Is the Byzantine Empire a continuation of the Roman Empire?

Cal - may I please object to your poll? There are no Roman emperors after Justinian. His death marked the end of Rome, period. If you want to ask who is the greatest Roman/Byzantine emperor, than I will view this as a valid poll, but until such time as this amendment is made, you have not asked a valid question. I mean, there is no way that anyone on your list from Heraclius on down is Roman!

To provide an answer your question - Augustus was the best Roman emperor, and Heraclius the greatest Byzantine emperor. I won't vote for Justinian because he's not quite in a league with Augustus (who is?), and labeling him a Roman emperor is valid, although still does not do Byzantium any justice.

metalhead, let's not get into this argument. The Byzantine Empire is a continuation of the Roman Empire. That is simply a fact, accepted by all historians.

Originally posted by calgacus
metalhead, let's not get into this argument. The Byzantine Empire is a continuation of the Roman Empire. That is simply a fact, accepted by all historians.

Click to expand...

I do find it amazing how you can speak for all historians.

I think Metalhead's point is this: though the Byzantine Empire is a descendant of the eastern Roman empire, the emperors are hardly "Roman" anymore...that is why the name is changed to "Byzantine", so in effect, this poll is a combination of the greatest Roman/Byzantine Emperor...there is nothing wrong with that, it does not make the poll invalid, but it is something that should be recognized, perhaps in the title?

Originally posted by Nad


I do find it amazing how you can speak for all historians.

I think Metalhead's point is this: though the Byzantine Empire is a descendant of the eastern Roman empire, the emperors are hardly "Roman" anymore...that is why the name is changed to "Byzantine", so in effect, this poll is a combination of the greatest Roman/Byzantine Emperor...there is nothing wrong with that, it does not make the poll invalid, but it is something that should be recognized, perhaps in the title?

Click to expand...

I know of no historians who believe that the Byzantium was not a continuation of the Roman Empire.

The East Romans never changed their name. We only call it (often) by a different name because of medieval ignorance. If you want, you can pretend that Byzantium isn't Roman and invent some arbitrary break-off point. But, for me, for Edward Gibbon, and for everyone else I've read, it is the Roman state. I'm not going to say it was not Roman, because it was. Changing the poll name to Roman and Byzantium would be not only redundant, but stupid.

I think you're overlooking a simple but rather important point: that the Roman empire was (originally) based on Rome....that's why it was called the Roman Empire. I accept fully that Roman emperors had other seats of power, such as Milan, and after Constantine, then Constantinople and Antioch became important seats of power in the east. But all that time, Rome was still the cultural heart of the empire, Rome belonged to the empire or the empire belonged to Rome. The people of say, Constantinople weren't "Roman", by any stretch of imagination...but they considered themselves Roman because they were part of the Roman empire.


Once the Western Empire declines and Rome passes beyond the power of the emperors in the east, then the empire is no longer truly "Roman"....just as, say, the state of Virginia is no longer English...the people in the east remember that their empire was originally Roman, but they are not Romans, and Rome is no longer a part of the empire. I hardly think it's ignorance to recognize such a simple yet important point.

Thread sliced out of original best Roman emperor thread...

A clear cut distinction between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire is difficult to achieve. Perhaps these thoughts may help (or not).

First of all, the Byzantine Empire was officially the Roman Empire way down till about 100 years before the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. The kings, officials and the people who made up this empire NEVER called themselves Byzantines, nor did they call their empire, the Byzantine Empire (this was a later foreign creation used to distinguish time periods - the old history school of finding clear cut events for dividing time peirods, in this case the shift from Rome to Constantinople/Byzantium). Until, the 15th century the Byzantine Emperors called themselves King of the Romans. In Byzantium's twilight the Emperors began styling themselves more and more King of the Greeks, for reasons which are obvious to any who are familiar with this period. For those not, suffice it to say that Constantinople and Papal Rome had been at loggerheads with each other for just about all their existence, mostly due to religious reasons. At the Council of Florence it was agreed that the Emperor would embrace Catholicism, a thing which led to massive revolts by his Greek subjects. To assuage his people the Emperor's rejected this Council's agreements and took on the title King of th Greeks to indicate his loyalty. Apart from this, the Emperor of Constantinople never dropped his claims to the throne of Rome. The Byzantine emperors following Charlemagne time, though they officialy recognized the rival Empires in the manner the UN does nations today, they never acknowledged their claim to the throne of Rome.

Having said all this, there is the other side of the coin. After Heraclius in particular there can be no doubt that the Eastern Roman Empire was Greek through and through. The Emperors following Michael Rhangabe (or Michael I) began taking non-Roman names and Latin was dropped as the official language. Other Roman traditions were similarly disposed of (titles such as 'Caesar' for instance). And yet the Greeks lacked a national identity due in large part to their allegiance to 'Old Rome', and all her imperial aura. To refute the Roman heritage officialy was tantamount to erasing their reason to exist. The Emperors in Constantinople, despite all appearances, were the rightful heirs of Augustus. The Western potentates even way down to the Fall recognized this, despite their rival claims.

So where does this leave us? I would say Calgacus' poll is valid in that the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire despite its shedding of Roman traditions, was officially a continuation of the Western Roman Empire (or traditional empire if your prefer).

I would also say that metalhead and Ned are also correct in raising objections to the Rome/Byzantium question seeing as the Empire was no longer Roman in its essence.

As for historians and what they think well, contemporary Byzantine era historians say both. That is to say that the Byzantine historian will say that they are Roman, the German, Italian etc historian will say they are Greeks. Modern historians seperate the two into nice manageable lots (Roman and Byzantine). What none of them however disputes is what Calgacus points out by saying that the Eastern Roman Empire was a continuation of the Western Roman Empire. Of course it was. What it became after its inauguration by Constantine the Great is another matter.

So it seems its a matter of culture...

Yes. That's right, Porphyrogenitos.

Just to point out, many Greeks today consider the Byzantine Empire a continuation of the classic Greek Empire. Constantine the Great and many other Byzantine emperors are considered Greek Orthodox saints by many Greeks and Greek-Americans, including myself.

As far as I am concerned, the history of the Roman race starts with the founding of Troy and ends with the fall of Nea Roma. BTW, why is Romania called Romania? isn't that what the Roman Empire was called? Is it some kind of remnant of the empire?

I believe it's 'cause the Romanians believe themselves to be descendants of Romans in this area. Our Romanian friends can surely provide a much more accurate answer.

Actually "Romanum" was the word of choice (combined with the latin form of empire, or republic of coarse, although criticizers of the empror and his form of government(those who thaught it was to monarchal-like me ) might get away with calling Rome, a "Regnum Romanum", or the "Kingdom of Rome"

as for the romania thing, yes, XIII is more or less right right, wether it be the Byzantines or Romans themselves, the area was ruled so long by the official, or the secondary Roman empire that they apperntlly saw no need to call themselves barbarians- but dont let that fool you, Romania was NEVER a Roman- or Byzantine- reminant area,- they just kept the name

So what is the conclusion. Are we saying that the Byzantine Empire that fell in the 15th Century was as much part of the Roman Empire as the Jewish nation that the Romans dispersed, mostly, in the 1st century was the same nation as the one Moses led out of Egypt in about 2000 BC, and for the same reasons?

J

Well, to use a more modern analogy....
....would people call the United States of America a new nation with a new culture, OR, a continuation of British culture that has evolved into something new?

Byzantium used Greek instead of the offical Latin....
It had a new capital.....
It's army was differently organised....
It's religion became slightly different....
It survived and thrived after the breakup of the empire....
And it evolved new customs, fashions, art and culture.
But it's roots were originally Roman.

I dont know about other people, but I think the the real split between Roma and Byzantium was the military- I know it sounds trivial, but the army was a very important factor for both empires, and it only makes sense that when the eastern Roman empire failed to look much like the a "standerd" late roman army that the split began

Originally posted by XIII
I believe it's 'cause the Romanians believe themselves to be descendants of Romans in this area.

Click to expand...

Present !!!

Yes - the name of the people is "români" ( Romanians ) because we speak the only latin-based language in the are. In fact here are somewhat "mythologycal" aspects - "the insland of latinity in a slav sea" ... etc.

Interesting is that in the Medieval Age - when the "official language" was slavonic - the term "rumâni" designate the poor peasant - but also was present.

But none of romanian provincies was under the control of Bzsantine Empire ... never ...

Related with the Bysantine Empire I belive that he is somehow the succesor of the Roman Empire and it also helped to retransmit some part of "roman legacy" ( in law for example ) in Western Europe ...

And also some Bysantine Emperor had control of some parts of Italy and the ideea of "rebuild Roman Empire" ( or at least "Mare Nostrum" ) was present in many bysantine emperor's heads ...

Regards

I think it is an evolved Roman Empire.

Think of it this way....if the capital of the United States were changed from Washington to, say, Los Angeles or any other western city....while everything east of the Mississippi collapsed and became their own nations/colonies...does that mean the United States ceases to exist because Washington, D.C. is no longer the capital, nor is it any longer in the nation? No...the United States would be over in Los Angeles or whatever city over there and thrive...taking it's own West Coast culture and not having to deal with the East Coast.

I'm sure if you advanced time by a millienium, and this western United States were still around, they'd probably still call themselves the US (unless there was some kind of catastrophic invasion, or revolution...this wasn't really the case in the East Roman Empire/Byzantine) but the culture itself would completely resemble that of the West Coast or whatever culture is dominant through the coast....and it'd probably look nothing like the East Coast culture. There will still be presidents of the US, and they'll probably still consider George Washington the first President of this new-US. It's still there....it just lost the territory that had its former capital and shifted over. I think this is basically what happened with the East Roman/Byzantine Empire.

I use Byzantine Empire really because that's the widespread name for this one. Besides, I'm thinking of the East Roman Empire only during that time when the whole Roman Empire split, but each side still had an empire....before the West fell.

Just my 2/10ths of a cent.


Besides, I'm sure many Byzantine emperors made it a goal to try to recapture the glory and size of the old Roman Empire.

The early medieval dream of a revitalised (Western) Roman Empire is a fascinating one that you've all touched on in this thread. Yes, the Byzantines certainly tried to recapture the lost western lands, as The Yankee suggested. As many of you would know, Justinian spent many years campaigning in Italy with this in mind. If I recall correctly, he actually conquered most of Italy, though it was lost after he died.

And it wasn't just the Eastern Empire that saw a claim to the glory of ancient Rome. Charlemagne, King of the Franks and founder of the Holy Roman Empire styled himself as Emperor of the Western Romans. Strictly speaking, though, he was a 'barbarian', and not even a descendant of the Germanic tribes who had settled in Italy after the fall of Rome.

It's a matter of power and prestige, but what is also important is thinking about what the people of the time considered themselves. In referring to themselves, the Byzantines used the word 'Romanoi'. Sure, they spoke Greek, adhered to an Eastern Christian rite and couldn't make claim to a single Italian rock after the 6th century. However, the Byzantine Empire, as a state (as opposed to a nation) truly was a continuation of Rome in an unbroken history from the 8th century BC.

The point is that they were the only true inheritors of the Roman Empire, if there was anyone who could call themselves 'Roman'.

Thus (take a deep breath)... These Greco-Romans of the Eastern Empire were not ethnically Roman, and their culture was far removed from the 'Classical' Rome of Augustus. As a PRODUCT OF HISTORY, though, the Byzantines were the direct inheritors of Rome and thus shared a special link with the earlier Roman Empire, as can be seen with the survival of the state that was unbroken (depending on definition) from Augustus to the last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine XI Palaeologus.

So, is the wording of Calgacus' poll justified?

Well...*shrugs*...are we talking about those who were 'Romans in spirit' (including the Byzantines and the Holy Roman Emperors), or strictly the Western Emperors (up to Romulus Augustulus)?

:soldier: :soldier: :soldier:

Well, I may as well say that Francis II who died in 1806 was a good Holy 'Roman' Emperor for denying Napoleon his coveted title by abdicating and dissolving his state...

I'm thinking now that it probably would be a better idea to stick with the Western Emperors up to 476 AD. They had no time to transform into something else entirely...

:soldier: :soldier: :soldier: