New Rome instead of Constantinople

@ LSCatalina: I never said that the Ottonians only looked at the Carolingians, they of course looked to their 'counterpart' in Constantinople.
Also distinguishing between the Ottonians and later HR Emperors is a bit false, there it's more like the Principate > Constantinople example; one gradually evolved in the other.
One thing Carolingian, Ottonian and later 'medieval' HRE emperorship had in common, was the relationship they had and/or claimed to have with the Church of Rome. Eventually after the middle ages, that pretence was dropped, and one could argue it really had been weakened by the Investiture Controversy.
The other link between the Carolingians and the Ottonians is more through East Francia than the HRE, something much less the case with subsequent dynasties.
 
1. I don't even know what you're addressing here.

2. And much of European Christendom did claim to be successors in some way to Rome. This feeling is hugely important in European politics for centuries.

The difference is, the Romans had a clear legal continuity to the, well, Romans.

3. The Romans had a hard-on for Greek language and culture, and most of the Roman aristocracy would know both Greek and Latin. It was certainly a language of prestige to know.

You have know ground to stand on with this argument. "Byzantine" is an entirely fabricated term made up after the Roman Empire fell. The East has always been the most important part of the Roman Empire, from the 1st century to the 15th. And besides, the Roman Empire invariably controlled Rome after 476, either as a vassal state, a state paying lip service, or a direct part of the Empire.
1) The titles.

2) Except it didn't. The (Greek) East and the (Roman) West split into two, because ruled by co-Emperors. The West was ruled from Rome or Ravenna. The East was ruled from Constantinople. The West and East were basically independent entities between the split and the fall of the West. Upon the collapse of the Latin Western Empire, the Greek Eastern Emperor declared himself sole Emperor of Rome. The point is, it's far more complex than you're making it out to be.

3) It was. Most people of importance in the East would know Latin too. Most Russian aristocrats learned French. It didn't mean they were French. Could you say it was Roman? Sure. But there's a legitimate argument about it being more Greek than Roman.

4) That's nonsense. You're going to tell me that the East was more important than Italy under the Julio-Claudian dynasty? For economic reasons perhaps. Other than that, the West was more important and primarily the Italian peninsula. That was the heart of the Empire and it's why it had special status. It's part of why Justinian wanted to reconquer the west.
 
1) The titles.

2) Except it didn't. The (Greek) East and the (Roman) West split into two, because ruled by co-Emperors. The West was ruled from Rome or Ravenna. The East was ruled from Constantinople. The West and East were basically independent entities between the split and the fall of the West. Upon the collapse of the Latin Western Empire, the Greek Eastern Emperor declared himself sole Emperor of Rome. The point is, it's far more complex than you're making it out to be.


3) It was. Most people of importance in the East would know Latin too. Most Russian aristocrats learned French. It didn't mean they were French.


4) That's nonsense. You're going to tell me that the East was more important than Italy under the Julio-Claudian dynasty? For economic reasons perhaps. Other than that, the West was more important and primarily the Italian peninsula. That was the heart of the Empire and it's why it had special status. It's part of why Justinian wanted to reconquer the west.

1. So you're saying.... the Romans aren't Emperors of the Romans? Still not following.

2. That's legal continuity. I don't think you understand the point of the split; the Eastern provinces were certainly not splitting off from Rome, they were administering their half of the Empire.

Except the Eastern half wasn't Greek, it was Roman. Hell, at the time of the fall of the West, Latin was still the main court language. A significant part of the population still spoke Latin.

3. And your point is....? Administering in Greek does not make you no longer a Roman.

4. Yes, I am. Rome declined in importance very quickly; long before Constantinople was founded, the capitol of the Emperor was Nicomedia, even further East of Rome itself.

Italy was by no means the heartland of the Empire. That's ridiculous to say, and I honestly don't even know if you're joking or not.
 
1. So you're saying.... the Romans aren't Emperors of the Romans? Still not following.

2. That's legal continuity. I don't think you understand the point of the split; the Eastern provinces were certainly not splitting off from Rome, they were administering their half of the Empire.

Except the Eastern half wasn't Greek, it was Roman. Hell, at the time of the fall of the West, Latin was still the main court language. A significant part of the population still spoke Latin.

3. And your point is....? Administering in Greek does not make you no longer a Roman.

4. Yes, I am. Rome declined in importance very quickly; long before Constantinople was founded, the capitol of the Emperor was Nicomedia, even further East of Rome itself.

Italy was by no means the heartland of the Empire. That's ridiculous to say, and I honestly don't even know if you're joking or not.
1) I'm saying there was more than one state claiming it.

2) I completely understand the point of the split. The thing is... there was a split. The two parts were basically independent and they only drifted further apart.

3) That's a different line than before. Weren't you the one that said Greek was more important than Latin?

4) Being Greek in almost every way makes it Greek.

5) Then you're objectively wrong. The Italian peninsula was the heart of the Empire for hundreds of years for political, historic and cultural reasons. That's why it held special status.

6) That's my line. Roman Italy had the capital, it's where the leaders lived, it's where the Roman Kingdom, Republic and Empire were founded, it was the most densely populated part of it, they were the first to get citizenship, early on they held most poaitions of power in the Empire, their Italian alliance gave them access to an enormous amount of resources and the peninsula's position in the middle of the Mediterranean put them in the best spot to take it over.
 
@ LSCatalina: I never said that the Ottonians only looked at the Carolingians, they of course looked to their 'counterpart' in Constantinople.
And they eventually took as much after them, when it comes to the conception of Roman Imperium, than the pretence of being the sole continuators of Carolingians.

Also distinguishing between the Ottonians and later HR Emperors is a bit false, there it's more like the Principate > Constantinople example; one gradually evolved in the other.
Except, again, HRE knew more important ruptures on the imperial question.

The Principiate/Dominate differences were existing (even in structural matters), but never put in question the imperial nature of the auctoritas; while this one was deeply challenged not only during Ottonians, but growingly so at the point Habsburgs had to abandon it during the late HRE.

Eventually after the middle ages, that pretence was dropped, and one could argue it really had been weakened by the Investiture Controversy.
I'd personally consider the Golden Bull as a more important marker between the "classical" HRE and the late HRE, at least on the matter of the imperium definition and how it eventually highlighted different basic structures in HRE history.

Now, I never said it happened bluntly, and you had some tentatives of a revival (as late as Charles V), but it's one of the ruptures I was talking about.

But it's a point where the imperium is reduced to something else : "Roman" by sheer tradition and self-reference (as the "Golden Bull" itself but trough Byzantium), rather than a claim over romanity or Roman church.

The other link between the Carolingians and the Ottonians is more through East Francia than the HRE, something much less the case with subsequent dynasties.
Again, I'm not discussing the links between Ottonians and Carolingians. What I'm discussing there is the difference on the conception of imperium between Ottonians and Carolingians : it was never question of other features.
 
1) I'm saying there was more than one state claiming it.
And as people told you : it wasn't exactly the case. A distinction was made between the imperium over Romans and imperium over Romania, up to the end of Middle AGes.

2) I completely understand the point of the split. The thing is... there was a split. The two parts were basically independent and they only drifted further apart.
They didn't acted independently : I'll only mention how the WREmperor reacted to Valens' defeat at Adrianople, by giving away Theodosius as an eastern emperor.

Rather than independent, think complementary (at the point that WR and ER are historiographical names : both claimed, jointly, the Roman imperium)

4) Being Greek in almost every way makes it Greek.
Again, you're talking of Greek as if there was an ideal and established once-and-for-all Greek culture.

The Greek Byzantine culture was essentially the continuation of the Romano-Greek culture (which was really distinct from the Classical Greek, and most influenced by Roman policies, especially on institutional matters) at the point vernacular Greek was really toned down up to the end of the Byzantine Empire.

Greek and Latin were both administration and political language of the classical empire, and both gaven birth to post-classical romanities.

Roman influence still exist on eastern society, which can allow to legitimaly points a romanisation. Denied for a long time, popularity of roman games is now well established but partially hidden by the fact they happened in theaters, and not amphitheaters.

Greek civic structures change as well, as Greek cities know an aristocratisation that see boulè, chosen randomly, being transformed in "Senates", the roman way.

A real analysis of roman presence in East can't be reduced to mentioning latin elements. In this region, Rome assumes the defense of hellenism, and continue the action of Alexander's successors. De facto, under the greek surface, cultures and indigenous languages are still dynamic : thrace in Balkanic North-East, Galatian in Anatolian hinterland, Aramean in Syria and Palestine, Coptic in Egypt.

If elites are hellenized, most of the people is barely touched by the Greek culture, critically in countryside. Rome participate to hellenism's progress, favorising creation of Greek cities in most remote places as did Pompey, in Pont, since the end of the Republic.

Roman administration used mainly Greek, much more than Latin.

It's not exagerated to say that in the East, romanisation passed trough hellenisation.
6) That's my line. Roman Italy had the capital, it's where the leaders lived, it's where the Roman Kingdom, Republic and Empire were founded,
It's irrelevant : it ceased to play a role since the Third Century crisis. It's why cities as Trier, Milano, Nicomedia, etc. played a more important political and institutional role. Because it was where Romans emperors and their administration (mostly militarily, given the military aspect of late Roman imperium) was.

it was the most densely populated part of it,
Egypt would be a better guess. Alexandria was, demographically, the equal of Rome for exemple.

they were the first to get citizenship
Which is particularily irrelevant in the case at hand. Citizenship was gaven away like there was no tomorrow, up to a general citizenship by 212.

I think I see the problem there : when you're thinking about romanity, you're thinking about classical, Latin romanity of the Republic or early Empire.
But the entities we're discussing there, Byzantines, Franks, HRE, etc. were based on the Late Empire institutions and conceptions, a Roman Empire where Italy ceased to play a central role, where citizenship became less of a focus, etc.

If you equal Rome with Ciceronian or Augustean Rome, it's clear that you'd never acknowledge what romanisation looked like : not a blunt acculturation, but a creolisation.
 
And as people told you : it wasn't exactly the case. A distinction was made between the imperium over Romans and imperium over Romania, up to the end of Middle AGes.

They didn't acted independently : I'll only mention how the WREmperor reacted to Valens' defeat at Adrianople, by giving away Theodosius as an eastern emperor.

Rather than independent, think complementary (at the point that WR and ER are historiographical names : both claimed, jointly, the Roman imperium)

Again, you're talking of Greek as if there was an ideal and established once-and-for-all Greek culture.

The Greek Byzantine culture was essentially the continuation of the Romano-Greek culture (which was really distinct from the Classical Greek, and most influenced by Roman policies, especially on institutional matters) at the point vernacular Greek was really toned down up to the end of the Byzantine Empire.

Greek and Latin were both administration and political language of the classical empire, and both gaven birth to post-classical romanities.

It's irrelevant : it ceased to play a role since the Third Century crisis. It's why cities as Trier, Milano, Nicomedia, etc. played a more important political and institutional role. Because it was where Romans emperors and their administration (mostly militarily, given the military aspect of late Roman imperium) was.

Egypt would be a better guess. Alexandria was, demographically, the equal of Rome for exemple.

Which is particularily irrelevant in the case at hand. Citizenship was gaven away like there was no tomorrow, up to a general citizenship by 212.

I think I see the problem there : when you're thinking about romanity, you're thinking about classical, Latin romanity of the Republic or early Empire.
But the entities we're discussing there, Byzantines, Franks, HRE, etc. were based on the Late Empire institutions and conceptions, a Roman Empire where Italy ceased to play a central role, where citizenship became less of a focus, etc.

If you equal Rome with Ciceronian or Augustean Rome, it's clear that you'd never acknowledge what romanisation looked like : not a blunt acculturation, but a creolisation.
1) Again. You're nitpicking. They claimed Rome and that's why the Byzantines were upset about it.

2) Are you saying Greek and Latin were equal?

3) Not at all. Biden said Italy wasn't the heart of the Empire as early as the 1st Century and that the East was more important.

4) The only number I've seen for Alexandria is 300,000 under Augustus. That's very big, but the numbers I've seen for Rome place it between 800,000 and 1,200,000. A census done at the time had Rome's male citizen population at nearly 5 million. It's the safest bet.

5) No it wasn't. There were exceptions, but citizenship was largely restricted to Italians before the Edict of Caracalla.
 
Last edited:
1) Again. You're nitpicking. They claimed Rome and that's why the Byzantines were upset about it.
Again, I ask you some sources about this. I pointed you to contemporary sources about these titles (and almost all can be found translated in English, if you have trouble with Latin).

If you're right, it shouldn't be too hard to find contemporary documents or sources (good luck going trough Carolingian coinage, tough) supporting your case, isn't?
And it would be more convincing than "you're deluded" or "you're nipticking" reactions.

Meanwhile : I tried to explain you the difference between the Carolingian title style, Ottonian style and Byzantine style already.

Carolingians didn't claimed Romania, but an imperium over Christians (which passed trough the pontifical support). It's made particularly obvious with Alcuin's stance over "The Empire of Christians".

Similarly Ottonians claimed so, while also claiming a Roman title with Otto II. Byzantines were so pissed at this they readily agreed to marry twice with Ottonians.

And while Byzantine claimed imprium over Romans, it was less Rome they claimed (at least not after the VIIIth century) than upon Roman peoples.
The use, including by Latins, of "Empire/Emperor of Romania" to name Byzantium is simply too well attested to be ignored.

Rome was important for the western imperialship definition, and less as a city than for the Pontifical legitimisation, at the point Carolingians never went the effort to name themselves "Roman Emperors" or "Emperors of the Romans" or "Emperors of Rome".
As for Byzantines, they didn't cared about the city, but the political implication of the title, as for as far they were concerned, the only Romans were them (Roman as a political identity still existed in the western part after the fall of WRE, but went quickly absorbated by Barbarian political identities, which were contradictory with roman citizenship).

Not that you didn't have struggles on the imperial title, but it was about the imperium rather than the Roman part (they had knee-jerk reactions on "unlawful" use of basileus, for exemple). It was enough for that Carolingians claimed the imperium only for that Emperors in Constantinople were annoyed (never at the point to make a diplomatic scandal about it, tough. They often just ignored the claim or made fun of it).

Now if you don't mind, as I'm a bit tired of running circles there, I'll stand with that. Anyone interested can dig in contemporary sources about styles and titles themselves to make its own opinion.

2) Are you saying Greek and Latin were equal?
Mostly, yes, while you had a geographical distinction.

Basically, Latin and Greek were both Roman administrative, chancery and political languages. Something that no other language in the Empire was.

Latin was dominant in the western part (with some exceptions), while still with an important hellenistic influence on upper classes; while Greek was dominant (by political choice) over the other languages used in the eastern parts.

3) Not at all. Biden said Italy wasn't the heart of the Empire as early as the 1st Century and that the East was more important.
Well, don't tell anyone, but Biden and I are two different and unrelated persons. Some even say we may think idependently from each other.

For exemple, I don't think Rome had "one" heart, but multiple depending on which matter we're talking about. Danubian regions were a military focal point (and therfore, growingly political), for exemple.
Now, yes. The Eastern part of the empire always was a really important focus of the Empire, would it be for a more important role into production and fiscal entries. And it never ceased to have a growing importance after the IInd century.

4) The only number I've seen for Alexandria is 300,000 under Augustus.
You can easily go for 500,000 or 600,000 for the IInd century. More importantly, the population doesn't seem to have significantly lowered before the Arab conquests, while Rome's population declined.

Arguably, I should've precised : was the demographical equal of Rome in the Late Empire. Point taken and correction made.
I think we can agree with Alexandria being second only behind Rome in matter of population.

(While being more active, economically-wise).

Egypt, nevertheless, with an important population stuck into a fairly reduced inhabitable land, certainly had a more important density. At least according these estimations.

A census done at the time had Rome's male citizen population at nearly 5 million. It's the safest bet.
That's for the Italian numbers, not the whole of Romania.
We're talking 10 millions citizens for the late Republic, 15 millions for the Ist Century, a number that grew continuously with whole peoples and cities being granted citizenship (while deductio went extinct). For exemple, whole of Hispania obtained Roman citizenship under Vespasian.

5) No it wasn't. There were exceptions, but citizenship was largely restricted to Italians before the Edict of Caracalla.

Not only roman citizenship was widespread enough before the Edict of Caracalla (again, the exemple of the whole Mauretania or Hispania recieving citizenship), but once again arguing so is irrelevant : by 212 almost everyone was made citizen within the Empire, including *gasp* Romans Greeks.

Seriously : would it be only because History didn't jumped overnight from Ist Century to VIIIth century, one should take a look at what happened meanwhile.
 
Last edited:
Again, I ask you some sources about this. I pointed you to contemporary sources about these titles (and almost all can be found translated in English, if you have trouble with Latin).

If you're right, it shouldn't be too hard to find contemporary documents or sources (good luck going trough Carolingian coinage, tough) supporting your case, isn't?
And it would be more convincing than "you're deluded" or "you're nipticking" reactions.

Meanwhile : I tried to explain you the difference between the Carolingian title style, Ottonian style and Byzantine style already.

Carolingians didn't claimed Romania, but an imperium over Christians (which passed trough the pontifical support). It's made particularly obvious with Alcuin's stance over "The Empire of Christians".

Similarly Ottonians claimed so, while also claiming a Roman title with Otto II. Byzantines were so pissed at this they readily agreed to marry twice with Ottonians.

And while Byzantine claimed imprium over Romans, it was less Rome they claimed (at least not after the VIIIth century) than upon Roman peoples.
The use, including by Latins, of "Empire/Emperor of Romania" to name Byzantium is simply too well attested to be ignored.

Rome was important for the western imperialship definition, and less as a city than for the Pontifical legitimisation, at the point Carolingians never went the effort to name themselves "Roman Emperors" or "Emperors of the Romans" or "Emperors of Rome".
As for Byzantines, they didn't cared about the city, but the political implication of the title, as for as far they were concerned, the only Romans were them (Roman as a political identity still existed in the western part after the fall of WRE, but went quickly absorbated by Barbarian political identities, which were contradictory with roman citizenship).

Not that you didn't have struggles on the imperial title, but it was about the imperium rather than the Roman part (they had knee-jerk reactions on "unlawful" use of basileus, for exemple). It was enough for that Carolingians claimed the imperium only for that Emperors in Constantinople were annoyed (never at the point to make a diplomatic scandal about it, tough. They often just ignored the claim or made fun of it).

Now if you don't mind, as I'm a bit tired of running circles there, I'll stand with that. Anyone interested can dig in contemporary sources about styles and titles themselves to make its own opinion.

Mostly, yes, while you had a geographical distinction.

Basically, Latin and Greek were both Roman administrative, chancery and political languages. Something that no other language in the Empire was.

Latin was dominant in the western part (with some exceptions), while still with an important hellenistic influence on upper classes; while Greek was dominant (by political choice) over the other languages used in the eastern parts.

Well, don't tell anyone, but Biden and I are two different and unrelated persons. Some even say we may think idependently from each other.

For exemple, I don't think Rome had "one" heart, but multiple depending on which matter we're talking about. Danubian regions were a military focal point (and therfore, growingly political), for exemple.
Now, yes. The Eastern part of the empire always was a really important focus of the Empire, would it be for a more important role into production and fiscal entries. And it never ceased to have a growing importance after the IInd century.

You can easily go for 500,000 or 600,000 for the IInd century. More importantly, the population doesn't seem to have significantly lowered before the Arab conquests, while Rome's population declined.

Arguably, I should've precised : was the demographical equal of Rome in the Late Empire. Point taken and correction made.
I think we can agree with Alexandria being second only behind Rome in matter of population.

(While being more active, economically-wise).

Egypt, nevertheless, with an important population stuck into a fairly reduced inhabitable land, certainly had a more important density. At least according these estimations.

That's for the Italian numbers, not the whole of Romania.
We're talking 10 millions citizens for the late Republic, 15 millions for the Ist Century, a number that grew continuously with whole peoples and cities being granted citizenship (while deductio went extinct). For exemple, whole of Hispania obtained Roman citizenship under Vespasian.

Not only roman citizenship was widespread enough before the Edict of Caracalla (again, the exemple of the whole Mauretania or Hispania recieving citizenship), but once again arguing so is irrelevant : by 212 almost everyone was made citizen within the Empire, including *gasp* Romans Greeks.

Seriously : would it be only because History didn't jumped overnight from Ist Century to VIIIth century, one should take a look at what happened meanwhile.
We're never going to agree on this, so let's agree not to.

I'll just say a few things.

1) You said that Italy's importance to the Empire in the 1st century was irrelevant when discussing the Eastern Roman Empire. I can agree with that to an extent (Justinian wanted it back for a reason). Yes. You and Biden aren't the same person, but the post you replied to was a direct response to Biden and since Biden was talking about the 1st century it was definitely relevant.

2) Latin was the most important language in the Empire. Anyone who wanted to get anywhere in the military or in politics needed to learn it. It was still used in the primarily Greek East up until the 6th Century in administration for a reaso. Greek was important. Latin was more important.

3) I never said the East was unimportant. I said it was less important at that point. The East's importance grew in the Imperial period while the West's importance declined, because it was of greater economic value.
 
If it was called New Rome, then it's somewhat less likely that people would speak of the "fall of the Roman Empire", which would produce a tremendous change to later people's perception of the Middle Ages.
 
I'm not sure I get the analogy, to be honest.

Thanks for your response. It has been an interesting debate to read.

I have refined my analogy to one more apt in my view: Is modern Germany a continuation of Prussia? It is a better example than the England-UK one because in the case of Prussia most of the 'core' territories of what was historically Prussia are no longer part of modern Germany, yet there is undoubtedly a link. It is imperfect, but I think it demonstrates the point trying to be made. In my view Byzantines=Romans does not paint the entire picture, albeit it is mostly correct.
 
It is imperfect, but I think it demonstrates the point trying to be made. In my view Byzantines=Romans does not paint the entire picture, albeit it is mostly correct.

The main issue I'd have there with this analogy is that Germany as a political or cultural concept pre-existed Prussia, when it didn't for romanity before Rome.

Roman politics and culture litteraly forged a Romano-Greek entity that didn't existed before : while Germany would still have existed (on one form or another) without Prussia, Byzantium wouldn't have.
You'd argue that Romano-Barbarians entities neither, on which I agree and why many historians of the period used Late Antiquity.

The continuity there is far more clear to me, tough, in Byzantium as it kept the Late Imperial's institutions (not only political but societal or administrative) more close to the original model and while it evolved, did so in a given imperial context. (As for titles, for exemple, the use of autocrator to get distinguished from the "unlawful" use of basileus or imperator by Franks or especially Bulgarians*

In the same time, Romano-Barbarians kingdoms loose gradually their "roman" identity : by the VIth century, Gregorius of Tours notice that citizens only count as 2/5 of the population, roughly, the others being either slaves or "Barbarians" meaning that many Romans choose to abide by a Barbarian political (and cultural) identities. (It took more or less long, and wasn't happening in the same time, regions, as Aquitaine, Italian Romagna, Rome,etc. stil considered themselves as Romans)

So, I don't think Prussia/German exemple is really fit there. On the other hand, I can't really think of a fitting equivalent as well. But basically, with the decline of Roman identity in the West, and its permanance in the East; it was clear that the Roman Empire was in the East for everyone (while ruled by Greeks for Latins, acknowledgement didn't meant support**)

*Note that Byzantines used, without much fuss, Basileus to name the Sassanid Shah. The cristallisation over the imperial title happened gradually and was nowhere as caricatural than sometimes portrayed.
Heck, even Louis II that boasted about his imperial title before Basil I could have married a Byzantine princess, would have he not, well, died.

** Neither systematical antagonism on the question, similarily. At some point, the Latin Yerosolemite Kingdom acknowledged the Basileus as their suzerain, and dated its documents from the king and roman imperial regnal years.

Again, one simply needs to look at Urban II's preach in Clermont to see the Roman pope, of all persons, calling Byzantine Empire "Romania".
Heck, even Fourth Crusaders called it "Romania" in their chronicles. The difference being it was Latins, Roman Catholics taking charge of the Empire from their point of view
 
Top