History questions not worth their own thread V

[Dachs]

Wait, what? They were like, the same damned thing. And always considered themselves Roman to boot.

Not "like" the same damned thing, either, but exactly the same damned thing.

 

[Lord Baal]

The Byzantine Empire was the eastern half of the Roman Empire, hence the scholarly name "East Roman Empire." It existed contemporaneously with the Western Empire that is referred to popularly as "the" Roman Empire, so I really don't see how the fact that it encompassed the Greek-speaking parts of the Empire more than the Latin-speaking areas prevents it from being Roman. Besides, Dacia (Romania) was part of the Byzantine Empire at several points, and they spoke Latin there.

 

[History_Buff]

I'm given to understanding that Latin was spoken in much of the Eastern Empire in the earlier periods, and the transition to Greek happened later. Though I cannot for the life of me remember why I think this is the case.

 

[Lord Baal]

I'm given to understanding that Latin was spoken in much of the Eastern Empire in the earlier periods, and the transition to Greek happened later. Though I cannot for the life of me remember why I think this is the case.

The official language of the Empire - basically, what they kept records in - was Latin until the reign of (I think) Justinian. But the spoken language of the majority of the ERE was always Greek. For that matter, even after centuries of Turkish rule, something like a third of the population of the former Byzantine Empire - forget North Africa and Southern Italy here, we're talking the Balkans, Asia Minor and maybe Syria and Armenia - still spoke Greek. It took a pretty large-scale genocide and post-war population transfers to give even modern Turkey a near-universal Turkish-speaking populace. Not to mention the migration of groups like the Magyars and Slavs into territories that formerly had a Greek/ Roman populace, such as Thrace. Up until Ataturk, even Asia Minor was as much Greek-speaking as Turkish-speaking.

 

[Dachs]

Latin was phased out - not by any sort of plan, it just kind of happened - over the course of the sixth century. Ioustinianos' law codes were Latin. A lot of the time, you'll get the Latin-to-Greek shift dated to Herakleios, but that makes things slightly less complicated than they actually were.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Notably, Byzantine coin inscriptions still were in Latin in early eighth century (DNOLEONPAMUL for Domino Nostro Leon(?) Perpetuo Augusto Multos Annos).

 

[Flying Pig]

OK; I was under the impression that the people there generally spoke Greek despite the state apparatus insisting on Latin. Certainly their military gave orders in Latin, and I can't help but think of the modern Irish army's use of their own language, which very few soldiers speak: since even English gets distorted in the hands of drill instructors, with 'stenhair-tees!' (stand at ease) and 'binerliff, quek-NAH!' (by the left, quick-march) quite common, Irish is even worse. Their equivalent of 'attention' should be pronounced 'arra', but is generally more like 'argh!', and 'at ease' should be pronounced 'clay', but often ends up as 'huy'.

If the ERE was, then, Roman organisation imposed on a rather non-Roman group of people, you could definitely make the case that it was Roman in aspiration but not in reality.

 

[say1988]

That assumes that speaking Latin is the definitive characteristic of being Roman.

There was always significant Greek speaking populations in the Empire, the fact that it gradually became the primary language of government doesn't mean they were no longer Roman. It isn't like the Greeks rebelled and instituted a government, the Roman Empire split in two for administrative purposes and there is no break to separate the early. Latin speaking Eastern Roman Empire from the later Greek speaking Eastern Roman Empire.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, I'd say that if the UK government transported itself to Anglesey, doing everything in English while ruling over an entirely Welsh-speaking population, it would be a fundamentally different country to the whole UK. Of course, it would be more similar to the old UK than it would be to any other country, but it still would have a dubious claim to being 'the same country'. Since the Roman 'homeland' was Italy, could a successor state claim to be Roman without holding the fatherland?

 

[History_Buff]

If the ERE was, then, Roman organisation imposed on a rather non-Roman group of people, you could definitely make the case that it was Roman in aspiration but not in reality.

What defines Roman-ness here? Roman organization was imposed on the people of the ERE to the same extent that it was imposed on the people of the WRE.

 

[Dachs]

Well, I'd say that if the UK government transported itself to Anglesey, doing everything in English while ruling over an entirely Welsh-speaking population, it would be a fundamentally different country to the whole UK. Of course, it would be more similar to the old UK than it would be to any other country, but it still would have a dubious claim to being 'the same country'. Since the Roman 'homeland' was Italy, could a successor state claim to be Roman without holding the fatherland?

The Roman "homeland" was Rome. "Italy" was full of Samnites, Celts, Oscans, Greeks, and God knows what else. And yet this distinction became functionally irrelevant during the end of the Republic. By the later Empire, the city of Rome itself housed few meaningful governing institutions and was chiefly relevant for certain ceremonial purposes and little else. The notion of a "fatherland" essential to any claim of Roman identity - never mind how Roman identity was adopted, demonstrated, and performed by millions of people who had never and would never see Italy, much less Rome - is an anachronism.

Comparing the decidedly non-nationalist and non-primordialist concept of Roman identity to some weird modern Welsh thing is pretty disingenuous, wouldn't you say?

 

[Flying Pig]

Not disingenuous, more underinformed. I was under the impression that by the time of the divide, Italy was a broadly homogenous place, although I was aware that while the Republic was in its death-throes most Italians had no attachment to Rome. I hadn't realised that Roman identity did not depend on an attachment to Rome itself; your clarification is appreciated.

 

[Arakhor]

The Holy Roman Empire is even more dubious: Shaw memorably quipped that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.

Wasn't that Voltaire who said that?

 

[History_Buff]

Not disingenuous, more underinformed. I was under the impression that by the time of the divide, Italy was a broadly homogenous place, although I was aware that while the Republic was in its death-throes most Italians had no attachment to Rome. I hadn't realised that Roman identity did not depend on an attachment to Rome itself; your clarification is appreciated.

Not only was Roman identity not dependent on the city of Rome itself, I just want to reinforce something Dachs said, but didn't really dwell on: for much of the later Imperial period, the "capital" of the Western Roman Empire wasn't in Rome. While I think the Senate always continued to sit in Rome, the capital was moved formally moved to Milan in the third century, and to Ravenna in the fifth. Even then, the Emperor didn't spend a whole lot of time there; he'd be where the army was, which was typically Gaul, unless there was a Civil War to be fought.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

The Byzantine Empire has a rather dubious claim to be a successor state to Rome - a bit like Kazakhstan claiming to be the successor state to the USSR, since it encompassed Greek-speaking parts of the Empire which had their own distinct culture. The Holy Roman Empire is even more dubious: Shaw memorably quipped that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.

A hypothetical to ponder:
If Great Britain had fallen in 1940, could Australia or Canada have claimed to be the successor state to the British Empire? Especially if Princess Elizabeth had been in Canberra at the time and New Delhi accepted orders in her name.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, that's rather what I was going for - my answer being 'no', since a fundamental attribute of the United Kingdom is that it contains the people, and probably the territory, of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has however been pointed out that it was not a fundamental attribute of the Roman Empire that it actually contained Rome.

 

[say1988]

Yes, an intrinsic component in the UK is its geography. Now, if the change occurred over hundreds of years this may cease to be an issue, but it it was invaded and cut off one day, then yes.

Now the actual questions posed was the "British Empire" and I would argue that the UK is not intrinsic to the Empire, if anything is it was the Monarchy. If the Monarchy lost the UK (by force or politics) and began to reside in Australia, I see no issue with remainder still being considered the British Empire. Now, if the various states up and decided to become a group of affiliated republics, it may be a different matter, but again, time and how it goes about would play a role.

I would say that Russia is not a continuation of the Soviet Union (successor state is a different matter entirely), because there is a clear break when the Union broke up and the Communist control of the state ended.

 

[Tee Kay]

The Australians were notably "more British than the British", so I could see Australia taking becoming a "British homeland-in-exile", as it were (though let's face it, Canada is historically a more likely place of residence for a British government-in-exile). However, by this stage Canada and Australia were self-governing dominions constitutionally separate from the United Kingdom.

 

[Plotinus]

People will never agree on this because it's about definitions, not facts. You can ask whether a particular person ruled at a particular time, or who won a battle and why, and so on, and hope to find evidence that will give you a more or less definitive answer. But there's no evidence, even in principle, that will settle the question "Was the Byzantine Empire really the Roman Empire?" because it's not a question of fact, it's a question of what you want to call something. The only verifiable facts in the matter are how various people do, or did, refer to the Byzantine Empire, but that's not the same thing.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

a fundamental attribute of the United Kingdom is that it contains the people.... it was not a fundamental attribute of the Roman Empire that it actually contained Rome.

Hence the attraction of the British Empire hypothetical.