4 ms·

I don't mean to be too precise, but the article is slightly undermined by the claim in the graphic that the 543 Justinian plague hurried the collapse of the ea

by LukeEF 6y ago

I don't mean to be too precise, but the article is slightly undermined by the claim in the graphic that the 543 Justinian plague hurried the collapse of the eastern Roman Empire. The 'Eastern' Roman Empire fell in 1453 when the walls of Constantinople were breached by the Ottomans. Very difficult to claim that the Romans fell in the 6th Century. I mean nearly 500 years later Basil is rolling back into Syria on the back of repeated victories over the Bulgarians. Always feel let down by these sorts of overblown claims that are easy to slap into an info-graphic.

indigo945 6y ago
The precise date of the fall of the Roman Empire -- and the point where it became Byzantium -- is a subject of debate. There is no unanimous agreement that referring to Constantinople as the Roman Empire is much more useful than, say, calling the Holy Roman Empire "Roman". Whatever your personal views may be on this matter, there indeed are some scholars that date the fall of the Roman Empire on the failure of Justinian's restauratio imperii, which coincided with the plague. [1] [1]: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=F33DA79F872937C22C8F78FA3CCAFC3F http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=F33DA79F872937C22C8...
- twic 6y ago
  > There is no unanimous agreement that referring to Constantinople as the Roman Empire is much more useful than, say Finland! https://imgur.com/gallery/eNuUdTd https://imgur.com/gallery/eNuUdTd
- hodgesrm 6y ago
  > There is no unanimous agreement that referring to Constantinople as the Roman Empire is much more useful than, say, calling the Holy Roman Empire "Roman". Except that Constantinople had essentially continuous government dating from the 300s AD until it was sacked by the army of the 4th Crusade in 1204, whereas the Holy Roman Empire's first emperor--Charlemagne--was crowned in 800 AD, some 324 years after the dissolution of the Roman Empire in the West. The Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne was, as you imply, an entirely different beast from the original Roman Empire.
- LukeEF 6y ago
  Byzantium is not a thing. Just Frankish propaganda that has enthralled the west for centuries. There is unanimous agreement among all scholars that referring to Constantinople as the Roman Empire is much more useful than calling the Holy Roman Empire "Roman" if "Roman" means the continuous Roman Empire that ruled from Rome and then several other (modern) Italian, French, German and Turkish cities. Certainly not the same as some overblown Frankish warlord calling himself 'Roman Emperor'. Unless you argue that Constantine the Great himself by virtue of setting up the Capital on the Bosporus became non-Roman, it is almost an impossible position to maintain. There is continuity of rule beyond the end of the 6th Century. Asia Minor and much of the East remains under Roman control.
paganel 6y ago
Technically you're correct, but IMHO the Eastern Roman Empire fell at the end of the 6th - the beginning of 7th century when the Danube "limes" fell in front of the incoming Slavs and Avars. Yes, there was a renaissance between let's say ~850 and the late 1100s (with the Eastern Roman Empire getting back to the Danube, among other things), but I think that at that point they were actually a Greek empire, nothing Roman left about them.
- geowwy 6y ago
  It's still the same empire. The Roman Empire was home to many different ethnicities and was ruled at various times by different ethnicities. Latins, Greeks, Armenians, Arabs, etc. Even the Ottomans considered their empire a continuation of the Roman Empire – one of the Sultan's title's was "Caesar of Rome". So you can add Turks to that list too.
  - LukeEF 6y ago
    This is a really important point - I am reminded of a story of the 'Greek' occupation of 'Rome' in 1912: On 8 October 1912, the island of Lemnos became part of Greece after being captured from the Ottoman Empire. Peter Charanis, born on the island in 1908 and later a professor of Byzantine history at Rutgers University, recounts when the island was occupied and Greek soldiers stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of the children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. ‘‘What are you looking at?’’ one of them asked. ‘‘At Hellenes,’’ the children replied. ‘‘Are you not Hellenes yourselves?’’ a soldier retorted. ‘‘No, we are Romans." An identity that had at that point endured for more than 2,600 years. There is nothing that compares to Rome.
- LukeEF 6y ago
  It was already a Greek speaking Empire by the time of Justinian. The lingua franca of the Empire doesn't, imho, determine continuity. Hellenism and speaking Greek was popular from the time of Hadrian (and before). Marcus Aurelius wrote his meditations in Greek and Emperors before Justinian were more comfortable in Common Greek than Latin. Calling it a Greek empire is falling for a thousand years of Papal and Frankish propaganda. They want it to seem 'other' as they never wanted the (Eastern) Roman Empire to appear legitimate. It is the church in Rome that is other. It broke from the one true Orthodox faith, not the other way around.

by LukeEF 6y ago

indigo945 6y ago

The precise date of the fall of the Roman Empire -- and the point where it became Byzantium -- is a subject of debate. There is no unanimous agreement that referring to Constantinople as the Roman Empire is much more useful than, say, calling the Holy Roman Empire "Roman". Whatever your personal views may be on this matter, there indeed are some scholars that date the fall of the Roman Empire on the failure of Justinian's restauratio imperii, which coincided with the plague. [1] [1]: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=F33DA79F872937C22C8F78FA3CCAFC3F http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=F33DA79F872937C22C8...

twic 6y ago
> There is no unanimous agreement that referring to Constantinople as the Roman Empire is much more useful than, say Finland! https://imgur.com/gallery/eNuUdTd https://imgur.com/gallery/eNuUdTd
hodgesrm 6y ago
> There is no unanimous agreement that referring to Constantinople as the Roman Empire is much more useful than, say, calling the Holy Roman Empire "Roman". Except that Constantinople had essentially continuous government dating from the 300s AD until it was sacked by the army of the 4th Crusade in 1204, whereas the Holy Roman Empire's first emperor--Charlemagne--was crowned in 800 AD, some 324 years after the dissolution of the Roman Empire in the West. The Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne was, as you imply, an entirely different beast from the original Roman Empire.
LukeEF 6y ago
Byzantium is not a thing. Just Frankish propaganda that has enthralled the west for centuries. There is unanimous agreement among all scholars that referring to Constantinople as the Roman Empire is much more useful than calling the Holy Roman Empire "Roman" if "Roman" means the continuous Roman Empire that ruled from Rome and then several other (modern) Italian, French, German and Turkish cities. Certainly not the same as some overblown Frankish warlord calling himself 'Roman Emperor'. Unless you argue that Constantine the Great himself by virtue of setting up the Capital on the Bosporus became non-Roman, it is almost an impossible position to maintain. There is continuity of rule beyond the end of the 6th Century. Asia Minor and much of the East remains under Roman control.

paganel 6y ago

Technically you're correct, but IMHO the Eastern Roman Empire fell at the end of the 6th - the beginning of 7th century when the Danube "limes" fell in front of the incoming Slavs and Avars. Yes, there was a renaissance between let's say ~850 and the late 1100s (with the Eastern Roman Empire getting back to the Danube, among other things), but I think that at that point they were actually a Greek empire, nothing Roman left about them.

geowwy 6y ago
It's still the same empire. The Roman Empire was home to many different ethnicities and was ruled at various times by different ethnicities. Latins, Greeks, Armenians, Arabs, etc. Even the Ottomans considered their empire a continuation of the Roman Empire – one of the Sultan's title's was "Caesar of Rome". So you can add Turks to that list too.
- LukeEF 6y ago
  This is a really important point - I am reminded of a story of the 'Greek' occupation of 'Rome' in 1912: On 8 October 1912, the island of Lemnos became part of Greece after being captured from the Ottoman Empire. Peter Charanis, born on the island in 1908 and later a professor of Byzantine history at Rutgers University, recounts when the island was occupied and Greek soldiers stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of the children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. ‘‘What are you looking at?’’ one of them asked. ‘‘At Hellenes,’’ the children replied. ‘‘Are you not Hellenes yourselves?’’ a soldier retorted. ‘‘No, we are Romans." An identity that had at that point endured for more than 2,600 years. There is nothing that compares to Rome.
LukeEF 6y ago
It was already a Greek speaking Empire by the time of Justinian. The lingua franca of the Empire doesn't, imho, determine continuity. Hellenism and speaking Greek was popular from the time of Hadrian (and before). Marcus Aurelius wrote his meditations in Greek and Emperors before Justinian were more comfortable in Common Greek than Latin. Calling it a Greek empire is falling for a thousand years of Papal and Frankish propaganda. They want it to seem 'other' as they never wanted the (Eastern) Roman Empire to appear legitimate. It is the church in Rome that is other. It broke from the one true Orthodox faith, not the other way around.