Ever eaten a Roman Empire? Some parts are edible.
My history teacher called the Roman Empire that existed between 476 and the Eighth Century the Eastern Roman Empire. I always thought that’s what everybody called it.
It is absolutely not false that (before the fall of Rome, and the inception of what is now called the Byzantine empire) the Roman Empire was ruled, for the vast majority of its history, from Rome. (This would be true even if we were to date the beginning of “The Empire” from the accession of Augustus, but, in fact, Rome had ruled a large empire for centuries before it had an emperor.)
As I originally said, a blanket statement that it was ruled from Rome should be subject to “some occasional brief and temporary exceptions and qualifications”. Yes, I am aware that towards its end the empire became ruled from two effective capitals, then became divided into two effectively separate empires, and that, shortly before the end of the Western Empire, even its capital moved from Rome. There are some other complications too. Nevertheless, it remains the case that, for the purposes relevant this thread, and minor quibbles aside, as I said, what we, today, call the Roman Empire was (overwhelmingly mostly) ruled from Rome and (what we call) the Byzantine Empire was ruled from Constantinople. To deny this, is to fail to see the forest for the trees. My post was intended to draw other posters’ attention to the forest. To reply to this gentle, carefully qualified corrective with a big, bolded “This is false,” is not only offensive (I am not, contrary to your implication, either lying or ignorant about the matter!), but massively misleading as to the historical and historiographical realities.
I still think that’s stretching it. I do think it’s reasonable to say that the Roman Empire was founded in 27 BC. If we take 480 AD as the date when this Empire collapsed (when Emperor Zeno formally abolished the Western Empire as a separate political entity), we can say it lasted for 507 years.
For a forty year period in the third century, there effectively was no Empire. Various Emperors ruled a portion of the Empire from whatever city they happened to have a power base in. Empire-wide rule was briefly re-established under Aurelian in 270, lost when he was assassinated in 275, and re-established under Diocletian in 284.
As I noted in a previous post, one of the things Diocletian did was move the capital out of Rome and establish new regional capitals in places like Antioch, Mediolanum, Nicomedia, and Trier.
So of the approximately 500 year history of the Western Roman Empire, Rome was the capital for approximately 270 years. I don’t think that qualifies as a vast majority of the time - the Western Empire was ruled from outside of Rome for almost as many years as it was ruled from Rome.
I’m not as smart as you guys but I believe the leader of the Eastern Roman empire signed his name as Cesar up until the bitter end. That says it all. They thought they were the true Roman empire.
I wonder if someone can provide some additional information. As I mentioned briefly, my limited knowledge of the subject was that the divide that important to many was the religious split over who was in charge of the church. I can see the western European Roman Catholics continuing to think of Rome as something distinct from Byzantium before the term Byzantine Empire was coined. Although it really was the seat of the Roman Empire wouldn’t the history of the empire in the East following the declination of Rome itself be considered a separate historical timeline anyway?
The successor states of both sides of the Roman Empire continued into the 20th Century: Kaiser of first the Holy Roman (German, Western) Empire, than the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire; and the Tsar(s) of the Russian, Serbian, and Bulgarian Empires.
Both those words mean “Caesar”.
The Empire remained divided until the very end, which was mostly around World War I. (Or just after World War II, if you want to treat the Tsardom of Bulgaria seriously.)
I can’t find the previous post where you say that, but I do not believe Rome ceased to be considered a capital (and probably by most ordinary people, not involved in the Empire’s administration, the capital), even if it was no longer unique in its role. Come to that, long before that, the Empire was, in effect, administered from wherever the Emperor and his court happened to be, which was often not Rome, but that is beside the point, because Rome remained the recognized and ceremonial capital.
As I already pointed out, though you choose to brush it aside, the history of the Roman Empire in the sense of an an empire ruled from Rome, is much longer than that (to the extent, indeed, that most of the “Roman history” that used to be taught in schools, and that thus shaped the sensibility of modern Western civilization, was history from the Republican era). Furthermore, even for most of those periods where effective control was exercised from somewhere other than Rome, Rome remained widely recognized as the place where control ought to be exercised from (if only we were not in a state of civil war, or whatever). As for those periods when there was no effective overall control, it makes at least as much sense to say there was no Roman Empire during those periods (so those years should not be counted towards the total) as it does to say, as you seem to want to, that there was a Roman Empire, but its capital was not Rome.
But again, this is all quibbling about forests and trees. None of it really affects the fact that, although there was a clear line of continuity between the Roman and Byzantine Empires, there were also some clear discontinuities, such that the traditional picture that the original Empire died, after having spawned a successor state, is at least as plausible a reading as the revisionist interpretation that the whole thing just carried on regardless, but centered in a different place. When considering matters from the first of these perspectives, it remains convenient, and not particularly misleading, to call these successive and distinct empires, Roman and Byzantine respectively, whatever the Byzantines may have fondly liked to call themselves.
I tend to disagree with the points you’ve made. I’m not saying they’re absolutely wrong but they’re matters of interpretation (on issues like what an empire is and what a capital is) and I disagree with yours.
I do feel that there is a clear undeniable link between the Roman Empire centered in Rome and the Roman Empire centered in Constantinople. The people in Constantinople saw it that way - they called themselves Romans throughout their history and considered that the Empire they were living in was the same Empire that Augustus had founded. And there was a clear political continuity - the government was moved from one city to another but it was the same government. When the federal government of this country was relocated from Philadelphia to Washington in 1800, nobody thought a new country was being founded.
Thing is that we associate, rightly or wrongly, certain things with being “Roman” - such as use of the Latin language, and physical possession of the actual city of Rome, and its ancient homeland in what is now Italy. So it is a natural question as to just when an entity ceases to be “Roman” - when it gradually loses these attributes (speaking Greek and physically located elsewhere).
Otherwise, why stop at Byzantium? The Russian empire claims a descent from “Rome”, too - as inheritors of the leadership of Orthodox Christianity, and by descent - marrying a Byzantine princess into the royal family. They called themselves “the third Rome” and their leader was called a “Tsar”, meaning “Cesear”. Maybe “Rome” fell with the Russian revolution! Or, given Putin’s current course - maybe it didn’t fall at all … ! 
Warning : effortpost ahead.
Yup. They called themselves “Rhomaioi”. “Byzantine” was coined much later, in 16th century Germany I believe, and is kind of inherently pejorative (it referred to how complex the administration & religious issues got in the 7th/8th century).
But then again, the Byzantine Emperors also asserted that they ruled over the whole of the Roman empire (as of its apex) ; and any discrepancy from that was just reality being wrong and people being bloody-minded. So their perceptions were a *bit *skewed :).
The big break from our point of view, as has been noted, happened late 8th when Empress Theodora styled herself Emperor Theodora, which kind of got the Pope’s dander all up (in addition to religious beefs & powerplays from previous Emperors). At which point he nominated Charlemagne as the “real” Roman Emperor, and Byzantium got more or less cut off from “Europe” politically, and things got progressively more that way culturally, economically, etc…
[QUOTE=blood63]
I’m not as smart as you guys but I believe the leader of the Eastern Roman empire signed his name as Cesar up until the bitter end. That says it all. They thought they were the true Roman empire.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yes - because they actually were. There’s no real break in continuity WRT the institutions of Imperial Rome and those of Imperial Constantinople, and a lot of Roman cultural practices (and foibles) were represented in Byzantium. Rome was abandonned as the capital of the Roman empire in 350 or so, long before the Western Roman Empire done fell (in 476).
Modern historians make a distinction between them, because Byzantium also introduced many new things and broke with some Roman traditions (more and more as it went on and “orientalized”), and in particular it ceased being a majorly urban civilization centered around a powerful capital and turned into a more rural empire for Reasons - not the least of which because they’d lost control of the Med. & Egypt, and with them the grain shipments needed to maintain a fuckhueg city.
But that’s simply for clarification purposes and being all on the same page - government-wise, the Roman Empire fell in 1453.
The Russian claims are just that : propaganda claims. As far as I know the last Emperor of Byzantium didn’t send the Tsar the Imperial regalia or anything. I don’t know if they ever formally recognized the leaders of Kievan Rus’ as consuls/strategoi to begin with, even.
[QUOTE=Trinopus]
I wonder if someone can provide some additional information. As I mentioned briefly, my limited knowledge of the subject was that the divide that important to many was the religious split over who was in charge of the church. I can see the western European Roman Catholics continuing to think of Rome as something distinct from Byzantium before the term Byzantine Empire was coined. Although it really was the seat of the Roman Empire wouldn’t the history of the empire in the East following the declination of Rome itself be considered a separate historical timeline anyway?
[/QUOTE]
A bit more in-depth info :
First, about the “fall of Rome” : it didn’t *really *fall. The chief of the Western Emperor’s bodyguard toppled the Emperor, then sent to regalia over to Constantinople in a theatrical bid for power. He hoped the Eastern Emperor would send them back, legitimizing his rule locally, while remaining under the umbrella of the Empire in principle. It didn’t happen, and the Emperors instead considered him a rebel to be put down. Which they didn’t have the means to. But they still considered Rome post-fall (along with, well, all of the territory that Rome had ever conquered) to be theirs - it was all just in temporary revolt. Justinian the First actually conquered a lot of it back, for a time. In the end, they never really had the oomph to make good on their claims.
Now, regarding the religious split : the direction of the early Catholic church, as of adoption by Constantine (and the interdiction of other cults) was officially equally split between 5 patriarchs : Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Each of which was more or less the independant big boss over his geographical circumscription, and in theory all were equals. Questions of dogma were to be resolved by mutual agreement.
In practice, the Roman patriarch (i.e. the Pope) and the Constantinople patriach saw themselves as more equal than the others, by virtue of being tied with important cities for the Empire : the former capital, and the new capital. And the two constantly bickered over who had hierarchy over the other. Then the Muslims came along and conquered Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch, leaving only these two in the parlor. Awkwaaard.
Things came to a head in the 8th century over what’s called the Iconoclast crisis - I won’t go into details because it’s complicated stuff, but basically the Emperors in Constantinople asserted and cemented a new power over their religious hierachy, appointing or removing the local patriarch and even setting down the official dogma (whereas previously they… already sort of did that, but in a more PR way, by “approving” patriarchs proposed to them by “an election among cardinals”. In actual fact the cardinals always coincidentally voted for the guy the Emperor wanted in charge, but it’s the spirit of the thing y’know).
The Eastern patriarchs had no real way not to cave, seeing as the Emperor was right there with his soldiers, but the Popes in Rome were real pissy about it and seized upon the fact that the Lombards had chased the Byzantine forces off of Italy to ally with and legitimize the Frankish kingdoms instead - in exchange for remaining head honchos over all the religious shit.
So, did Byzantium split from Rome and form a new identity, or did the remnants of historical Rome secede from the then-current Roman Empire ? You tell me :p. But they do say the Holy Roman Empire (which grew from the roots planted by Charlemagne) was three lies in one phrase :D.
Where does Keyser Soze come in?
I think I addressed that point. The Empire that moved its capital to Constantinople was clearly the Roman Empire. It had the same emperor, the same court, the same civil service, the same military forces, the same laws, the same coinage. They just packed everything up and moved to a new city. It was, as I noted, the equivalent of when the United States capital was moved from Philadelphia to Washington. (Even in terms of distance. As I’ve pointed out the capital hadn’t been in Rome for decades. The city they moved to Constantinople from was Nicodemia which was less than seventy miles away.)
Later places which claimed to be Roman Empires - like Charlemagne’s, Otto’s, or Ivan’s - didn’t have any real connection to the classical empire. They were, at most, attempts to revive the empire.
It started the same, but as it evolved, it became less and less “the same”. A purely Greek-speaking kingdom, with a different religion, a different language, a different type of economy and political organization.
To use your analogy - it would be more like Brits conquering India, and then, during (say) the Napoleonic Wars, moving the monarchy to India when the French over-run England; a couple of hundred years later, all of the “British” institutions still have the same names - only, everyone actually manning those posts is a Hindu, speaking Hindi, with English relegated to a purely ceremonial role; the monarchs still use the same old titles - but they are clearly Hindu emperors, with Hindu court ceremonies, etc. Is this still the “British Empire”?
One aspect of this was that Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were all located within the Eastern Roman Empire. So their religious issues often got tied up in Imperial politics. Rome was the only major church city which was outside of the Empire. In addition, church business in the four eastern cities was conducted mostly in Greek while Rome used mostly Latin.
So Rome came to be seen as an outsider in church politics. There were many issues which the other four cities were directly involved in while Rome was not. And a result of this was that when there was a big dispute between two or more of the other cities, Rome was often asked to mediate the dispute as an impartial judge.
The other cities didn’t think of this as recognizing Roman superiority. They saw Rome as an equal that happened to be uninvolved in the dispute so it could act as a mediator. But Rome began to see itself as the authority over the other cities because it was issuing rulings over their disputes.
Sure it changed. Institutions always change over time and we’re talking about centuries here. It’s true that if you had taken a Roman citizen from the year 27 BC and brought him forward to 1000 AD, he’d have been shocked by the people in Constantinople - they don’t speak Latin, they don’t worship Jupiter. But if you had taken that same citizen and moved him to Rome in 1000 AD, he’d have been just as shocked - they didn’t speak Latin or worship Jupiter there either. It’s time not geography that changed the Empire.
The issue ain’t that simple. You have what amounts in effect to the movement of an entire, universal system from place A to place B (which is a subset only of “A”). The actual inhabitants of place A and place B have retained their languages and cultural histories, which have their own, quite independent evolutionary paths; in the case of “Rome” and “Byzantium”, this lead to the gradual replacement of the “Roman” with the “Greek”.
Now, naturally the Greeks of Byzantium retained as much as they could of the “Roman” symbolism - for exactly the same reasons as the Austrians and Russians did: because “Rome” represented political legitimacy, and an ideology of universal rule (albeit “temporarily out of order” :D).
Granted, Byzantium has the closest real-life claim to such continuity - but such claims are really all a matter of degree, not kind; all are successors to that Roman ideal. All lack the reality of being the “Roman Empire”, being, rather, a purely local product.
Ehhhh…I think I’m more in Little Nemo’s camp on this one. IMHO there is a huge qualitative difference between the Roman/Byzantine relationship and all the other states that claimed empire based on the memory of Rome. The HRE had as much claim to the heritage of the Roman state as William the Conqueror had to England - i.e. almost none ;).
Meanwhile if you want to call Byzantium non-Roman ( pretty damn arguable ), it was at the very least was seamlessly lineal in descent. Where, for example, do you draw the line between Roman And Byzantine? Justinian, ( probably ) the last native speaker of Latin? Maurice, whose death some have cast as the break with Classical Antiquity? Heraclius? The post-Arab rump state? Somewhere else?
Fall of Carthage to the Arabs in 698AD and the final loss of Rome in IIRC 751AD. I think those two points are the true end of the “Romaness” and becoming a Greek near abroad.
There is no doubt it’s a gradual process - but equally, there is no doubt that, after a certain point, there was something quite recognizably “non-Roman”; particularly as (1) the loss of even the notion of a universal imperium became a reality; and (2) Greek culture replaced Roman culture in all things.
Strikes me of a variety of the “argument of the beard”:
That being noted, as you will see, I agree that of all the contenders, Byzantium has the best claim. But they all share more similarities than differences - in that none of them are really “Roman”, whatever titles they happen to use.
Really, it is a matter of territory, culture, and imperial philosophy. At one end of the contunuum, you have an entity that has legitimate pretentions to universal rule of Med. civilization, lead by a military enity with its roots in Italy, with Latin as the language of citizenship; at the other, a local Greek kingdom, lead by a “Basileus”. Nothing whatever like “Rome”, recognizably a successor state.
If absolutely forced to name a dividing line, I’d go with the failure of Justinian to re-secure the Western Empire (a notable example of strategic overstretch - though his plague did not help matters). This failure, like the English monarchs’ failure to secure an empire in France which ensured there would be “England” and “France”, ensured that Byzantium would cease to be a ‘universal empire’ and become a local state - Greek and Orthodox.
IMHO, The split between the Eastern and Western empires occurred much earlier than 475 AD; in fact, it happened soon after Greece was conquered by Rome. By Augustus’s time, the eastern Empire was already Greek-speaking and Hellenic-cultured, and centered on Greece rather than Rome. I think that it would be more accurate to say that the Roman Empire never actually split - it was *always *two realms, Latin and Greek.