English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The modern explanation of the Byzantine distinction between Roman and barbarian has focused on a dichotomy based on political allegiance to the emperor. In this interpretation, while individuals could change identity by changing loyalty, the categories themselves did not change. This essay argues that sixth-century Byzantine military elites had more complex opinions about identity and loyalty. In particular, they could accept that many who served the emperor loyally were in fact non-Romans and even barbarians, even if they liked them and refrained from using that term pejoratively. In fact, Byzantines could exhibit approval and fondness of non-Romans in loyal service to the emperor. The application of the pejorative label “barbarian” to non-Romans serving in the Byzantine military was limited to occasions when criticism was deemed appropriate (such as the misbehavior of the non-Roman) and those situations in which a reference to traditional barbarian tropes served a literary purpose.

Barbarians and brothers-in-arms: Byzantines on barbarian soldiers in the sixth century