When you mention the fall of the Roman Empire, most consider the fall of Rome in 476 as the end of the Empire. But during its existence, the Byzantine Empire (aka the Eastern Roman Empire) was simply designated the “Roman Empire”. When did historians stop considering the Byzantine Empire the “true” Roman Empire? And what justification did they give for changing its status?
If you want a really brief answer, because, first Gibbon, and then after him, Victorian historians liked the Roman Empire, with its Classical tradition and the “manliness” of the Roman army, and the Roman imperial duty and “civilizing” mission that reminded them so much of Britain, and didn’t like the Byzantine Empire, with its Eastern ritualistic Christianity and its decadence and court machinations, and the whole “Oriental/foreigness” of it, and that it was constantly being eaten away by the Muslim armies.
For an even briefer answer, the historians saw the Roman Empire as “like them”, and the Byzantines as “not like them”.
It goes back at least to Gibbons and his *The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, *which was published in the late 18th century, if I remember right. Gibbons considered the eastern part of the Empire to be effete, corrupt and degenerate compared to the noble western Empire, at least in its glory days, and thus not a true continuation of the Roman Empire.
At least that’s what I remember from reading The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (in an abridged edition).
Captain Amazing ninja’d me, but I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one who thinks it starts with Gibbons.
For an antidote to Gibbons and his point of view, I’d recommend Steven Runciman’s Byzantine Civilization, A History of the Crusades (in three volumes), and various other books by him.
The Byzantinians considered themselves Romans, didn’t they? Guess they didn’t get the word they were living a lie.
Imagine a future where the U.S. breaks up but there’s a leftover rump that still calls itself the USA. People might joke it’s neither United or America.
As others have noted, Gibbons really popularized the idea that the western empire was the real Roman Empire.
But other historical threads that supported this view were Charlemagne and Otto. They created countries in Europe which they identified as revivals of the old classical Roman Empire. Politically these new Roman Empires had no real connection to the original but it pleased Europeans to think that they were the heirs of classical Rome. And in order to strengthen the claim that these European empires were the successor states to the classical Roman Empire, Europeans had to undermine Constantinople’s much stronger claim.
According to Wikipedia:
Gibbons didn’t write a thing about the Roman Empire; it had nothing to do with asparagus. Gibbon is a different matter, however.
While I do not wish to gainsay the points made by the posters above about the influence and prejudices of Gibbon and other “dead-white-male” historians, it is also the case that what they (and, usually, we) call the Roman Empire was (with some occasional brief and temporary exceptions and qualifications) actually ruled from Rome, whereas what they (and we) generally call the Byzantine Empire was (even during the brief period during which Rome was a part of it) ruled from Constantinople, the city formerly known as Byzantium.
The Byzantines may have liked to call themselves Romans, but they were, to some extent, deluding themselves in doing so.
1.) But, even in the abridged edition*, Gibbon covered the history of the Byzantine Empire until its Fall in the 15th century, even if he didn’t do so in as meticulous detail.:
From the Wikipedia article on Gibbons’ book:
Nevertheless, it’s not as if he stopped writing about the history of the Empire after the fifth century.
*Which, I admit, is what I read, as well. The three-volume paperback edition.
Nitpick: It’s Edward Gibbon not Gibbons.
That’s kind of a weak argument. The “Roman” Empire didn’t use Rome for its capital for long periods. The capital had first been moved out of Rome in 286 (to Nicomedia/Izmit and Mediolanum/Milan). When Odacer occupied Rome in 476, the capital of the western empire was located in Ravenna and had been for over seventy years. Odacer used Ravenna not Rome as the capital for his kingdom.
Wild asparagus.
This is false. The empire was divided and the richest and the wealthiest parts ruled in the East long before the fall of the city of Rome. Even in the West the actual political capital was moved out of the city of Rome.
Probably because Charlemagne and his successors (and later, the Holy Roman Emperors) called themselves Emperors and claimed that they were the rightful heirs of Rome.
Russian nationalists for the last few centuries have called Moscow “The Third Rome”, i.e. the heir of Byzantium, which was the heir of Rome, which suggests that in the Slavic world they saw a much stronger continuity between Rome and Byzantium than we do.
Just as an additional point of view, my history lessons referred to the Byzantines as el Imperio Romano de Oriente, that is, “the Eastern Roman Empire”. The capture of Constantinople in 1453 was called la segunda caída del Imperio Romano (the second fall of the Roman Empire) and listed as one of the items which put together marked the “thick line” separating the Middle Ages from the Renaissance. Spain, 1980s.
Russian nationalists for the last few centuries have called Moscow “The Third Rome”, i.e. the heir of Byzantium, which was the heir of Rome, which suggests that in the Slavic world they saw a much stronger continuity between Rome and Byzantium than we do.
This hints at the religious aspect to this dispute. The early Christian church had a number of local leaders. A dispute arose over whether these local leaders were a group of equals who held collective authority over the church or whether one of the local leaders was superior in authority over the others. The two big contenders for supreme authority were the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople.
The Bishop of Constantinople (aka the Patriarch) had some assets on his side - he controlled lands which much greater wealth and he had an Emperor nearby who controlled a lot of secular power. The Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) had only only strong counter-argument - he could claim that as Bishop of Rome he had spiritual authority over the entire empire just as the Emperor of Rome had held secular authority. So the Pope and the western church wanted to promote the idea that Rome had held secular supremacy over Constantinople.
In the long run the Pope succeeded in getting more Christians to recognize his claim to authority. Ironically it was one of the Patriarch’s apparent assets which ended up weakening him. The Pope didn’t have any strong secular government to support him that could rival Constantinople in power. But the secular leader in Constantinople was the Emperor not the Patriarch and the Emperor didn’t want to see the Patriarch grow too powerful and become a rival. So Emperors worked on keeping the Patriarchs weak so they couldn’t threaten the Emperor’s authority and that in turn made the Patriarchs too weak to challenge the Pope’s authority.
Now this is what I thought the nature of the split was all about.