Byzantine Empire

[pompeius magnus]

Now i recieve a lot of flak at times for my opinions on whether the Byzantine Empire was roman or not. My opinion is the Roman empire ended in 1054 with the great schism and that from then on the Byzantine empire was more greek- with mixture of arabic- than roman. post your thoughts.

[Guest spartacus]

To be honest PM, I know little on the Byzantine Empire, in fact, I will make a point of ordering a book on it from Waterstones

 

I would love to be able to reply to your question as it looks an interesting one, but from the little I know the Byzantine Empire did become more intergrated!

I will get back to this post in the near future!

[pompeius magnus]

please do. I am very stubborn on my views and will argue them to the best of my knowledge.

[Ursus]

I'm certainly not an expert on Byzantium. But I think the Christian schism of 1054 was merely a formalization of a process that had been brewing for centuries due to cultural differences between the Greek east and Latin West.

 

While the Byzantines did call themselves Romans, their civilization seems too different from the Pagan, Latin west to reasonably be equated with old Rome.

 

I would say the Roman Empire split apart when Constantine helped legitimize a new faith and anchored his new empire in the east with a new capitol. Then within 100-200 years from that point, the Western empire ceased to function as a united geopolitical reality, while the Eastern Empire began consolidating itself into something of a new civilization. So I would place the turning point with Constantine when the empire as it had been known changed forever.

 

Just my opinion. *shrugs* Certainly I'm biased since everything after the ascension of Constantine is not completely germane to my own particular interests in the Roman Empire.

[Fatboy]

I think its very difficult to specify a point in time when the eastern Roman Empire transformed into a Greek speaking Byzantine Empire. Although the language of the people was Greek from the start, the language of the nobility and bureaucracy continued to be Latin and was only gradually replaced by Greek.

Also the machinery of government - the bureaucracy, civil service, army etc developed in an unbroken line from Imperial Rome.

The armies of the Byzantine "Theme" system of the early middle ages, for example, were the direct descendants of the classic legions.Although they would have looked quite different and the emphasis was on cavalry rather than infantry ( due to the terrain in asia minor ), the discipline and organisation would have been instantly recognisible to a classical Legionaire.

Supposedly, when the Byzantine Emperor ( I think it was Manuel I, or possibly John ) launched an expedition to bully the Crusader kingdoms in the 12th Century, the Latins were terrified by the cold efficiency of his army.Such a large host moving in complete silence and order was unheard of anywhere else at this time and the spooked Crusaders agreed to pay him homage rather than tangle with them.

 

Nevertheless I think the best point to choose as the end of the old Empire and the beginning of the Byzantine Empire is the reign of Heraclius back in the 7th Century.

It was during his reign that Greek was made the official language of the Empire and Byzantines began referring to him as "Basilieus" ( Greek for King ) instead of , or as well as, Emperor.

The end of Heraclius's reign also witnessed the final, cataclysmic war between Rome/Byzantium and Persia/Parthia.

In this epic struggle Persia was finally brought to its knees and virtually ceased to exist as a state, its cities ravaged and military destroyed. Byzantium for her part suffered almost as much, all her cities except Consatantinople were sacked during the conflict.The Islamic armies which then exploded onto the scene finished off the rubble of the Persian state with ease and repeatedly defeated the worn out Byzantine troops, eventually reaching the gates of Constaninople.

Although Byzantium survived, and in time recovered its strength and most of its territory, the Empire which followed was a medieval Empire.

Only Byzantium survived of the classical cities of the old Empire in anything like the shape and size it was during the classical, metropolitan Empire of times previous.This Empire retained its old prestige and would eventually become quite powerful in its own right but now it was just one of many, jostling for position in the medieval world.

Heraclius's death also ended his unsuccessful attempt to bring unification between the eastern and western Churches ( although it wasn't the last )

 

So although there are many contenders, such as Justinian I and Micheal somethingorother, I think Heraclius stands out as the Emperor who oversaw the transition from the " Roman " to the "Greek " forms of the Empire.

[Lex]

Let's just remember that the term 'Byzantine' is a modern one. The Byzantines refered to themselves as Romans and were known to the rest of the world as 'the Romans'. And also from a legal perspective, the Eastern Roman Empire was never fully extinguished till 1453, so I believe that all the rulers till the fall of the Eastern Empire where the legitimate and legal heirs to Rome.

 

For sure the culture and mentality had changed to that of the original Romans, but I guess that's natural when the Eatern Empire ended almost 1000 years after the West! So even though the language and culture changed (a logical evolution considering the area), I don't think that changed the fact that it was still legally Roman.

 

And from what I have read it seems that the Byzantine Empire didn't enter the Dark Ages when Europe did. Apparently the Byzantines were considered by the Crusaders as 'effiminate' because most of them could read and write and used a knife and fork to eat their food. So I believe that for the most part, they never entered into the Dark Ages like Europe and managed to preserve civilization whilst Europe was influenced by the barbarian savages who had conquered it, and which (ironically) took almost 1000 years to recover from.

[pompeius magnus]

The crusaders however thought of the Byzantines as Greeks.

[Lex]

The crusaders however thought of the Byzantines as Greeks.

 

 

But yet the Turks regarded them as Romans.

[Fatboy]

QUOTE " Lets just remember that the term Byzantine is a modern one "

No doubt, Byzantium is just a term of convenience but a necessary one.

As a political entity Byzantium was 100% still the Eastern Roman Empire up until its dying day but its completely impractical to refer to them as the Romans even if only to avoid confusion. ( among many good reasons)

Historians adopted the term for a good reason and so the question is still a valid one - where do we draw

the line ? Because there's no question of simply referring to them as Roman - as even most of their contemporaries recognised.

[Lex]

I agree with you 100% Fatboy, that's why I also refer to them as the Byzantine Empire. Culturally the Byzantines differed to the original Romans, but I was emphasizing the legal aspect of them being Roman and not the cultural aspect.

[paolo]

since:

• the term "Byzantine" is modern
  
• different opinions of the Roman Empire/ Byzantine Empire were made (as is often the case from "foreign" points of view)
  
• the Roman Empire was made up of many conquered areas which were culturally different as a result of Rome's conquering policy to allow conquered areas to retain their nationality in varying degrees
  

I cast my vote in Fatboy's direction and would say to give one date, as an all-inclusive answer might not be possible. Instead should we not give one according to the Western Roman Empire, another for the "barbarians" and yet a third from the Eastern Roman Empire itself ?

 

PS: excellent post idea and information from everyone

[Lex]

When Romulus Augustulus abdicated in the West, he stated that the empire no longer required two emperors and that the eastern emperor could claim the west and that Odoacer(the barbarian ruling Italy at the time) be made Patrician. Augutulus then had his imperial ornaments (diadem, etc.) sent to the eastern emperor. Therefore the Eastern Empire could legally lay claim to the western provinces since the imperial power of the West was transferred to Zeno.

 

Here

[Augustus]

The Byzantine Empire was a continuing development of the eastern half of the Roman empire hence as time went on they developed differnetly from the western half which basically was taken by the Germanic tribesmen. The Eastern half still felt it had a clain to Italy and the West.

If the West hadn't fallen who knows what direction it would have taken?

The main rift between Byzantium and the Pope was the problem of Caesero-Papism, the Pope didn't want temporal rulers thinking they could tell the Church what to do. Whereas in the East the Emperor had the patriarchs working as his lacklies.