Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:55:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire?
#1
Byzantine Empire
 
#2
Eastern Roman Empire
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 43

Author Topic: Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire?  (Read 2152 times)
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 07, 2020, 05:45:33 PM »

Which one is the best name for the empire which survived until 1453?
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,124
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2020, 05:52:45 PM »

I use Byzantine more but both are acceptable to me.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2020, 07:03:06 PM »

I would say Eastern Roman Empire until 635. Didn't Latin stop being a linga fraca then? Byzantine was a name made up after the fact by a 100 years. So I guess I would just have considered them the Greek Empire after Heraclius.
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,252
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2020, 11:14:06 PM »

I'd use Eastern Roman Empire from Diocletian's division until the Visigoths sacked Rome and the Western Empire fell. After that, I would use Byzantine, until the Ottomans took over.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2020, 11:49:37 PM »

Neither is really correct, but Eastern Roman Empire (or preferably eastern Roman Empire) is closer. If you showed up in early Medieval Europe and asked "which way to the Byzantine Empire?" nobody would know what you were talking about.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2020, 12:48:44 AM »

They called themselves the Roman Empire, from what I understand.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,124
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2020, 12:51:38 AM »

They called themselves the Roman Empire, from what I understand.
It would be really confusing if we called them the Roman Empire though. Exonyms are a thing for a reason.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2020, 04:36:57 AM »

I think it makes sense to have a separate term for the Eastern Roman Empire once it became durably isolated from the West and began developing in a new direction. Of course, this should be accompanied by disclaimers that this still very much was the same entity as the Roman Empire.

In a way, it might actually be more worthwhile to start talking about the Byzantine Empire even before the fall of the West, perhaps as early as Constantine. The West had been losing political, economic and cultural importance since the days of Hadrian, and by the time of Constantine Rome had already ceased to be the true capital. Maybe the polity in the 4th and 5th centuries can more properly be called the Romano-Byzantine Empire. That way, the transition to a fully Byzantine is made less artificially jarring.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2020, 10:42:34 AM »

I like the term "Byzantine Empire" specifically because it sounds cool. Smiley  However, I maintain there is not some point in time where you can logically "de-Romify" the Eastern Romans based on some event/trend/factor.  As I have posted before on this topic, being "Roman" by the Fifth Century AD was no longer AT ALL descriptive of Italic ethnicity, speaking Latin or being from the city of Rome (or Italy).  It just wasn't.  People had begun to view Rome as the "one true empire of God on Earth," and being Roman was entirely dependent on fulfilling that vision and carrying on that legacy.  If the US split into the Western US and the Eastern US, and the Eastern US (i.e., where the original English Americans started out "civilization") fell, NOBODY would consider the Western Americans as not just "Americans," even if they ended up speaking Spanish in this future scenario.

I like the term "Byzantine Empire" simply to help people unfamiliar with history distinguish Antiquity from the Middle Ages, and again because I think it sounds cool. Smiley  However, if you are trying to pinpoint some time in which the Byzantines are no longer "Romans," I think you are COMPLETELY missing the mark.  I highly encourage all to watch this video and many of the other ones from this channel:

Were the Byzantines Roman?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2020, 04:09:20 PM »

I like the term "Byzantine Empire" specifically because it sounds cool. Smiley  However, I maintain there is not some point in time where you can logically "de-Romify" the Eastern Romans based on some event/trend/factor.  As I have posted before on this topic, being "Roman" by the Fifth Century AD was no longer AT ALL descriptive of Italic ethnicity, speaking Latin or being from the city of Rome (or Italy).  It just wasn't.  People had begun to view Rome as the "one true empire of God on Earth," and being Roman was entirely dependent on fulfilling that vision and carrying on that legacy.  If the US split into the Western US and the Eastern US, and the Eastern US (i.e., where the original English Americans started out "civilization") fell, NOBODY would consider the Western Americans as not just "Americans," even if they ended up speaking Spanish in this future scenario.

The difference is that the US isn't called the United States of Washington DC (it has the opposite problem of having a too generic name rather than a too specific one Tongue). It's really just a semantic issue, as I already said that the Byzantines are absolutely a political and cultural continuation of the Romans. But there is something weird about calling an empire over a city that it only held nominal control (and later no control) over and which had no real political relevance within it. And I'm aware that the political decline of Rome within the Empire started long before the fall of the West. That's why if anything I'd be in favor of retiring the term "Roman Empire" earlier. But again, it is just semantics.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2020, 04:33:34 PM »

The Arab conquests are a pretty good line between a massively multicultural, multilingual state with many different brands of Christianity and ethnic groups and the vast wealth of Egypt vs. the smaller, more homogenous in language, more exclusively Greek, state that emerged with far less international reach and influence.

The loss of Egypt and Syria, the most valuable parts of the Empire (arguably Egypt was the most valuable and important part of the Empire even before the East West divide), is a really transformative moment in terms of what kind of power we're talking about. I think it's fair to call it a "Roman" state through Heraclius' reign. Heraclius' reign even mostly features that greatest of Roman passtimes: a knock down, drag out fight with the Persians, something a Roman from 700 years prior would've nodded approvingly at as totally proper even if he wouldn't recognize these newfangled cataphracts.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2020, 05:23:10 PM »

^ This brings up another question I have often had that is loosely related to all of this ... when did areas like Egypt and the Levant lose their relative wealth compared to the various parts of Europe?
Logged
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,282


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2020, 07:06:19 PM »

I think Eastern Roman only makes sense as long as there was a Western Roman counterpart. 476 is a somewhat arbitrary delineation, but it's fair as the transition. One alternative would be when Heraclius changed the language of official documents from Latin to Greek (which conveniently coincides roughly with the loss of the Levant and Egypt, i.e., to the area that the Byzantines would control for most of their history). You might also consider Justinian's conquests, ironically, as the point of departure.

I don't think it's really reasonable to call the empire "Roman" past the seventh century at the very latest. Even during the classical Roman Empire, there was a clear cultural delineation between the Greek East and the Latin West, a separation that only became more acute with the division of the empire and subsequent decline of the West. And things that had been really defining features of the Roman Empire, such the Senate, were quickly reduced to mere historical quirks in the Byzantine Empire, and even the internal organization of the empire changed dramatically with the emergence of themata. The Christianization of the empire (admittedly, which occurred before the disappearance of Western Rome, although paganism was still quite widespread until the 6th century) clearly dramatically changed the culture from classical Rome, too. There are just too many cultural differences between the Byzantines and the classical Romans, despite the continuation of the name, to call them one and the same.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2020, 08:00:47 PM »

Why would it be the Eastern Roman Empire when it didn't even include Rome?
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2020, 08:41:39 PM »

Why would it be the Eastern Roman Empire when it didn't even include Rome?

Thing is, it totally did.

If you want to be a dick and ask "Who was the last Roman Emperor to build a monument in Rome" you could always win by pointing to this piece of s**t:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_of_Phocas

Built in 610. Yes, the column of Phocas is about as impressive as Phocas was an Emperor, but it was still built a century and a half after the fall of the Western Empire.

The Empire seized back the City of Rome in 537 and kept it for a good two centuries.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2020, 08:43:55 PM »

^ This brings up another question I have often had that is loosely related to all of this ... when did areas like Egypt and the Levant lose their relative wealth compared to the various parts of Europe?

This deserves a longer and more detailed response than I want to give right now, but the short version boils down to:

Classical Egypt was an agricultural powerhouse that produced a huge agricultural surplus and fed much of the rest of the Mediterranean. Its population was 2 million.

Modern Egypt is an agricultural powerhouse. It...produces a huge agricultural deficit and has to import a lot of food. It has a population of 80 million.

There's obviously a lot more to say, but that should get at the thrust of what the problem is.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2020, 09:03:02 PM »

If I was writing something formal, I would just call them the Roman Empire, or Eastern Roman Empire if I really need to be specific. Although to be fair, I usually just call them the Byzantine Empire because it's what everyone else calls them.

Why would it be the Eastern Roman Empire when it didn't even include Rome?

Rome (the city) stopped being the most important city in the Roman Empire long before it split up.

I would say Eastern Roman Empire until 635. Didn't Latin stop being a linga fraca then? Byzantine was a name made up after the fact by a 100 years. So I guess I would just have considered them the Greek Empire after Heraclius.

They spoke Greek, but they did not identify themselves as "Greek" so calling them that is just as ahistorical as Byzantine.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2020, 09:05:35 PM »

I like the term "Byzantine Empire" specifically because it sounds cool. Smiley  However, I maintain there is not some point in time where you can logically "de-Romify" the Eastern Romans based on some event/trend/factor.  As I have posted before on this topic, being "Roman" by the Fifth Century AD was no longer AT ALL descriptive of Italic ethnicity, speaking Latin or being from the city of Rome (or Italy).  It just wasn't.  People had begun to view Rome as the "one true empire of God on Earth," and being Roman was entirely dependent on fulfilling that vision and carrying on that legacy.  If the US split into the Western US and the Eastern US, and the Eastern US (i.e., where the original English Americans started out "civilization") fell, NOBODY would consider the Western Americans as not just "Americans," even if they ended up speaking Spanish in this future scenario.

The difference is that the US isn't called the United States of Washington DC (it has the opposite problem of having a too generic name rather than a too specific one Tongue). It's really just a semantic issue, as I already said that the Byzantines are absolutely a political and cultural continuation of the Romans. But there is something weird about calling an empire over a city that it only held nominal control (and later no control) over and which had no real political relevance within it. And I'm aware that the political decline of Rome within the Empire started long before the fall of the West. That's why if anything I'd be in favor of retiring the term "Roman Empire" earlier. But again, it is just semantics.

Maybe we should just call it Rhomania (I'd suggest Romania but that adds a whole nother level of confusion).
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2020, 09:26:31 PM »

Why would it be the Eastern Roman Empire when it didn't even include Rome?

Rome wasn’t even A capital of the late Western Roman Empire.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,124
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2020, 09:28:13 PM »

Why would it be the Eastern Roman Empire when it didn't even include Rome?

Rome wasn’t even A capital of the late Western Roman Empire.
Yeah, I think they had Ravenna as the capital.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2020, 09:09:49 AM »

Why would it be the Eastern Roman Empire when it didn't even include Rome?

Rome wasn’t even A capital of the late Western Roman Empire.
Yeah, I think they had Ravenna as the capital.

RINO Tom said a capital for a reason. The Roman Empire in the West tried a bunch of more forward-facing capitals first: Milan/Mediolanum because it was so much further north and closer to the frontier, and during the 4th century they even made Trier (Augusta Treverorum) a capital of the West to put the emperor on the front lines. The 5th century move to Ravenna (which is basically an impregnable city in the middle of a swamp that can't be taken without naval superiority) is a humiliating concession that the Imperial capital needs to be hidden away where it cannot be taken.

Speaking of Ravenna, when the Empire took back Italy from the Ostrogoths in the 6th century, it promptly lost most of its gains to the Lombards, but due to Ravenna's defensibility, it held onto it for WAY longer, until the 750s.



Nice map of Europe in 700. You can see the Empire continuing to hold Ravenna and Rome (and Sicily) even though the rest of Italy has fallen to the Lombards.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 09, 2020, 09:47:21 AM »

They called themselves the Roman Empire, from what I understand.

The descendants of the refugees of the last "Roman" lands to be seized from "Rome" still call themselves "Romans" in Greece and Southern Italy to this day.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2020, 10:02:13 AM »

Rome was always constitutionally the imperial capital of the Empire (distinct from military capitals such as Ravenna) and remained so at least until Justinian. As for jurisdiction over Rome, the Emperor residing in Constantinople appointed or at least confirmed the Bishop of Rome in his seat until the middle of the 8th century. Before that point it seems best to refer to the empire as the ERE and after about 800 or so Byzantium, keeping in mind that these demonyms are never perfect. Not like the Aztec or Mughal empires used those names either.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2020, 10:09:40 AM »

If I was writing something formal, I would just call them the Roman Empire, or Eastern Roman Empire if I really need to be specific. Although to be fair, I usually just call them the Byzantine Empire because it's what everyone else calls them.

Why would it be the Eastern Roman Empire when it didn't even include Rome?

Rome (the city) stopped being the most important city in the Roman Empire long before it split up.

I would say Eastern Roman Empire until 635. Didn't Latin stop being a linga fraca then? Byzantine was a name made up after the fact by a 100 years. So I guess I would just have considered them the Greek Empire after Heraclius.

They spoke Greek, but they did not identify themselves as "Greek" so calling them that is just as ahistorical as Byzantine.

Weren't they internationally recognized as "Greek" at least after Empress Irene?
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2020, 12:43:54 PM »

If I was writing something formal, I would just call them the Roman Empire, or Eastern Roman Empire if I really need to be specific. Although to be fair, I usually just call them the Byzantine Empire because it's what everyone else calls them.

Why would it be the Eastern Roman Empire when it didn't even include Rome?

Rome (the city) stopped being the most important city in the Roman Empire long before it split up.

I would say Eastern Roman Empire until 635. Didn't Latin stop being a linga fraca then? Byzantine was a name made up after the fact by a 100 years. So I guess I would just have considered them the Greek Empire after Heraclius.

They spoke Greek, but they did not identify themselves as "Greek" so calling them that is just as ahistorical as Byzantine.

Weren't they internationally recognized as "Greek" at least after Empress Irene?

From what I have read, the term "Greek" the way WE use it today was not in widespread use.  What I mean by this, is that those in Greece thought of their population as two groups: Romans (i.e., good Christian citizens of the Empire) and Hellenes (i.e., suspicious pagans).  Of course their ethnic background was Greek and they spoke Greek, but they very consciously shed that identity in favor of this sort of "new Christian order" to the world, and anyone who pushed that vision was a "Roman."

States like the Holy Roman Empire mocked the Byzantines as "the Kingdom of the Greeks," but I'd put as much weight in that as I would in a Republican's description of the Democratic Party.  The Holy Roman Empire saw itself as the successor of Western Rome, and they didn't see much room for Eastern Rome in that picture.  So, while this is admittedly a bad analogy, I think someone from a various other country would see the Byzantines as "Greek" in no more of a way than you would see a French-speaking Swiss person as "French."
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 13 queries.