10 ms·

> To begin at the beginning is tricky. Did the empire begin when the emperor > Constantine moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople in 324? When the

by geowwy 8y ago

> To begin at the beginning is tricky. Did the empire begin when the emperor > Constantine moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople in 324? When the > city was consecrated by both pagan and Christian priests in May 330? Or did > it begin in 395 when the two halves of the vast Roman empire were officially > divided into East and West, or even later in the late 5th century when Rome > was sacked, conquered and governed by the Goths, leaving Constantinople and > the East as the sole heir of the empire? It's tricky to define the beginning the Byzantine Empire because the Byzantine Empire is a construct invented by Western historians. The Byzantine Empire is just the Roman Empire.

hacknat 8y ago
I agree with you. They called themselves Romans until the very end, and the claim isn’t dubious as all their institutions and wealth were from an unbroken Roman origin (well as unbroken as anything in pre-324 Roman history itself).
- zeveb 8y ago
  > They called themselves Romans until the very end And to this day the Turks call the Greeks in Turkey Romans.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jcranmer 8y ago
Yes and no. The Byzantine Empire is a continuation of the Roman Empire, but it is not the continuation of the Roman Empire. Saying that the Byzantine Empire is just the Roman Empire masks the fact that it really is a Ship of Theseus situation: in terms of administration, culture, military practices, etc., there is rather more discontinuity between the Roman Empire of 200 and the Byzantine Empire of 800, although the changes were gradual and not sudden. A good comparison is to Chinese history. The Chinese tend to argue that they have a continuous empire stretching back to the Xia dynasty (or the Qin dynasty, depending on how much credence you give to the historicity of Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties), albeit broken up into distinct dynasties. Yet this is similarly not quite so truthful--China was often fragmented into warring polities with no clear hegemon, and there are times when even the Chinese historians couldn't maintain the pretense that there was on (say, the Three Kingdoms period). Western historiography does emphasize the discontinuity rather than the continuity, and it is wrong, but so is emphasizing the continuity and ignoring the discontinuity.
- geowwy 8y ago
  Sure but that's true of just about any state. Assuming the US still exists in 600 years it will look very different than it does today.
- LiquidSky 8y ago
  >Saying that the Byzantine Empire is just the Roman Empire masks the fact that it really is a Ship of Theseus situation Not at all, it is simply an objectively correct statement. What we call the "Byzantine Empire" is the eastern portion of the Roman Empire that persisted after Rome and the Western portion fell. This isn't a matter of opinion. It was a continuous political entity. The Chinese example is not comparable and, as you note, simply dishonest. While you could try to argue about cultural continuity, politically China experienced a series of polities rising, collapsing, and being conquered by foreign invaders. >Western historiography does emphasize the discontinuity rather than the continuity, and it is wrong, but so is emphasizing the continuity and ignoring the discontinuity. There is no discontinuity. Changes in language, culture, etc. don't change the fact that it was the continuing portion of the Roman Empire. If the United States exists in 500 years, whatever its makeup or territory, it will still be the United States if the political entity did not end.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    > There is no discontinuity. Changes in language, culture, etc. don't change the fact that it was the continuing portion of the Roman Empire. Would you insist that it Taiwan should really be considered the same thing as China? Both Taiwan and the Byzantines are rump portions of their larger entities, and both of them also faced other polities that also claimed be to legitimate heirs to the original mother entity. (The Carolingian Empire claimed to be a legitimate heir of the Roman Empire). Before about the 19th century, the notion of countries and the state existing as separate from the writs of its rulers doesn't really exist, which makes trying to draw political maps in the Middle Ages and Antiquity rather difficult. I wouldn't call the Frankish kingdoms under the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties France--definitely no earlier than the development of West Francia, and it's not hard to argue that France doesn't start until the Capetian dynasty in 987. Note that the Capetian dynasty ruled in nearly-unbroken passing from father to son (or grandson or great-grandson) until 1789. I'd also agree with those historians who consider the Byzantine Empire to end in the Fourth Crusade, as opposed to the Ottoman Empire's conquest of Constantinople or the subsequent conquest of Trebizond.
kasey_junk 8y ago
If the language, architecture, religion, sphere of influence, culture & laws were all completely different why wouldn’t you distinguish it? We distinguish between the Roman Republic vs Roman Empire and in lots of ways they had much more in common than the Byzantine.
- oblio 8y ago
  Rome had Greek as an official language even back during the "real" Roman Empire. Architecture evolves. Religion? I'm not sure I get the point, they were Christian, some would say, they were the actual "real" Christians :) Sphere of influence? Can you even quantify that? Culture, see language above. Laws? They had Roman laws + laws added during the normal evolution of a state. More than that, the Justinian code was also adopted by Western countries...
- pesmhey 8y ago
  Even the distinction between republic and empire may be incorrect. They called themselves res publica the entire time. I mean, if they’re considering themselves Roman Republicans, how much can we look back and contradict them?
  - kasey_junk 8y ago
    Would the Romans who cut their hands off rather than submit to a king, who viewed the Greeks as indolent & corrupted, look at the Byzantines and think “those are Romans?” We of course can’t know but it shows that what the last of the Byzantine’s called themselves is not necessarily the end of the discussion.
    - pesmhey 8y ago
      >We of course can’t know but it shows that what the last of the Byzantine’s called themselves is not necessarily the end of the discussion. Agreed. Always an interesting discussion.
- lmm 8y ago
  > We distinguish between the Roman Republic vs Roman Empire Not to a great extent. People doing detailed historical work on the relevant era would, sure, but general popular history probably wouldn't.
tpm 8y ago
But then what is the Holy Roman Empire?
- oblio 8y ago
  An artificial construct which had nothing to do with the actual Roman Empire. I'd quote Voltaire but that quote is so tired now, I'll just let it rest.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
woodandsteel 8y ago
I strongly disagree. The proper meaning of words is established by usage, and it often changes over time. Historians have long used the term Byzantine Empire to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire, and this usage confuses no one who has any familiarity with the history. The only alternative theory of proper linguistic meaning is that it is based on perfect, permanent, non-material essences, as in Platonism.

by geowwy 8y ago

hacknat 8y ago

I agree with you. They called themselves Romans until the very end, and the claim isn’t dubious as all their institutions and wealth were from an unbroken Roman origin (well as unbroken as anything in pre-324 Roman history itself).

zeveb 8y ago
> They called themselves Romans until the very end And to this day the Turks call the Greeks in Turkey Romans.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jcranmer 8y ago

Yes and no. The Byzantine Empire is a continuation of the Roman Empire, but it is not the continuation of the Roman Empire. Saying that the Byzantine Empire is just the Roman Empire masks the fact that it really is a Ship of Theseus situation: in terms of administration, culture, military practices, etc., there is rather more discontinuity between the Roman Empire of 200 and the Byzantine Empire of 800, although the changes were gradual and not sudden. A good comparison is to Chinese history. The Chinese tend to argue that they have a continuous empire stretching back to the Xia dynasty (or the Qin dynasty, depending on how much credence you give to the historicity of Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties), albeit broken up into distinct dynasties. Yet this is similarly not quite so truthful--China was often fragmented into warring polities with no clear hegemon, and there are times when even the Chinese historians couldn't maintain the pretense that there was on (say, the Three Kingdoms period). Western historiography does emphasize the discontinuity rather than the continuity, and it is wrong, but so is emphasizing the continuity and ignoring the discontinuity.

geowwy 8y ago
Sure but that's true of just about any state. Assuming the US still exists in 600 years it will look very different than it does today.
LiquidSky 8y ago
>Saying that the Byzantine Empire is just the Roman Empire masks the fact that it really is a Ship of Theseus situation Not at all, it is simply an objectively correct statement. What we call the "Byzantine Empire" is the eastern portion of the Roman Empire that persisted after Rome and the Western portion fell. This isn't a matter of opinion. It was a continuous political entity. The Chinese example is not comparable and, as you note, simply dishonest. While you could try to argue about cultural continuity, politically China experienced a series of polities rising, collapsing, and being conquered by foreign invaders. >Western historiography does emphasize the discontinuity rather than the continuity, and it is wrong, but so is emphasizing the continuity and ignoring the discontinuity. There is no discontinuity. Changes in language, culture, etc. don't change the fact that it was the continuing portion of the Roman Empire. If the United States exists in 500 years, whatever its makeup or territory, it will still be the United States if the political entity did not end.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  > There is no discontinuity. Changes in language, culture, etc. don't change the fact that it was the continuing portion of the Roman Empire. Would you insist that it Taiwan should really be considered the same thing as China? Both Taiwan and the Byzantines are rump portions of their larger entities, and both of them also faced other polities that also claimed be to legitimate heirs to the original mother entity. (The Carolingian Empire claimed to be a legitimate heir of the Roman Empire). Before about the 19th century, the notion of countries and the state existing as separate from the writs of its rulers doesn't really exist, which makes trying to draw political maps in the Middle Ages and Antiquity rather difficult. I wouldn't call the Frankish kingdoms under the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties France--definitely no earlier than the development of West Francia, and it's not hard to argue that France doesn't start until the Capetian dynasty in 987. Note that the Capetian dynasty ruled in nearly-unbroken passing from father to son (or grandson or great-grandson) until 1789. I'd also agree with those historians who consider the Byzantine Empire to end in the Fourth Crusade, as opposed to the Ottoman Empire's conquest of Constantinople or the subsequent conquest of Trebizond.

kasey_junk 8y ago

If the language, architecture, religion, sphere of influence, culture & laws were all completely different why wouldn’t you distinguish it? We distinguish between the Roman Republic vs Roman Empire and in lots of ways they had much more in common than the Byzantine.

oblio 8y ago
Rome had Greek as an official language even back during the "real" Roman Empire. Architecture evolves. Religion? I'm not sure I get the point, they were Christian, some would say, they were the actual "real" Christians :) Sphere of influence? Can you even quantify that? Culture, see language above. Laws? They had Roman laws + laws added during the normal evolution of a state. More than that, the Justinian code was also adopted by Western countries...
pesmhey 8y ago
Even the distinction between republic and empire may be incorrect. They called themselves res publica the entire time. I mean, if they’re considering themselves Roman Republicans, how much can we look back and contradict them?
- kasey_junk 8y ago
  Would the Romans who cut their hands off rather than submit to a king, who viewed the Greeks as indolent & corrupted, look at the Byzantines and think “those are Romans?” We of course can’t know but it shows that what the last of the Byzantine’s called themselves is not necessarily the end of the discussion.
  - pesmhey 8y ago
    >We of course can’t know but it shows that what the last of the Byzantine’s called themselves is not necessarily the end of the discussion. Agreed. Always an interesting discussion.
lmm 8y ago
> We distinguish between the Roman Republic vs Roman Empire Not to a great extent. People doing detailed historical work on the relevant era would, sure, but general popular history probably wouldn't.

tpm 8y ago

But then what is the Holy Roman Empire?

oblio 8y ago
An artificial construct which had nothing to do with the actual Roman Empire. I'd quote Voltaire but that quote is so tired now, I'll just let it rest.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

woodandsteel 8y ago

I strongly disagree. The proper meaning of words is established by usage, and it often changes over time. Historians have long used the term Byzantine Empire to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire, and this usage confuses no one who has any familiarity with the history. The only alternative theory of proper linguistic meaning is that it is based on perfect, permanent, non-material essences, as in Platonism.