5 ms·

How connected were the Eastern Romans to the original western ones though? Would you say it's like the U.S. and Britain, more distinct or less?

VLM 12y ago
More like north and south carolina, at least until things went sharply downhill for the western half. Or perhaps a better analogy is its almost exactly like the U.P. of Michigan vs the mitten of Michigan (lower michigan?) One problem with discussing how close two political orgs are over two thousand years is times change. Relations definitely had their ups and downs over the whole course of time. At times the religious strife between west and east was a little fiercer than anything that happened between US and Britain, at least post-1812. (edited to add in a really good familiar analogy, at least some of the time ... Britain and Ireland)
hollerith 12y ago
Since Latin was the language of the western empire, but Greek the language of the eastern empire, I'd say that the two halves were more distinct that the U.S. and the U.K. are.
vondur 12y ago
By the medieval period, vastly different. There are stories about when the nobles of the first Crusade visited Constantinople they were thinking how much different the Emperors of the East were compared to what they knew of the old Roman Empire. As mentioned before the East was always different from the Western empire, but they really drifted apart in the 400's.
smacktoward 12y ago
More distinct, definitely. But the interesting bit is that they themselves would never have recognized this. Walk up to someone calling themselves "Roman" in 1 AD and you could find yourself talking to a pagan born in modern Italy who spoke Latin. Walk up to someone calling themselves "Roman" 500 years later and you could be talking to a Christian born in modern Turkey who spoke Greek, which is a very very different person. But both of them would have insisted that they were "Roman." (The idea of "Byzantium" itself as something distinct from the Roman Empire is a purely modern construction -- no Byzantine would have conceived of themselves as such.) So the idea of "Romanness" was socially constructed; it meant whatever people living in the empire at a particular time collectively decided it meant. You can see a similar type of socially constructed identity by looking at "whiteness" in American culture. 150 years ago, a "white American" was strictly interpreted as a person of northern European ("Anglo-Saxon") descent. English, French, Germans and Scandinavians were "white people"; Spaniards, Italians, Irish, Poles, Russians and Jews were not. But fast-forward to today, and all those latter ethnicities are now commonly identified as "white" in American culture. In other words, whiteness, like Romanness, is less a fixed identifier of a particular ethnic/religious/linguistic configuration and more a convenient way for people to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups, "us" and "them."
nickik 12y ago
The problem with the question is that it simple depends. So first, even within the roman empire there was change. A Roman from 500 b.c. would not think 500 a.d. was very roman. A roman from 500 a.d. would not think 1400 a.d. is very roman. So the answer to your question really is, in the begginning they where the same and then slowly shifted away from it. What can be said is that there is no clear break, no point where we can clearly say "here" now its something diffrent. This is why we have so many problems in nailing down the end of the roman empire or the begginning of the byzantine empire. So I think, the only sencable thing to do is to still call them romans (or rather the roman empire).

VLM 12y ago

More like north and south carolina, at least until things went sharply downhill for the western half. Or perhaps a better analogy is its almost exactly like the U.P. of Michigan vs the mitten of Michigan (lower michigan?) One problem with discussing how close two political orgs are over two thousand years is times change. Relations definitely had their ups and downs over the whole course of time. At times the religious strife between west and east was a little fiercer than anything that happened between US and Britain, at least post-1812. (edited to add in a really good familiar analogy, at least some of the time ... Britain and Ireland)

hollerith 12y ago

Since Latin was the language of the western empire, but Greek the language of the eastern empire, I'd say that the two halves were more distinct that the U.S. and the U.K. are.

vondur 12y ago

By the medieval period, vastly different. There are stories about when the nobles of the first Crusade visited Constantinople they were thinking how much different the Emperors of the East were compared to what they knew of the old Roman Empire. As mentioned before the East was always different from the Western empire, but they really drifted apart in the 400's.

smacktoward 12y ago

More distinct, definitely. But the interesting bit is that they themselves would never have recognized this. Walk up to someone calling themselves "Roman" in 1 AD and you could find yourself talking to a pagan born in modern Italy who spoke Latin. Walk up to someone calling themselves "Roman" 500 years later and you could be talking to a Christian born in modern Turkey who spoke Greek, which is a very very different person. But both of them would have insisted that they were "Roman." (The idea of "Byzantium" itself as something distinct from the Roman Empire is a purely modern construction -- no Byzantine would have conceived of themselves as such.) So the idea of "Romanness" was socially constructed; it meant whatever people living in the empire at a particular time collectively decided it meant. You can see a similar type of socially constructed identity by looking at "whiteness" in American culture. 150 years ago, a "white American" was strictly interpreted as a person of northern European ("Anglo-Saxon") descent. English, French, Germans and Scandinavians were "white people"; Spaniards, Italians, Irish, Poles, Russians and Jews were not. But fast-forward to today, and all those latter ethnicities are now commonly identified as "white" in American culture. In other words, whiteness, like Romanness, is less a fixed identifier of a particular ethnic/religious/linguistic configuration and more a convenient way for people to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups, "us" and "them."

nickik 12y ago

The problem with the question is that it simple depends. So first, even within the roman empire there was change. A Roman from 500 b.c. would not think 500 a.d. was very roman. A roman from 500 a.d. would not think 1400 a.d. is very roman. So the answer to your question really is, in the begginning they where the same and then slowly shifted away from it. What can be said is that there is no clear break, no point where we can clearly say "here" now its something diffrent. This is why we have so many problems in nailing down the end of the roman empire or the begginning of the byzantine empire. So I think, the only sencable thing to do is to still call them romans (or rather the roman empire).