dmitri Vasilyev, it is concerned with the Teutonic Knights invasion of Novgorod in the 13th Century and there defeat by the titular hero. The film bears many marks of the contemporary political climate, with strikingly anti-Nazi propaganda and communist and anti-religious sentiment. Most of the film is composed of the Battle of the Ice, a highly influential battle scene, that is also regularly confused with actual historical fact.

Where to watch?

The best place is to watch is here http://cinema.mosfilm.ru/. It is completely legal and free, as Mosfilm recently began uploading its old films in order to counter piracy, so if you want Soviet and post-Soviet Russian films, this is the place to go. It is effectively a Youtube video and the films can also be found on Youtube itself. The website is in Russian, but you can just translate the page (at least you can on Chrome, I am not sure about other browsers) and you can also turn on English subtitles for this film and a lot more (I think.)

                             DVD Cover (though at least one release has quality issues in the UK I have heard.

From this point on expect even BIGGER spoilers. The film starts with Alexander Nevsky fishing in a seemingly rural area. When the Mongols of the Golden Horde arrive, offering Nevsky the position of a commander,he is already a famed and skilled warrior, an interesting spin in my opinion, after defeating the Swedes. At the beginning we hear a lot of patriotic singing and you should expect a lot of this throughout the film.

We then head to Novgorod, where we hear about the fall of Pskov, it is at this point more of the main characters are introduced, Vasili Buslai and Gavrilo Oleksich are two famous warriors from Novgorod who are also friends, they are competing for the affections of Olga Danilovna and her hand. This competition will decided by the bravery they show at the Battle of the Ice.

In Pskov, we see absolutely horrendous acts committed by the Teutonic Knights, including babies being thrown into fire (I did say horrific) and the slaughter of innocents! Although, disturbing, it is not as disturbing as it would have been in a modern film, due to the age of the film.

The film proceeds (though to be fair, I can't remember if this happens earlier or not) with Alexander Nevsky gathering an army of peasants who are in stark contrast to the knightly Teutonic Order. He enters Novgorod itself where gathers mass support , though he faces the opposition of the boyars and merchants there who are urged on by the monk Ananias. One of those who joins Nevsky's swelling ranks is Vasilisa, a daughter of boyar killed in Pskov by the Order and she takes pivotal combat role.

                                                     It does get pretty hectic sometimes!

I presumed the army of Nevsky now headed towards Pskov, when the vanguard is attacked we quickly change to a lengthy battle scene, which is the Battle of the Ice. It seems Nevsky has a plan here and I interpreted it is as him putting men on the left flank, so the centre and right could hit. But after trying to become clear by looking at a article from the Guardian and after watching the battle itself, I still unsure whether this was the plan. For the majority of the film (it at least felt like that) there is a chaotic battle, impressive considering the time it was made, I was left confused by the actual strategy, despite noticing Nevsky's flanking manoeuvre, the climax is predicted before, the armour of Nevsky's enemies is too much and you can guess what happens, when they are on ice, though  to me they Order seemed to be already on the retreat(though interestingly it seems this did not happen in real life).

After the battle, we see the scenes of the aftermath, almost as if after the frenzy we come to poignant scene about the costs of war, as we see a lot of cinema and television. We then head back to Novgorod (I think, perhaps Pskov) for final scenes of judgement, mourning and celebration and the conclusion of the romance story at the beginning, perhaps in a semi-expected way but with a twist.

Though this is a point I must make, due to watching using a translation, I feel part of my confusion for some of the time, was the English. So if you are fluent in Russian, it is certainly the better way to watch it!

                                          An innovative shot for the main battle scene.

I thought about talking about Marxist (Stalinist) themes in this film, but I feel looking at the history of the film and its innovation are perhaps deserving of a different post or two, rather then stuffing them into an over bloated article, though I would like to know your opinion on this, please comment if you prefer longer or shorter articles (and whatever is best for my SEO, that is a semi-joke.)

So this a review right ?

I enjoyed the film, albeit a little bit of confusion, I dare say this is time of film you would enjoy more if you have done Film Studies or just have a general interest in cinema history. 'For it's time' is a bit of a cliche I admit, but I have seen many modern films with less impressive battle scenes. The propaganda is strong, but it is in this century is well, it is just less subtle. This should not spoil your enjoyment of the film. The soundtrack by Sergei Prokofiev is catchy and epic, but is a bit repetitive, it is nice to know he reworked and that although it has degraded significantly many people have watched the film with music played by an orchestra.

So should you watch this ? I would say yes if you are in it for nostalgia and a general interest in the Soviet period, it is a fine historical film in itself. And although the plot is thin and I wish the film could be longer, it in a way avoids the awful trappings of modern cinema. Therefore, I would recommend it, although not perfect it, I can value its worth in innovation and as a classic piece of cinema.




Bibliography:
The Guardian
http://www.second-reel.com/annex/choruslines/olivier-nevsky.shtml

It's Alive ! My Personal Historical Niggles

Yes, the blog is alive. It may have been almost a year to the date (well actually Gustavus Adolphus Day in November) that I did my last blog post. Of course, education gets in the way, but now I have decided to try and continue with a more casual tone then what I used to write with. Anyway, I thought I would start off discussing my own personal historical niggles. Whether, you think they are worthy or not I get annoyed by certain terms and ideas in history to varying degrees. And so let it begin !

                                     Did you get it ? The words 'It's Alive!" is never actually used in the novel Frankenstein; or the Modern                            Prometheus. Also, Frankenstein's monster is often erroneously referred as simply Frankenstein.

The Byzant....Roman Empire

The map above shows the Byzantine Empire at its height under in 560 a.d under Emperor Justinian. Wait the Byzantine Empire ! why am I using a term coined by later historians ? This is my first niggle, I would prefer it to be called the Roman Empire, as it is effectively the Roman Empire or at least the Eastern Roman Empire  (though apparently that is a later term as well, so maybe not.) The people of this empire called themselves Romaioi or Romioi (meaning Roman) or Graikoi (Greek) and they continued to refer to the empire as the Imperium Romanum (Latin) or Basileia Rhōmaiōn (Ancient Greek). Now really you could do a whole book on how the so called Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire, with an added Greek element (that's a good idea), but it is a long and complex topic I suppose. The term 'Byzantine' was first used by the historian Hieronymus Wolf in 1557 over a century after the Fall of Constantinople. This term comes from the name of Constantinople, 'Byzantium' before Constantine made the city capital. 

In the West, the Byzantine Empire was often called the Greek Empire in order to distinguish it from the Roman Empire of Charlemagne and his successors. In 800 A.D Pope Leo III used the excuse that the (Byzantine) Roman Empire had no male occupant at the time, to crown Charlemagne as Roman Emperor, because he needed his support. In the West,  Imperator Romaniae was also used to describe the East, meaning Emperor of Romania, whereas Imperator Romanorum, Emperor of the Romans was used to describe Charlemagne and his successors. In the Islamic and Slavic worlds, no distinguishment was made where Byzantium was more straightforwardly seen as the continuation of the Roman Empire, one of the uses of the word Rûm in the Islamic World was simply as the name of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire. 

There you go, we should really be calling Byzantium the Roman Empire, though to be fair I do understand the practicality of using it when we covering such distinct periods of time.

Constantinople not Istanbul

In 1953 the Four Lads sung about the official renaming of Constantinople to Istanbul. Though many may presume that Constantinople was renamed Istanbul in the 15th century after its conquest by the Ottomans this is a misconception. Constantinople was only officially renamed Istanbul in the first half of the 20th century. So this is a confusing topic, I must admit the city has many names. The name that was most common for official use until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, was Konstantiniyye which is an Arabic calqued (borrowed) form of Constantinople. Though it is wrong to say the word 'Istanbul' was never used, some sources show, in variants it exists back in the 10th century. It is the Greek version of a phrase that literally means 'in the city', so it is possible Istanbul was used in common speech in Turkish. Some times other names were more popular, such as Islambol, one source states that this was the more popular name in the 16th century and it was to some degree officially used from the late 17th century to the late 18th century.

By 1923, with the end of the Ottoman Empire ( fell in November 1922) and the creation of the Republic of Turkey all names except Istanbul had become obsolete in the Turkish language, but it was only in 1930 that Turkish authorities requested foreigners to adopt Istanbul with the Turkish Postal Service Law of 1930, otherwise there parcels would be rejected ! This led to Istanbul being the universally accepted name over time, and names such as Tsarigrad and Constantinople were no longer supposed to be used.

Just one final thing...this is a complex topic, every area of history is, I am not claiming to present the full picture, but a basic outline.By the way, Miklagarðr is an Old Norse name, meaning 'big city'.

Those horrid years between Rome and the Renaissance

The Dark Ages the time when commoners were oppressed by a right-wing state and orcs freely raided villages and slayed peasants and the Church controlled absolutely everything......

This niggle is of course relating to the negative view of the Medieval Period and I would argue that the belief that this period was darker than any over period is due to the love of Antiquity that Western thinking has held since the Renaissance onwards. I understand that in academia the term 'the Dark Ages' is barely accepted, even if it is, it nearly always solely refers to the Early Middle Ages (5th-10th centuries) following the 'chaos' from the Fall of Rome. However, I think the image of the 'backwards' Middle Ages is still found commonly in popular culture.

The idea of a 'darkness' was first expressed by the scholar Petrarch in the 1330s, who was a big fan of the Greeks and Romans and was a critic of the quality of late Latin literature, this idea was enchanced by the Renaissance. 

Later, during the Reformation, the Medieval Period became associated with Catholic Corruption and with the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th it became associated with being the exact opposite of reason due to its association as an 'Age of Faith'. Even today much of Western society is based on Roman and Greek law and philosophy and so it is easy to see why this period has been frowned on, as it is not commonly associated with these things.

Of course, we must not be fools, the Roman and Greek heritage had to be preserved throughout the Middle Ages to last into later periods of history and so it was. Learning was not defunct in the Middle Ages, after all it saw the foundation of many universities. 

Furthermore, it is wrong to group around a 1000 years of history into one period. On a website once I saw a brilliant example if we say the Middle Ages ended in the late 15th century (generically), it lasted around 1000 years from the Fall of Rome. It has been around 500 years since 1500 and think about all the major events that have happened in that time, which is half of the Medieval Period ! It is wrong to group the entire Medieval Period together !

This is why we divided it into the Early, High and Late periods and as previously mentioned the Early Middle Ages are perhaps where the biggest doubts are laid. Many would point to the Carolingian Renaissance of the hight of the Early Period, but I think it is wrong to insult the so-called 'barbarian' cultures. They may have adopted parts of Roman culture, but is that not exactly what the Romans did to other cultures absorb parts of them to suit their purposes. I watched a programme called The Dark Ages: An Age of Light by Waldemar Januszczak on BBC Four and this shows that art was still prominent in the Early Middle Ages.

It is my opinion negativity on these periods is based on the Modern Mind, logic is often valued over faith. The intellectuals in this period held beliefs that are perhaps not as popular now in the Modern academic world (I know this is a sweeping statement) and that our Roman and Hellenic heritage perhaps has a much larger impact than you would think, even in 2015.

The Not So German Empire

It is not uncommon to see the Holy Roman Empire referred to as the German Empire and this annoys me a bit (whether I am in the right that is up to you). Now this is a detailed topic and I will not go into it much. 

The term 'Holy Roman Empire' was apparently used first in the 13th century, but in 1512 in a decree following the Diet of Cologne the name was changed to Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. So should we call the Medieval Holy Roman Empire the German Empire ? I would say no, but I am no expert.

This also raises the idea of whether we should refer to the Kingdom of Germany using 'German' or not. The Kingdom of 'Germany' started as part of the Frankish Kingdom which split following the Treaty of Verdun, therefore the rulers were often referred to as rex Francorum or even just rex.  The first reference to a 'German' Kingdom was when the Pope referred to his enemy Henry IV as rex teutonicorum, King of the Teutons.

In the Middle Ages, the 'Kings' only became emperors after a Papal coronation. The title rex Romanorum, King of the Romans was used to emphasise their rule before they were emperors. King of the Romans later became associated with the heir apparent.

So when did Germany come into existence, this is no easy question, the term German was first used all the way back in the 3rd century BC, but Germany itself in the modern sense came into being in 1871. Someone, I asked makes a valid point in referring to that 'German' is  a valuable term pre-1871 as it refers to Germany 'culturally', it would almost impossible for one person to recount all the tiny states within the Holy Roman Empire. 

Conclusion 

My so called 'niggles' seem to mainly refer to particular terms and whether they are in or out of place, depending on when they are used. The problem is that though these terms may never have been spoke historically by the people to whom they refer to it, we must accept that they are in common usage and have some helpfulness. It would seem impossible, unless we were there at the time, to know and use the exact terminology, but I still think there is a problem of clearing up possible mistakes that could be made with these terms !




Image Credit goes to
Wikipedia
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/File:Orcs.png