4 ms·

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 refe

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.

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.