Byzantium as THE Roman Empire

Funny you should say that since technically the Duchy of Normandy still exists. Just as Constantine XI Palaiologos was the Roman Emperor so is Elizabeth II Windsor the Duke of Normandy. Specifically in the Channel Isles.
Technically, yes, but there's a good reason why we don't consider modern England a Norman country, just as there's a good reason why many people don't consider Byzantium a Roman one.
 
Of course it would be used the capitals name is byzantion/Byzantium that doesnt mean it should be used to name the empire
I do not believe anyone used the term Byzantium to refer to the conception or abstract form of the empire. However, it is certainly not incorrect to refer to the empire’s actions in some cases as one’s of Byzantium, namely a recognition of the centralized and capitol heavy structure of society of eastern imperial life.
 
But calling them Romans would make uneducated people think they are more powerful than they are in that time period. The distinction is necessary, they ruled less than a quarter(in the Late Middle Ages) of what the whole-Roman Empire used to rule, they were a rump state...
. What about ROMAN Kingdom ? We still called them Romans despite they only rule part of central Italy. Even Roman Republic didn't always rule entire Med until hundreds of years.

If we need distinction calling them "later Roman Empire", "medieval Roman Empire", " Eastern Roman Empire", could be used.
 
see the entry below. Using the term from Procopius (Prokopios) this way is like using the term Westminster to describe the British Empire.
No, for in the case of the British empire, we have a more federated entity in terms of delegation. The Eastern Empire was a highly centralized entity with a huge bureaucracy and monarch with absolutist authorities.
 
But calling them Romans would make uneducated people think they are more powerful than they are in that time period. The distinction is necessary, they ruled less than a quarter(in the Late Middle Ages) of what the whole-Roman Empire used to rule, they were a rump state in name and in practice like the Northern Yuan.

If they had conquered a good chunk of the Roman Empire back at some point of the Middle Ages maybe the case for simply calling them Romans would make sense.
Power is not really the criterion of whether a country or a people should be called by the name it called itself or by a deliberately belittling foreign description, it is whether in any meaningful sense they are continuous with the history and culture of the nation whose name they claim. Did the Egyptian people cease to exist because they were occupied by the sea people or by Persia? Did the Poles ceaase to be a people after the partitions ?
 
No, for in the case of the British empire, we have a more federated entity in terms of delegation. The Eastern Empire was a highly centralized entity with a huge bureaucracy and monarch with absolutist authorities.
Frankly thats totally changing the goal posts and has absolutely nothing to do with the point at all. (apart from not being true at all times in ERE history) What on earth has the Federal or otherwise quality of the state bureaucracy to do with the name of the country?
 
Frankly thats totally changing the goal posts and has absolutely nothing to do with the point at all. (apart from not being true at all times in ERE history) What on earth has the Federal or otherwise quality of the state bureaucracy to do with the name of the country?
The point:

1. From my understanding, no historian referred to the Eastern Empire as Byzantium as a means of demeaning their supposed legitimacy. Rather, a statement of reality regarding the centrality of rule.

2. To the understanding of many, the Empire was more than Byzantium and the emperor himself. Hence it was a way to differentiate between the ‘empire’ as an expanding process of different peoples, and that of a changing and evolving capital elite from Byzantium. This situation intensified the more lands that the Empire shed in its south, east and west.
 
Power is not really the criterion of whether a country or a people should be called by the name it called itself or by a deliberately belittling foreign description, it is whether in any meaningful sense they are continuous with the history and culture of the nation whose name they claim. Did the Egyptian people cease to exist because they were occupied by the sea people or by Persia? Did the Poles ceaase to be a people after the partitions ?
The Roman Empire(and China) is a special case. Power is a good criterion when this name in particular has almost the meaning of a “universal empire”. Calling the Byzantines “Romans” and calling them the Roman Empire is alluding to a power they didn't have.
 
Last edited:
But calling them Romans would make uneducated people think they are more powerful than they are in that time period. The distinction is necessary, they ruled less than a quarter(in the Late Middle Ages) of what the whole-Roman Empire used to rule, they were a rump state in name and in practice like the Northern Yuan.

If they had conquered a good chunk of the Roman Empire back at some point of the Middle Ages maybe the case for simply calling them Romans would make sense.
With regards to people hearing "Roman Empire" and making assumptions based on that, I'd be more concerned with people thinking it was a Latin state.
 
Power is not really the criterion of whether a country or a people should be called by the name it called itself or by a deliberately belittling foreign description, it is whether in any meaningful sense they are continuous with the history and culture of the nation whose name they claim. Did the Egyptian people cease to exist because they were occupied by the sea people or by Persia? Did the Poles ceaase to be a people after the partitions ?
Did the Greeks cease to exist after they were subjugated by the Romans?
 
The Roman Empire(and China) is a special case. Power is a good criterion when this name in particular has almost the meaning of a “universal empire”. Calling the Byzantines “Romans” and calling them the Roman Empire is alluding to a power they didn't have.
And yet we still call the Republic of China (Taiwan's) citizens Chinese. Similarly it was still the Empire of China when ruled by the Yuan or Qing (neither a Han dynasty).
 
The point:

1. From my understanding, no historian referred to the Eastern Empire as Byzantium as a means of demeaning their supposed legitimacy. Rather, a statement of reality regarding the centrality of rule.

2. To the understanding of many, the Empire was more than Byzantium and the emperor himself. Hence it was a way to differentiate between the ‘empire’ as an expanding process of different peoples, and that of a changing and evolving capital elite from Byzantium. This situation intensified the more lands that the Empire shed in its south, east and west.
Admittedly the first point is largely a German foible..
 
The point about Rome was that to a large extent it was not about subjugation, in the longish term,. Citizenship was hardly limited to italians
You're dodging the point.

should history or anything else be based upon the views of the uneducated and ill-informed?
Yeah actually. That's the whole point of vernacular. Now tell me, should we erase "Persian Empire" from our vocabulary in favour of Eranshahr? How about getting rid of Hungarian in favour of Magyar (after all we wouldn't want to slander the Magyars as Huns)? How about dropping Georgia in favour of Sakartvelo?
 
Top