Who the hell thinks of Byzantium first when the term 'Greek Empire' is mentioned? I certainly don't, I think of of either classical Greece with Spatra, Athens and the Delian league etc., or big Al and his successors. Perhaps the question could be framed 'WI the Delian league defeated nascent Rome?', or 'WI one of Al's successors defeated the Romans?'. All this talk of what Byzantium was and wasn't isn't going anywhere useful, I certainly have learnt anything, other than people are argumentative about this.
Well that's certainly an innovation on your previous arugment that the Senate's power fluctuated at certain points, and was significant during the Byzantine period. Indeed, you've gone even further than my argument did in stressing the increasing irrelevancy of the Senate. Nice work!
And to repeat: Yes they did. I suggest you do some research on such offices as the Praefectus Urbanus, the Preators, and on the system of assigning governorships. This was not the dominant power of the republic - that now rested with the Emperor - but there was not a sudden magic jump from the power of the republic to complete tokenism under the Principate, as you seem to contend.
Not neccessarily. The Senate still had functions of legitimating Imperial power, and occassionally took a role in some political functions, when Emperors were willing; Julian the Apostate patronised the Senate and attended it's sessions. But on the whole, yes, there was a singnificant decline.
Total strawman. I've never said such a thing; I've repeatedly stressed that there was continuity. Just not enough to merit calling the whole of the period from 27BC to 1453 the Roman Empire; Just as we break the early to mid empire down into the dominate and principate periods. If anything else, it's a basic need for historical clarity.
Pardon? As far as I can tell, I've been stressing the linking of Rome and Greece in most of what I've said so far with regards to the points your raise. It was you and others, as I recall, who were suggesting that there was somehow no cultural transit between Greece and Rome in terms of styles of rule, and that Greece politically embodied some sort of purist Solonian aspect which had no influence on the later rise of Roman despotism.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
You're confusing "power" with "administrative responsibility", for which some members of the Byzantine Senate had more authority than any of the officers you mentioned. I also said "Late Empire".
You didn't take a stab at telling us when the Roman Empire became the Byzantine. I don't blame you, it's impossible.
I don't honestly see the point in giving a date. It's not "impossible", by any means, since plenty have been offered by other people in the past - I think some people have offered a few in this thread, in fact. But the process of transformation was gradual and, as I've said before, there was no 'magic leap' from one to the other - giving a set date seems to suggest otherwise, and to me hints of simplicity. That doesn't invalidate the transformations, though, which were very real and significant.
I don't really see how the two are seperate in this context; they held office, and they had the ability to make decisions independent of the Emperor; the Prafectus Urbanus, for example, had some judicial authority. Your distinction seems to suggest that nobody in the Empire had any power, save for the Emperor.
Such as?
As far as I can tell, according to you the Byzantine period was the Late Empire. Although in spite of your argument, you seem quite happy with such terms as 'Byzantine Senate.'
Last edited:
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I don't agree with the use of the term "transformation", since it was a slow evolution. Since the same thing happened throughout the whole history of the Empire, I don't see the term Byzantine as anything more than a convenience. I just don't see it as a different entity, nor did they.
I'm not sure why you're stuck on the Praefectus Urbanus, who was a municipal authority, not an Empire-wide one. The Byzantines had the same office in any case, so you're kind of supporting my point.
I'm not sure why you're stuck on the Praefectus Urbanus, who was a municipal authority, not an Empire-wide one. The Byzantines had the same office in any case, so you're kind of supporting my point.
