3 ms·

There was no such thing as a roman ethnicity or language (perhaps latin for law? The byzantines kept latin for a very long time in this context). Rome itself wa

There was no such thing as a roman ethnicity or language (perhaps latin for law? The byzantines kept latin for a very long time in this context). Rome itself was a backwater long before the western empire fell. The difference between Byzantium and, say, the holy roman empire, was that at no point did a barbarian king declare himself the inheritor of roman tradition. The byzantine state was always the roman state, and it was the state that had continued (fitfully) since Caesar (or Romulus I guess).

emteycz 5y ago
Holy Roman Empire is exactly what you're saying didn't happen - non-Romans declaring themselves the direct continuation of Roman Empire tradition.
- shakow 5y ago
  It's always possible to argue further, but it's not really what led to the foundation of the HRE. Rather, it was a creation of the pope Leo III which he offered to Charlemagne, as the conclusion of a long feud with the ERE and the wish of the pope to split from it.
- zeteo 5y ago
  Isn't it a bit presumptuous to declare that people who called themselves and were called by everyone else "Romans" for over a thousand years were not really Romans? By this definition 4th century emperors like Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great were not really Romans either, since they spoke Greek and ruled from Constantinople. Heck, even in the time of Caesar the Republican elite preferred speaking Greek instead of Latin - hopefully you don't think the Roman Empire fell before it even began...
  - emteycz 5y ago
    Perhaps it is. This is how they taught me at school - and we were part of HRE too. It's definitely not about languages though. HRE switched from Latin to German like nothing happened. It is also important to note that the people called themselves Roman/HRE in addition to their national/tribal identity, not as a replacement.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >Isn't it a bit presumptuous to declare that people who called themselves and were called by everyone else "Romans" for over a thousand years were not really Romans? Depends. Are we talking about ethnicity? (in which they weren't italic latin-speaking Romans - Greek ethnicity and culture, for example, didn't just vanish when the italic latin-speaking Romans conquered their lands). Or about "nationality" or statehood and claim to lands, and such? In that, they were romans, since their state was the successor to the roman state (aka the "roman empire"), and a legitimate one at that. Mind you, they also started calling themselves Greeks later on, and we have tons of references from them (including emperors etc) writing about themselves as that. >By this definition 4th century emperors like Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great were not really Romans either, since they spoke Greek and ruled from Constantinople. They were the Roman emperors during the transfer of power to the Eastern Empire - in the time of Theodosius Rome was still in place too, and East and West where ruled under the Tetrarchy. Plus, Constantine didn't speak Greek, he spoke Latin (he used an interpreter in some cases to translate to Greek, and he knew a handful as many romans did, but he personally spoke latin). I'm pretty sure that's true for Theodosius too. >Heck, even in the time of Caesar the Republican elite preferred speaking Greek instead of Latin - hopefully you don't think the Roman Empire fell before it even began... That's neither here, nor there. One is an example of some elites being pretentious, and the other is a state losing its capital (the one it even took its name from), its ruiling ethnicity, moving to another region with a different cultural background and dominant ethnicities, which eventually in a couple of centruries swallowed the previous dominant language and culture -- all while the original capital and land of origin of the culture and the empire suffered devastating fall under barbarian tribes.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  Sorry, that was bad writing on my part. I meant that this was the distinction. In Byzantine history, transitions between one sovereign to another always consisted of a new sovereign seizing the control of the Roman state. In the example of Charlemagne or the Turks or whatever, it's a non-roman state that replaces (or in their eyes, becomes) the roman one, rather than just a non-roman sovereign.
coldtea 5y ago
>There was no such thing as a roman ethnicity or language Romans (as in the etymology Roman Empire) originally referred to a specific cultural and ethnic group - italic, latin speaking people in Rome and Italy. Those were the only people that called themselves that at the time. After romans built an empire that expanded to half the known world, the term "roman citizen" was expanded to cover those people as well, and they even gained civil rights). And while one can use the term roman one way or the other, the same way "british" during the height of the British empire could perhaps mean a british citizen or subject and someone of a much more narrow cultural and ethnic background (a person of the ethnicities bundled as British). As for the official langauge of Romans, Rome and the empire at large, it was latin. >perhaps latin for law? The byzantines kept latin for a very long time in this context Well, they kept writing laws in latin for about 3 centuries (though even after the first century the started writing some new laws in Greek). For reference, the state was 3 centuries old at this point (when latin laws gave preference to Greek written laws), and survived about 7 more. >The difference between Byzantium and, say, the holy roman empire, was that at no point did a barbarian king declare himself the inheritor of roman tradition. The byzantine state was always the roman state, and it was the state that had continued (fitfully) since Caesar (or Romulus I guess). Yes. But continuation of state does not necessarily coincide with continuation of the culture the established that state. So while a transition could be violent (a barbarian declaring himself the inheritor of roman tradition), it can also happen from within, so to speak (the latin-derived tradition and Rome/italy as the focus of power giving way to the helenistic-derived tradition and Greece/eastern lands as the focus of power).
- pasabagi 5y ago
  > Romans (as in the etymology Roman Empire) originally referred to a specific cultural and ethnic group - italic, latin speaking people in Rome and Italy. Those were the only people that called themselves that at the time. It's my understanding that this was vaguely true for the brief period between the social wars and the integration of Cisalpine gaul in 42 BC. So like, 40 years. I'm not sure if it's valid then, even, because at that point the italic peoples considered themselves culturally and ethnically distinct. To be honest, I think the whole idea of Rome as an ethnic nation-state at any point in its history is just anachronism (except, maybe, in the later byzantine era?). The path to 'everybody is a citizen', in 212 AD, is basically an extension of the social wars - a set of conflicts about who gets what rights, with no real geographical or ethnic criterion applied throughout, except for basically administrative reasons. > Yes. But continuation of state does not necessarily coincide with continuation of the culture the established that state. I think any reasonable definition of culture allows change. The fact is, Rome was a Hellenistic state from its very beginning - they considered themselves the descendants of a Trojan prince. There was no point in Roman history where they didn't take their cues from greek culture.

emteycz 5y ago

Holy Roman Empire is exactly what you're saying didn't happen - non-Romans declaring themselves the direct continuation of Roman Empire tradition.

shakow 5y ago
It's always possible to argue further, but it's not really what led to the foundation of the HRE. Rather, it was a creation of the pope Leo III which he offered to Charlemagne, as the conclusion of a long feud with the ERE and the wish of the pope to split from it.
zeteo 5y ago
Isn't it a bit presumptuous to declare that people who called themselves and were called by everyone else "Romans" for over a thousand years were not really Romans? By this definition 4th century emperors like Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great were not really Romans either, since they spoke Greek and ruled from Constantinople. Heck, even in the time of Caesar the Republican elite preferred speaking Greek instead of Latin - hopefully you don't think the Roman Empire fell before it even began...
- emteycz 5y ago
  Perhaps it is. This is how they taught me at school - and we were part of HRE too. It's definitely not about languages though. HRE switched from Latin to German like nothing happened. It is also important to note that the people called themselves Roman/HRE in addition to their national/tribal identity, not as a replacement.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Isn't it a bit presumptuous to declare that people who called themselves and were called by everyone else "Romans" for over a thousand years were not really Romans? Depends. Are we talking about ethnicity? (in which they weren't italic latin-speaking Romans - Greek ethnicity and culture, for example, didn't just vanish when the italic latin-speaking Romans conquered their lands). Or about "nationality" or statehood and claim to lands, and such? In that, they were romans, since their state was the successor to the roman state (aka the "roman empire"), and a legitimate one at that. Mind you, they also started calling themselves Greeks later on, and we have tons of references from them (including emperors etc) writing about themselves as that. >By this definition 4th century emperors like Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great were not really Romans either, since they spoke Greek and ruled from Constantinople. They were the Roman emperors during the transfer of power to the Eastern Empire - in the time of Theodosius Rome was still in place too, and East and West where ruled under the Tetrarchy. Plus, Constantine didn't speak Greek, he spoke Latin (he used an interpreter in some cases to translate to Greek, and he knew a handful as many romans did, but he personally spoke latin). I'm pretty sure that's true for Theodosius too. >Heck, even in the time of Caesar the Republican elite preferred speaking Greek instead of Latin - hopefully you don't think the Roman Empire fell before it even began... That's neither here, nor there. One is an example of some elites being pretentious, and the other is a state losing its capital (the one it even took its name from), its ruiling ethnicity, moving to another region with a different cultural background and dominant ethnicities, which eventually in a couple of centruries swallowed the previous dominant language and culture -- all while the original capital and land of origin of the culture and the empire suffered devastating fall under barbarian tribes.
pasabagi 5y ago
Sorry, that was bad writing on my part. I meant that this was the distinction. In Byzantine history, transitions between one sovereign to another always consisted of a new sovereign seizing the control of the Roman state. In the example of Charlemagne or the Turks or whatever, it's a non-roman state that replaces (or in their eyes, becomes) the roman one, rather than just a non-roman sovereign.

coldtea 5y ago

>There was no such thing as a roman ethnicity or language Romans (as in the etymology Roman Empire) originally referred to a specific cultural and ethnic group - italic, latin speaking people in Rome and Italy. Those were the only people that called themselves that at the time. After romans built an empire that expanded to half the known world, the term "roman citizen" was expanded to cover those people as well, and they even gained civil rights). And while one can use the term roman one way or the other, the same way "british" during the height of the British empire could perhaps mean a british citizen or subject and someone of a much more narrow cultural and ethnic background (a person of the ethnicities bundled as British). As for the official langauge of Romans, Rome and the empire at large, it was latin. >perhaps latin for law? The byzantines kept latin for a very long time in this context Well, they kept writing laws in latin for about 3 centuries (though even after the first century the started writing some new laws in Greek). For reference, the state was 3 centuries old at this point (when latin laws gave preference to Greek written laws), and survived about 7 more. >The difference between Byzantium and, say, the holy roman empire, was that at no point did a barbarian king declare himself the inheritor of roman tradition. The byzantine state was always the roman state, and it was the state that had continued (fitfully) since Caesar (or Romulus I guess). Yes. But continuation of state does not necessarily coincide with continuation of the culture the established that state. So while a transition could be violent (a barbarian declaring himself the inheritor of roman tradition), it can also happen from within, so to speak (the latin-derived tradition and Rome/italy as the focus of power giving way to the helenistic-derived tradition and Greece/eastern lands as the focus of power).

pasabagi 5y ago
> Romans (as in the etymology Roman Empire) originally referred to a specific cultural and ethnic group - italic, latin speaking people in Rome and Italy. Those were the only people that called themselves that at the time. It's my understanding that this was vaguely true for the brief period between the social wars and the integration of Cisalpine gaul in 42 BC. So like, 40 years. I'm not sure if it's valid then, even, because at that point the italic peoples considered themselves culturally and ethnically distinct. To be honest, I think the whole idea of Rome as an ethnic nation-state at any point in its history is just anachronism (except, maybe, in the later byzantine era?). The path to 'everybody is a citizen', in 212 AD, is basically an extension of the social wars - a set of conflicts about who gets what rights, with no real geographical or ethnic criterion applied throughout, except for basically administrative reasons. > Yes. But continuation of state does not necessarily coincide with continuation of the culture the established that state. I think any reasonable definition of culture allows change. The fact is, Rome was a Hellenistic state from its very beginning - they considered themselves the descendants of a Trojan prince. There was no point in Roman history where they didn't take their cues from greek culture.