4 ms·

>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

>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.
- LiquidSky 8y ago
  >Both Taiwan and the Byzantines are rump portions of their larger entities The "Byzantine Empire" wasn't a rump portion at the time of the fall of the Western Empire. It was the other way around: the Eastern Empire was the wealthy and powerful section while the Western Empire had been slowly weakening and collapsing for centuries. It was a rump portion of the East, if anything, when it fell, reduced to just the Italian peninsula and a few other minor holdings while being propped up by Germanic forces. It's not really comparable to Taiwan because, when the Western Empire fell, the Empire had two legal capitals and two legal co-Emperors. The Eastern Empire simply persisted when the Western Empire finally gave its last gasp and was snuffed out by Odoacer, so it makes no sense to call it a different polity. Odoacer and his successors also made no claim to being the new Emperors of Rome to contest the rule of the Eastern Empire; in fact, it was exactly this rejection of the Imperial title that marked the end of the Western Empire, whereas in earlier days Odoacer or someone else would have claimed the mantle. That's how worthless it had become by then. The Eastern Empire would certainly go on to evolve and change over the next 1000 years, but that doesn't make it a different entity. >I wouldn't call the Frankish kingdoms under the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties France Neither would they, since that concept didn't exist at the time. But do you know what the "Byzantines" called themselves?
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    The way I figure the Roman Empire (and I realize this is not the usual historiography, definitely not what is presented in school textbooks), the Roman Empire ceased to exist as a de facto polity with the Crisis of Third Century. While Diocletian's partition of the empire was meant to be administrative and not political, the notion of an Eastern/Western divide did persist. The taxation spiral of the Western Roman Empire caused it to collapse, where it recoalesced into the Carolingian Kingdom, while the Eastern Roman Empire lived on as the Byzantine Empire. I don't draw a meaningful distinction between the Byzantine Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire, but I do draw a distinction between the Eastern Roman Empire and the pre-Crisis Roman Empire. And yes, I'm well aware that the Byzantines only ever referred to themselves as Romans. But so did the Sultanate of Rum, and no one argues that the Sultanate of Rum should be considered the Roman Empire.

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.

LiquidSky 8y ago
>Both Taiwan and the Byzantines are rump portions of their larger entities The "Byzantine Empire" wasn't a rump portion at the time of the fall of the Western Empire. It was the other way around: the Eastern Empire was the wealthy and powerful section while the Western Empire had been slowly weakening and collapsing for centuries. It was a rump portion of the East, if anything, when it fell, reduced to just the Italian peninsula and a few other minor holdings while being propped up by Germanic forces. It's not really comparable to Taiwan because, when the Western Empire fell, the Empire had two legal capitals and two legal co-Emperors. The Eastern Empire simply persisted when the Western Empire finally gave its last gasp and was snuffed out by Odoacer, so it makes no sense to call it a different polity. Odoacer and his successors also made no claim to being the new Emperors of Rome to contest the rule of the Eastern Empire; in fact, it was exactly this rejection of the Imperial title that marked the end of the Western Empire, whereas in earlier days Odoacer or someone else would have claimed the mantle. That's how worthless it had become by then. The Eastern Empire would certainly go on to evolve and change over the next 1000 years, but that doesn't make it a different entity. >I wouldn't call the Frankish kingdoms under the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties France Neither would they, since that concept didn't exist at the time. But do you know what the "Byzantines" called themselves?
- jcranmer 8y ago
  The way I figure the Roman Empire (and I realize this is not the usual historiography, definitely not what is presented in school textbooks), the Roman Empire ceased to exist as a de facto polity with the Crisis of Third Century. While Diocletian's partition of the empire was meant to be administrative and not political, the notion of an Eastern/Western divide did persist. The taxation spiral of the Western Roman Empire caused it to collapse, where it recoalesced into the Carolingian Kingdom, while the Eastern Roman Empire lived on as the Byzantine Empire. I don't draw a meaningful distinction between the Byzantine Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire, but I do draw a distinction between the Eastern Roman Empire and the pre-Crisis Roman Empire. And yes, I'm well aware that the Byzantines only ever referred to themselves as Romans. But so did the Sultanate of Rum, and no one argues that the Sultanate of Rum should be considered the Roman Empire.