Byzantium as THE Roman Empire

Does anyone here believe that Byzantium at some point stopped being the real Roman Empire and turned itself into a wannabe? I perceived that the great majority of the forum admire the Byzantines and would even argue against this name choice, but there's anyone here who would say that the empire centered around Constantinople at some point wasn't really roman anymore but just Greeks pretending to be Romans? Want to understand both sides of the argument.

Please, don't turn this into a Byzantium-HRE comparison, its obvious that the Byzantines had more legitimacy than the HRE, that's not the point.
 
Last edited:
I think the early Byzantine Empire after the fall of the West could be considered Roman in most of the ways, but once it was reduced to a mere union Greece-Anatolia after Heraclius it lost most of them.
 
I think the early Byzantine Empire after the fall of the West could be considered Roman in most of the ways, but once it was reduced to a mere union Greece-Anatolia after Heraclius it lost most of them.
When was the turning point?
 
When was the turning point?
When heraclius changed the official language of the empire to greek(latin was still used before that) and after the muslim conquest of the seventh century,thing about that thought is that the decrees of 210-212 established all free men as roman citizens,after the fall of the west the east did not fall.so the east has political continuity with the roman empire,cultural as well since the roman empire was multicultural with the two main ones being greek and latin,so saying the empire isnt roman because its greek is wrong
Furthermore the religion of the empire before the east west split was Christianity so the east has that as well
 
Last edited:
1. It is not obvious that the Byzantine Empire has more legitimacy than the HRE. After some time arguing my points for the primacy of the Papacy in these fine matters and of the precedence set by the translatio imperii, and have not yet once been convinced of the primacy of the Eastern Emperor in defining titles of Rome or seen evidences that without doubt compel me to say Byzantium is above the HRE or for that matter France, in maintenance of the Roman Empire. Just as there are arguments to de-legitimize the HRE or France, there are arguments to de-legitimize the Byzantine Empire, even prior to Islam.

So do not grand-stand upon some sort of victory, that the Byzantines are by virtue of common wisdom more legitimate. It is not so, and never will be so.

2. I would certainly argue for the Byzantine empire having no longer remained the sole Empire of Rome after the Iconoclast Crisis at least and to a degree prior. Translatio Imperri permitted the removal of any title by the Papacy, as supported by the entirety of the pentarchy at the time and the primate of Rome. Surely,afterward however, Byzantium once more was recognized by other as an Empire of Rome, but its separation after 1054 and then inflamed by disagreements in the 12th century led to its conception of Rome as disappearing. Rome and the Roman Empire in the Latin world became certainly a possession of the Papacy who ruled Europe as a federated empire of feudal vassals in a sense little different from the Zhou Dynasty of China or the Ashikaga Shogunate. Over time, disputes over the course of this federated empire and to whom authority over Europe truly rested led to the eventual decline of Papal lordship in Europe first in 1305 and then accelerated to huge degrees in 1379, 1414, 1419, etc... and afterward, only a semblance of this system remained and we could argue was breached with the English Acts of Supremacy.

Thus, one might see the point that I make, after the 8th century crisis, the Papacy revoked Empire and took upon itself the Empire in the Latin world and distributed this glare unto others. The famed celestial body allegory of Innocent III, 'one light is made evident by the divine and this light is the sun (Papacy) who in turn reflects the light illuminated by the divine unto all celestial bodies (the lords of Europe/namely the Germanic/Latin lords)' a most sublime description of feudalism and of the custom up to his time of the nature of European society after the fall of the Roman Empire and its transmission through transference unto the Latin west.

So, the Byzantine Empire ceased to continue to be the Empire of Rome after the Iconoclast Crisis and the Translatio Imperii. However, after reconciliation, there became two mutually affirming empires of Rome until friction over linguistic issues, cultural differences and the decline of Byzantine political authority (defeated in wars) led to the vast majority of Latins becoming forgetful of the Eastern Empire and often disgusted by both her weakness in the face of Islam and apparent haughtiness.
 

Marc

Donor
Without an agreed upon working definition of what exactly was the "Roman Empire" the question isn't answerable.
 
Obviously when comparing the Rome of the Skippiones to the Rome of the Maceadonian dynasty they seem almost completely seperate but when you look at the big picture it's really difficult to draw a clear distinction when the Roman Empire ends and Byzantium begins. I look at the eastern Roman empire as a transformation of the Roman empire, not identical but not an entirely seperate polity either. Personally, i find it silly to pretend that Byzantium just popped into existence one day because of a change in the capital, language or church doctrine. I think it requires alot more nuance than just saying it's not Roman at all.
 
Without an agreed upon working definition of what exactly was the "Roman Empire" the question isn't answerable.
A good point, however the people at the time were using this word in legal senses. We can at least acknowledge the ways in which they used it no? This perhaps permits us to be more liberal and less strict in our definition of the Empire of Rome.

It would seem to me, that in the opinion of the Papacy, the Empire of Rome was some sort of statement of hegemonic authority of the world (in terms of the Latin/Germanic/Greek/Syriac/etc/Christian peoples), an entity that upheld both the temporal authority of defining truth and power but also one that upheld the spiritual primacy of the Nicene Church of the Late Roman Empire. This is how the Papacy defined itself in the most important councils of the Medieval Era, as a sort of legal arbiter of truth, law and of spiritual dogmas. Likewise then, it dictated power and direct land ownership unto the 'Germanic' lords of Europe, specifically, the modern lands of France, England, Germany, Italy; who became her vassals and also partners in Empire in Europe.

I do not feel the Eastern Empire held a view different than this; only that they after Justinian I, opined upon a different source for Imperial authority, truth, legality and of origin than the Papal notion.
 
In Historum, a cesspool of Romanists, it is one of the highest sacrileges to say that the Byzantines aren't Roman. Basically, they use an emperor centred definition as opposed to a papal or city centred definition. The Pope is not a legitimate figure of power so him declaring Charlemagne Roman Emperor is meaningless to them. Meanwhile, the city changing from Rome to Byzantium is meaningless as well because it's the Roman Emperor who did it himself. As long as the emperor claimed to be the successor of Augustus in a state created by the successors of Augustus (legitimate succession or not), it is the Roman Empire according to this view. Personally, I do take the view of the Byzantines being Greeks pretending to be Romans, the turning point being Heraclius though the Lombard conquest of Rome might also be another one.
 
In Historum, a cesspool of Romanists, it is one of the highest sacrileges to say that the Byzantines aren't Roman. Basically, they use an emperor centred definition as opposed to a papal or city centred definition. The Pope is not a legitimate figure of power so him declaring Charlemagne Roman Emperor is meaningless to them. Meanwhile, the city changing from Rome to Byzantium is meaningless as well because it's the Roman Emperor who did it himself. As long as the emperor claimed to be the successor of Augustus in a state created by the successors of Augustus (legitimate succession or not), it is the Roman Empire according to this view. Personally, I do take the view of the Byzantines being Greeks pretending to be Romans, the turning point being Heraclius though the Lombard conquest of Rome might also be another one.
Which is a great failing of people such as these imo. They forget to recognize that there is no fundamental difference between the Pope and Emperor, it is not as if the Pope exists as a spirit aside from this world. Regardless, such people are devotees of Justinian I, they bathe in the ideals of Imperial 'deification' as stipulated by the Second Council Constantinople and are inundated with a Heraclian understanding of the Church as simply devices of Imperial commanding. Something that breaches the past Roman customs regarding the relation of the Papacy and Church to the state not to mention, legal rights that the Papacy had over the Emperor prior to the Second Council of Constance (such as appointment and powers to revoke titles that the Emperor held).
 
Obviously when comparing the Rome of the Skippiones to the Rome of the Maceadonian dynasty they seem almost completely seperate but when you look at the big picture it's really difficult to draw a clear distinction when the Roman Empire ends and Byzantium begins. I look at the eastern Roman empire as a transformation of the Roman empire, not identical but not an entirely seperate polity either. Personally, i find it silly to pretend that Byzantium just popped into existence one day because of a change in the capital, language or church doctrine. I think it requires alot more nuance than just saying it's not Roman at all.
So tell me does the rome of 700 bc-200 bc or 325 ad resemble each other of course not rome first started as kingdom then became a republic and then an empire,they each have a different society and understanding are they considered different....no,the roman emperor constatine moved the capital from rome to nova roma ,furthermore there is no historical continuity between the roman empire and the holy roman empire meanwhile the east has that continuity and lets not forget that for something like translatio imperii both east and west church need to agree,furthermore just because the east had an empress that is no reason to revoke a title(and lets be real the pope in medieval times had a primacy over the church not supremacy(ie premus inter pare)
 
If you think the late Byzantine empire isnt Roman thats one thing but imo pretending the empire of Justinian isn't Roman is a bit silly. Latin was widly used and Constantinople had a large amount of control of the pope
 
1. It is not obvious that the Byzantine Empire has more legitimacy than the HRE. After some time arguing my points for the primacy of the Papacy in these fine matters and of the precedence set by the translatio imperii, and have not yet once been convinced of the primacy of the Eastern Emperor in defining titles of Rome or seen evidences that without doubt compel me to say Byzantium is above the HRE or for that matter France, in maintenance of the Roman Empire. Just as there are arguments to de-legitimize the HRE or France, there are arguments to de-legitimize the Byzantine Empire, even prior to Islam.

So do not grand-stand upon some sort of victory, that the Byzantines are by virtue of common wisdom more legitimate. It is not so, and never will be so.
I think the frank legitimacy was very weak in comparison. The Eastern Romans may have turned themselves into a Greek empire(an interpretation which I support) but at least they had state continuity between them and Augustus. The Franks, on the other hand, came latter and just grabbed some titles to legitimize the territory they conquered.
 
Last edited:
So tell me does the rome of 700 bc-200 bc or 325 ad resemble each other of course not rome first started as kingdom then became a republic and then an empire,they each have a different society and understanding are they considered different....no,the roman emperor constatine moved the capital from rome to nova roma ,furthermore there is no historical continuity between the roman empire and the holy roman empire meanwhile the east has that continuity and lets not forget that for something like translatio imperii both east and west church need to agree,furthermore just because the east had an empress that is no reason to revoke a title(and lets be real the pope in medieval times had a primacy over the church not supremacy(ie premus inter pare)
I think you misunderstand my comment, I was saying the eastern empire IS the Roman empire. I was simply saying that it made a linguistic and cultural change over it's 1000 year existence. Still Roman just went under some comprehensive change
 
If you think the late Byzantine empire isnt Roman thats one thing but imo pretending the empire of Justinian isn't Roman is a bit silly. Latin was widly used and Constantinople had a large amount of control of the pope
No one would say the empire of Justinian wasn't real Rome. I think people have more of an issue with the late Byzantines.
 
I think the frank legitimacy was very weak in comparison. The Eastern Romans may have turned themselves into a Greek empire(an interpretation which I support) but at least they had state continuity between them and Augustus. The Franks, on the other hand, came latter and just grabbed some titles to legitimize the territory they conquered.
I disagree, and I feel that you are stepping on some territory that you are not skilled in, if I might be honest. Be wary not to overextend yourself.
 
Top