Written by Ioannis Neonakis
The recent post (20-2-2026) on social media by Professor Angelos Syrigos, prompted by the passing of Hélène Glykatzi-Ahrweiler (may God grant her rest), contains an element of exceptional importance that deserves particular attention and praise: his clear and repeated use of the name “Romanía” for the state of our ancestors.
Professor Syrigos, after briefly reviewing the historical developments — correctly referring to our homeland with the term Romanía, as well as to the introduction of the term Graecorum by the Germans after 800 AD — also pauses to underline the first use of the term “Byzantine Empire” by the German historian Hieronymus Wolf more than one hundred years after the fall of Constantinople. In the following paragraph, where he focuses on the work of Hélène Glykatzi-Ahrweiler (whose positions, of course, cannot be universally accepted), Professor Syrigos necessarily employs the term “Byzantium” for reasons of common usage and clarity, in order ultimately to arrive at his highly significant concluding sentence, which clearly reveals his own position in favor of the term Romanía. [The full text of his post follows at the end of the present article.]
This is not merely a matter of scholarly precision or historiographical nuance. When a university professor and public political figure uses the correct term publicly, he restores a profound historical truth: that our homeland, for more than a thousand years, was Romanía.
For nearly two centuries, under the influence of Western historiographical frameworks and the needs of the modern Greek state, names foreign to the self-consciousness of our ancestors prevailed: “Byzantium,” “Byzantine,” “Byzantine Empire.” Yet these names are later constructions — and indeed ones serving agendas imposed from outside. Our ancestors never called their state by these names.
For this reason, the concluding phrase of Professor Syrigos’ post — where he speaks plainly of “that remarkable political and cultural formation that was Romanía” — carries particular weight. Coming from an academic and political figure, it functions as a public affirmation of a historical reality that for a long time remained in the shadows.
This fact may also be understood as an indication of a broader transformation taking place within our society. After a period of approximately two centuries during which terms imposed by Western readings of history prevailed, the awareness of the correct names is beginning — albeit hesitantly — to return: Romanía, Romeos, Romeiko.
And this is especially significant. For names are not neutral. They embody identity, worldview, and historical continuity. When the name is restored, consciousness itself begins to be restored.
Perhaps, therefore, such seemingly small references signal something far greater: that the long historical parenthesis of the last two centuries is approaching its end, and that the return to the authentic identity of our Genos — to Romeosyne — has already begun.
Ioannis Kon. Neonakis
—
The Post of Professor Angelos Syrigos (translated from Greek by Ioannis Neonakis):
“After the end of Rome in 476 AD, the Roman Empire continued in the Greek-speaking Eastern Mediterranean with Constantinople as its center. Both the people and the bureaucracy of the Eastern Roman Empire (Romanía) considered the state the obvious continuation of the Roman Empire and the exclusive bearer of its symbols — the sole sovereign power of the old world and, consequently, the quasi-overlord of the states located within its former borders. By contrast, the Popes and the various self-proclaimed German emperors referred disparagingly to emperors not of the Romans but of the Greeks (Graecorum). The conflict culminated in the coronation of Charlemagne as ‘Emperor of the Romans’ (Imperator Romanorum) by Pope Leo III in 800 AD. The final dissolution of the Eastern Roman Empire in 1453 allowed Western Europeans to diminish its significance. The German historian Hieronymus Wolf, in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae (1557), introduced the terms ‘Byzantine Empire’ and ‘Byzantium’ instead of the terms ‘Romanía’ and ‘Basileia of the Romans’ (that is, ‘Roman Empire’). During the Enlightenment, the Eastern Roman Empire came to be established as synonymous with perpetual decline, despotism, and corruption (with Edward Gibbon and Montesquieu as principal exponents) — essentially an immoral empire. The term ‘byzantinism’ was used to describe misgovernment, intrigue, and inefficiency.
Against these prejudices, negative stereotypes, and misconceptions stood the work of Hélène Glykatzi-Ahrweiler. She restored Byzantium to its true dimensions, as a living center of universal political and spiritual radiance, rather than a decadent empire. In particular, her book The Political Ideology of the Byzantine Empire highlighted the decisive importance of the Byzantine tradition for the formation of European identity. At the same time, she emphasized the continuity of Hellenism through the Eastern Roman Empire. Finally, she generated new international interest in Byzantine studies.
Our body, in any case, is perishable. But the work of Hélène Glykatzi-Ahrweiler will remain, illuminating for many generations that remarkable political and cultural formation that was Romanía.”
The same article in Greek – https://www.antibaro.gr/article/40453