# Why isn't the Byzantine Empire considered the "Roman Empire"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 26, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585 "2014-10-26T17:45:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![installLSC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/54ee81/32.png) [@installLSC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/installLSC)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/1 "2014-10-26T17:45:22Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/2 "2014-10-26T18:09:45Z")
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”. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/3 "2014-10-26T18:10:18Z")
> [@installLSC](#): > > 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? 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). ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/4 "2014-10-26T18:19:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/5 "2014-10-26T18:36:34Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/6 "2014-10-26T19:20:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/7 "2014-10-26T19:23:23Z")
According to Wikipedia: > **[Byzantine Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire)** > > The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, was the continuation of the Roman Empire centred in Constantinople during late antiquity and the Middle Ages. The eastern half of the Empire survived the conditions that caused the fall of the West in the 5th century AD, and continued to exist until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453. During most of its existence, the empire remained the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in the Medite... > [@](#): > > The first use of the term “Byzantine” to label the later years of the Roman Empire was in 1557, when the German historian Hieronymus Wolf published his work Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a collection of historical sources. The term comes from “Byzantium”, the name of the city of Constantinople before it became Constantine’s capital. This older name of the city would rarely be used from this point onward except in historical or poetic contexts. The publication in 1648 of the Byzantine du Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae), and in 1680 of Du Cange’s Historia Byzantina further popularised the use of “Byzantine” among French authors, such as Montesquieu.[8] However, it was not until the mid-19th century that the term came into general use in the Western world. As regards the English historiography in particular, the first occasion of the “Byzantine Empire” appears in an 1857 work of George Finlay (History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057).[9] > > The Byzantine Empire was known to its inhabitants as the “Roman Empire”, the “Empire of the Romans” (Latin: Imperium Romanum, Imperium Romanorum; Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων Basileia tōn Rhōmaiōn, Ἀρχὴ τῶν Ῥωμαίων Archē tōn Rhōmaiōn), “Romania” (Latin: Romania; Greek: Ῥωμανία Rhōmania),[n 2] the “Roman Republic” (Latin: Res Publica Romana; Greek: Πολιτεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn), Graikia (Greek: Γραικία), and also as Rhōmais (Greek: Ῥωμαΐς).[12] The inhabitants called themselves Romaioi and Graikoi, and even as late as the 19th century Greeks typically referred to their modern language as Romaika and Graikika. > > Although the Byzantine Empire had a multi-ethnic character during most of its history[13] and preserved Romano-Hellenistic traditions,[14] it became identified by its western and northern contemporaries with its increasingly predominant Greek element.[15] The occasional use of the term “Empire of the Greeks” (Latin: Imperium Graecorum) in the West to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire and of the Byzantine Emperor as Imperator Graecorum (Emperor of the Greeks)[16] were also used to separate it from the prestige of the Roman Empire within the new kingdoms of the West.[17] > > The authority of the Byzantine emperor as the legitimate Roman emperor was challenged by the coronation of Charlemagne as Imperator Augustus by Pope Leo III in the year 800. Needing Charlemagne’s support in his struggle against his enemies in Rome, Leo used the lack of a male occupant of the throne of the Roman Empire at the time to claim that it was vacant and that he could therefore crown a new Emperor himself.[18] Whenever the Popes or the rulers of the West made use of the name Roman to refer to the Eastern Roman Emperors, they usually preferred the term Imperator Romaniae (meaning Emperor of Romania) instead of Imperator Romanorum (meaning Emperor of the Romans), a title that they applied only to Charlemagne and his successors.[n 3] > > No such distinction existed in the Islamic and Slavic worlds, where the Empire was more straightforwardly seen as the continuation of the Roman Empire. In the Islamic world, the Roman Empire was known primarily as Rûm.[20] The name millet-i Rûm, or “Roman nation,” was used by the Ottomans through the 20th century to refer to the former subjects of the Byzantine Empire, that is, the Orthodox Christian community within Ottoman realms. ---
**Author:** ![Recusant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@Recusant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Recusant)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/8 "2014-10-26T19:42:08Z")
Gibbons didn’t write a thing about the Roman Empire; it had nothing to do with asparagus. Gibbon is a different matter, however. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/9 "2014-10-26T20:12:12Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/10 "2014-10-26T20:23:15Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > 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). 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.: > **[Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire)** > > The six-volume work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by the English historian Edward Gibbon (1737–1794) has been reprinted many times over the years in various editions. > The original edition was published between 1776 and 1789 in six volumes by the firm of \[William\] Strahan & \[Thomas\] Cadell, in the Strand, London. > A one-volume edition with an "introductory memoir of the author" by William Youngman was published by J.O. Robinson (London, 1830). > The 1838–1839 Rev. H.H. (... From the Wikipedia article on Gibbons’ book: > [@](#): > > Others such as John Julius Norwich, despite their admiration for his furthering of historical methodology, consider Gibbon’s hostile views on the Byzantine Empire flawed and blame him somewhat for the lack of interest shown in the subject throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.[18] This view might well be admitted by Gibbon himself: "But it is not my intention to expatiate with the same minuteness on the whole series of the Byzantine history 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. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/11 "2014-10-26T20:39:01Z")
Nitpick: It’s Edward _Gibbon_ not _Gibbons_. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/12 "2014-10-26T21:19:26Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/13 "2014-10-26T21:20:35Z")
> [@Recusant](#): > > Gibbons didn’t write a thing about the Roman Empire; it had nothing to do with asparagus. _Wild_ asparagus. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/14 "2014-10-26T21:21:30Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > … 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. **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. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/15 "2014-10-26T21:24:17Z")
> [@installLSC](#): > > And what justification did they give for changing its status? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/16 "2014-10-26T21:26:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/17 "2014-10-26T21:32:26Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/18 "2014-10-26T21:32:57Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/19 "2014-10-26T22:53:57Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 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. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585/20 "2014-10-26T23:03:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. Now this is what I thought the nature of the split was all about. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-byzantine-empire-considered-the-roman-empire/702585.md?page=2)