We've had threads like this before, but I don't think there's been one for some time, so I thought I'd open a thread to gain people's opinions.
When, if at all, do you think that "late Rome" shifted decisively to a civilisation that is better to be referred to as "Byzantine" rather than "Roman"? Does the change come immediately with Constantine's conversion or Theodosius' division? Does it perhaps come with Justinian's reforms to the state, or Heraclius' adoption of Greek titles and ceremonial language? Or is the whole idea of any break in continuity at all a bad one?
Personally, I think that there is a strong case for separating out a "late Roman" from a "Byzantine" state- and, furthermore, that that Byzantine state came to an end, not in 1453, but actually in 1204 with what remained afterwards a collection of successor states, three of which (the Latin Empire, the Nicaean Empire, and the Ottoman Sultanate) had their capitals at Constantinople at various points.
Anyway, I'd put the point of division between "late Roman" and "Byzantine" sometime around the year 710, with the end of the Heraclian dynasty, and the removal by the Arabs of the last imperial garrisons in North Africa and the Western Mediterranean. This, far more than the initial Arab conquests, permanently ended the Empire's pretensions of domination of the whole Mediterranean, and forced the Emperors into focusing much more on local policies. A good example of this is in religion. Until around this point, versions of Monothelite doctrine had been floated with more or less enthusiasm by Emperors to attempt to compromise and assert universal power over the Church. Afterward, religious policy became more and more introverted upon the whims of the provincial populations of Thrace and Anatolia- Iconoclasm is a reflection of this.
The Isaurian Emperors should be considered "Byzantines" rather than "Romans" for this very different outlook on the world. They clearly understood that their Roman Empire was a different state from that which had existed a century earlier, in the way that the Heraclians perhaps did not, and acted accordingly. I would argue properly developing the Thematic system, giving up attempts at reconquest of Syria and Armenia in favour of pushing the Arabs fully off the Anatolia plateau and being happy to alienate bishops from beyond the imperial core in an attempt to appeal to the religious views of that Anatolian core are examples of that process. When Isaurian Emperors did behave like "Romans", as Constantine V seems to have done, they were consciously reviving traditions perceived to have been lost- restoring aqueducts and holding triumphs, for example. The contrast I'm making here is with Justinian and Heraclius, who were attempting to continue traditions that existed in their own day, rather than reviving things that no longer happened in their day.
So, basically- up to 710, I use "Roman" about the state, afterward, I prefer "Byzantine", and for the post-1204, I simply call the states Greek/Latin/Turkish successors. But what is your view? Am I talking a load of nonsense?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
When, if at all, do you think that "late Rome" shifted decisively to a civilisation that is better to be referred to as "Byzantine" rather than "Roman"? Does the change come immediately with Constantine's conversion or Theodosius' division? Does it perhaps come with Justinian's reforms to the state, or Heraclius' adoption of Greek titles and ceremonial language? Or is the whole idea of any break in continuity at all a bad one?
Personally, I think that there is a strong case for separating out a "late Roman" from a "Byzantine" state- and, furthermore, that that Byzantine state came to an end, not in 1453, but actually in 1204 with what remained afterwards a collection of successor states, three of which (the Latin Empire, the Nicaean Empire, and the Ottoman Sultanate) had their capitals at Constantinople at various points.
Anyway, I'd put the point of division between "late Roman" and "Byzantine" sometime around the year 710, with the end of the Heraclian dynasty, and the removal by the Arabs of the last imperial garrisons in North Africa and the Western Mediterranean. This, far more than the initial Arab conquests, permanently ended the Empire's pretensions of domination of the whole Mediterranean, and forced the Emperors into focusing much more on local policies. A good example of this is in religion. Until around this point, versions of Monothelite doctrine had been floated with more or less enthusiasm by Emperors to attempt to compromise and assert universal power over the Church. Afterward, religious policy became more and more introverted upon the whims of the provincial populations of Thrace and Anatolia- Iconoclasm is a reflection of this.
The Isaurian Emperors should be considered "Byzantines" rather than "Romans" for this very different outlook on the world. They clearly understood that their Roman Empire was a different state from that which had existed a century earlier, in the way that the Heraclians perhaps did not, and acted accordingly. I would argue properly developing the Thematic system, giving up attempts at reconquest of Syria and Armenia in favour of pushing the Arabs fully off the Anatolia plateau and being happy to alienate bishops from beyond the imperial core in an attempt to appeal to the religious views of that Anatolian core are examples of that process. When Isaurian Emperors did behave like "Romans", as Constantine V seems to have done, they were consciously reviving traditions perceived to have been lost- restoring aqueducts and holding triumphs, for example. The contrast I'm making here is with Justinian and Heraclius, who were attempting to continue traditions that existed in their own day, rather than reviving things that no longer happened in their day.
So, basically- up to 710, I use "Roman" about the state, afterward, I prefer "Byzantine", and for the post-1204, I simply call the states Greek/Latin/Turkish successors. But what is your view? Am I talking a load of nonsense?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts!