Roman - Byzantine Division

[Xeal II]

Perusing some old threads here, I noticed a lot of speculation regarding when, exactly, the old Roman Empire morphed into Rhomania/Byzantium and exactly how much continuity and legitimacy it really had in later periods. Gibbon was obviously somewhat prejudiced in his view of the later Empire, though most Western Europeans were at the time. Yet, even Gibbon understood the epic magnitude of the fall of Rome. It was not a single event, it defies any attempt to accurately date it. In some ways, Rome never fell.

Majorian was the last Emperor of the West of any real note. He reestablished Imperial supremacy in parts of Gaul and Spain, he still had a name that reflected the old practice of tria nomina. But it is telling that even Western coinage in his period looked remarkably Byzantine-esque. The votive crowns of the later Visigothic period in Spain seem like something that, save the designation of "Rex," could have come straight from the Byzantine Court. There is at least some possibility that it actually did. The Visigoths were building cities and churches off Roman designs. Even Frankish coinage, such that existed, continued to look remarkably Byzantine-esque for a long time.

Byzantine culture WAS Roman culture. It was simply extinguished in the West after the Arabs had basically cutoff the Eastern Empire from the remnants in the West. As command of the sea was lost and far-flung ports in Africa, Spain and Italy drifted out the Imperial sphere, contact with the the Gallo-Romans, Northern Italians and Hispano-Romans was lost, the latter due greatly to the depredations of the Arabs.

From a linguistic perspective Greek and Latin languages were co-dominant in the old Empire. But the Latin drifted out of the Imperial sphere along with the Latin territories, so slowly that it was probably difficult for the common folk to even realize it was happening.

In other words, I argue that there was a break, but the break occurred in the West and not the East. If the Arabs had not shown up, I suspect the West would have evolved along similar lines as the East, even if many of those territories were ruled by Germanic dynasties. There would have been much more cultural influence exerted by Rhomania.

Rome was very similar to China, in that it was a bureaucratic Empire that created, for a time, a unified meta-culture. But unlike China, at the center of that meta-culture was the Mediterranean Sea, a vulnerable center. The Vandals demonstrated how quickly piracy could ruin the Roman economy, so dependent on that vulnerable center for survival. Belisarius's lightning campaign fixed that problem for awhile, but the Arabs wrecked Roman control of the Mediterranean forever, and with that, the various regions drifted out of the Roman cultural sphere, so slowly that civilization hardly noticed, day-by-day.

The transitional period from 602 - 751, from the death of Maurice to the final fall of Ravenna, marked the end of Roman control in the West and with it, the final opportunity to fulfill Justinian's dream. Rhomania was the legitimate successor, with full continuity with the ancient Roman State, but it was no longer the Roman Empire in its proper sense: a Mediterranean-spanning meta-culture. There would be no restoration as happened in China, and so each island of Roman culture went its own way. Rhomania was, simply, the first among equals and the only state that could really trace an unbroken tradition all the way back to the beginning.

 

[LSCatilina]

But it is telling that even Western coinage in his period looked remarkably Byzantine-esque.

It's less due to an actual acculturation or "byzantinisation" than the importance of Byzance in the trade and monetary part of exchanges. When Arabs would takeover Mediterranean trade, Romano-Germanic kings and rulers eventually issued coins more or less tied with Arabic coinage, when it was not outright copies (as Offa's coins).

It's a regular feature on this regard : Gaulish coins were often copies of Macedonian coinage.

The votive crowns of the later Visigothic period in Spain seem like something that, save the designation of "Rex," could have come straight from the Byzantine Court. There is at least some possibility that it actually did.

In fact, Spain of all places, is probably where a trade and exchanges with Byzantium may have been the less important (a the exception of the province of Spania; of course).
Not that Visigothic jewellry wasn't heavily influenced by Byzantine (as well political features, both being related), as all other western technical cultures, but Byzantine presence in Spain was an obstacle to smooth cultural and technical influences (It's possible that Arianism remained a thing in Visigothic Spain, because it formed a "national" church against Byzantium).

Rather than import from Byzantium, tough, there's more odds for a presence in Spain of Byzantine craftsmen, or byzantine-styling.

Byzantine culture WAS Roman culture. It was simply extinguished in the West after the Arabs had basically cutoff the Eastern Empire from the remnants in the West.

That, in particularly, is a wrong assumption. More correctly, both Byzantine and Western Christiendom were post-Classical Roman culture. One heavily hellenized and still imperial, the other germanized and provincial (as in influence of creolized and metissed regional cultures).
You assume that every roman influence in Romano-Germanic kingdoms was taken from ERE, but you had actually several centers in western Europe : Spain, Italy, Aquitaine most importantly (the transmissions between Aquitaine and Francia on this regard is quite well known) but as well some more odds places as England (English scholars being considered as the finest latinists of their time).

Both cultures are issued from a same Late Roman political and cultural civilization, many common points being more probably tied to a same inheritance than a simple acculturation (that doesn't exclude later mutual influence).
As for the sacre that didn't had nearly the same significance in Constantinople or in Toledo.

Another assumption is that ERE/Western Christiendom ties were brutally cut off during Arab Conquests. But while Arabs did took over networds and trade roads after the fall of Carthage, there wasn't sign of an actual "cut off", but rather a change of dominance.
Furthermore, Italian peninsula and Adriatics became a battlefield between Franks and Roman-backed/Romans, in a conflict where the dominance over semi-continental trade roads wasn't a detail. (See the frankish tentatives for taking Torcello).

If we search an actual division, by that I mean a point where Western and Eastern cultures are estrangered enough, my personal stance would be the Xth century : in West, the appearance of feudalism and the appearance of a theologically distinct Roman Church, being a clear cut from Late Roman features; in East the appearance of Macedonian dynasty introduced many changes as well, a new gestalt of their political and diplomatical environment, instituional reorganisation.
You don't have two entierly different cultures, neither a cut appearing a day, but for different reasons (while still tied to similar causes), both West and East passed from a Post-Classical Roman civilisation to something else.

 

[Xeal II]

It's less due to an actual acculturation or "byzantinisation" than the importance of Byzance in the trade and monetary part of exchanges. When Arabs would takeover Mediterranean trade, Romano-Germanic kings and rulers eventually issued coins more or less tied with Arabic coinage, when it was not outright copies (as Offa's coins).

Not correct with regards to European coinage in Francia, but quite correct with later coinage in the Crusader Kingdoms and some parts of Spain during the Reconquista. Arab influence never really lasted north of Spain. In the Crusader kingdoms, this was more a matter of expediency than cultural influence. The Crusaders ruled over a largely Semetic peasantry.

In fact, Spain of all places, is probably where a trade and exchanges with Byzantium may have been the less important (a the exception of the province of Spania; of course).
Not that Visigothic jewellry wasn't heavily influenced by Byzantine (as well political features, both being related), as all other western technical cultures, but Byzantine presence in Spain was an obstacle to smooth cultural and technical influences (It's possible that Arianism remained a thing in Visigothic Spain, because it formed a "national" church against Byzantium).

Rather than import from Byzantium, tough, there's more odds for a presence in Spain of Byzantine craftsmen, or byzantine-styling.

While the latter idea, the idea of Byzantine craftsman living in Spain, is quite plausible, your assumptions about the influences on jewelry is off. The Treasure of Guarrazar attests to this. The votive crowns in that collection look identical to contemporary mosaic portrayals of royal headgear used by the Emperors in Constantinople. The churches built in this period also show considerable influence from contemporary styles in the Empire. Although, the Visigoths also expanded these styles on their own, too. Note the Visigothic (later, Moorish) arch.

That, in particularly, is a wrong assumption. More correctly, both Byzantine and Western Christiendom were post-Classical Roman culture. One heavily hellenized and still imperial, the other germanized and provincial (as in influence of creolized and metissed regional cultures).
You assume that every roman influence in Romano-Germanic kingdoms was taken from ERE, but you had actually several centers in western Europe : Spain, Italy, Aquitaine most importantly (the transmissions between Aquitaine and Francia on this regard is quite well known) but as well some more odds places as England (English scholars being considered as the finest latinists of their time).

I will have to partially disagree here. While the Romano-Germanic kingdoms bordered a strong Empire, I would argue for considerable cross-cultural contact between them. Theodoric the Great, for example, spent much of his youth in Constantinople. That is part of what made him an effective ruler (and somewhat more immune to Imperial political influence): he knew how to handle the Imperial Court. If you look at the Codex Argenteus, you will see a heavily Greek-influence Gothic alphabet. The Visigoths and Ostrogoths were the most heavily influenced Romano-Germanic kingdoms precisely because they bordered the still-living Empire. The Franks were somewhat less influenced, and the Anglo-Saxon-Frisian groups less, even, than that. As for their excellent Latin tradition (passed to the Irish), I can only say that they were also one of the first peoples to write in the vernacular, too. Old English written orthography is some of the finest in the Western World, and it appeared long before continental vernacular works were common.

Another assumption is that ERE/Western Christiendom ties were brutally cut off during Arab Conquests. But while Arabs did took over networds and trade roads after the fall of Carthage, there wasn't sign of an actual "cut off", but rather a change of dominance.
Furthermore, Italian peninsula and Adriatics became a battlefield between Franks and Roman-backed/Romans, in a conflict where the dominance over semi-continental trade roads wasn't a detail. (See the frankish tentatives for taking Torcello).

At first, perhaps. The Rashidun Caliphate was somewhat less hostile to Roman culture and trade than the Umayyads and Abbasids that followed. But even they weren't exactly friendly. When Constans II sent an army to reinforce the border with the Arabs and secure trade routes, he was rudely informed to "go back to your place." There was a perception that this was no longer Roman territory even in a theoretical, claimed state. It was lost to them. Around the same time, Byzantine-style coin issues stopped (early Islamic coinage did borrow heavily from both the Byzantines and Sassanids), and the image-free Arab coins began to be issued. This trend, no doubt, helped to precipitate a similar action in the Empire, with iconoclasm. The Empire's cultural dominance had been lost and it was absorbing influence from the Arab world.

If we search an actual division, by that I mean a point where Western and Eastern cultures are estrangered enough, my personal stance would be the Xth century : in West, the appearance of feudalism and the appearance of a theologically distinct Roman Church, being a clear cut from Late Roman features; in East the appearance of Macedonian dynasty introduced many changes as well, a new gestalt of their political and diplomatical environment, instituional reorganisation.
You don't have two entierly different cultures, neither a cut appearing a day, but for different reasons (while still tied to similar causes), both West and East passed from a Post-Classical Roman civilisation to something else.

While I would agree there is no specific day or year you could nail down as the transition point, I would argue that the 602-751 period was the transitional one. In 602, the Empire's supremacy, though somewhat diminished in territory, economic production, and military power, was still strong in cultural hegemony, trade and still essentially controlled the Mediterranean. Even the distant Franks were, theoretically, still within the Roman sphere of influence.

The period from 602-751 saw, progressively, remaining Roman territory diminished. It saw Roman religious dominance extinguished along with losses in the West. While Constans II could still arrest the Pope in 653, nothing like that could be done in 1054. In 800, the Pope could crown someone else as "Roman Emperor" and nobody in Constantinople could do a thing about it. So, something happened in that intervening period, and that could only be the fall of the Italian Exarchate.

Roman economic power fell apart during this period, too. The Arabs took to the sea, and though Constantinople proved impregnable as ever, and Greek Fire a fearsome weapon, Cyprus, Crete and Sicily fell in turn (though the latter in the 800s). This argues for a loss of Mediterranean naval control. Trade suffered to Arab pirates. Constantinople might have remained the Queen of Cities, but she was no longer peerless, and her reach was diminished. Egypt and North Africa represented economic powerhouses in that day, and their loss was extremely disruptive.

With the decline in economic power, the number of artisans and craftsmen declined. Concrete was lost as a building material. In Justinian's day it was still known. New construction in Constantinople was diminished until the Macedonian period.

All of this argues for a major disruption. The Empire went into this period as a large multi-ethnic state with a unified meta-culture that extended even beyond its borders into neighboring states. It exited the period as a Greek-oriented compact nation-state that still remained locally ascendant. An apt analogy would be that Rome ceased to be a Superpower, but remained a Great Power. The transformation altered its identity, culture and politics and cutoff its close cultural contact with the West.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

These threads come up every six months or so. I've posted my rough thoughts before, and I'll do so again briefly now.

I think I'd probably raise an eyebrow if a TL set much before 640 was referring to "Byzantines" rather than Romans, and all the more so if this was a sixth century TL. Justinian's empire had considerably more in common with the Diocletian/Constantine model than it did with the high Byzantine state of Aleksios Komnenos and his heirs.

Generally, I think it's fair to start talking about a "Byzantine Empire" after the state became focused almost entirely on Byzantion-Constantinople following the loss of, or depopulation of, the empire's other major urban centres in the seventh century. I think the reigns of Leo III and Constantine V probably mark the major pivot away from late antique Rome and towards Byzantium as we know and love it, but it's wrong to talk about any definitive moment of transition: the one that always annoys me is Heraclius' supposed "official language conversion" of 629.

 

[Riain]

Where does the creation of the Themata sit with regards with the division from Roman to "Byzantine"? The 'Provincial" system was undoubtedly classical Roman, and changing to the Thematic system was a considerable reorganisation of governmental structure. So does that make it an important milestone on the path of transition?

 

[Xeal II]

...but it's wrong to talk about any definitive moment of transition: the one that always annoys me is Heraclius' supposed "official language conversion" of 629.

Agreed. Latin coin issues continued long after that, and even after Heraclius, much of the Empire remained Latin-speaking, including the economic and cultural centers of Ravenna and Carthage. Something unusual was happening, though. It wasn't confined to just language.

Consider that the column of Phocas was the last monument erected in the Roman Forum. Consider also that Constans II actually stripped Rome of lead in the roofs of buildings and started donating other buildings to the church. The importance of Rome the city had been diminishing for a long time, dating back to the third century. With the Empire increasingly oriented toward Constantinople, and Ravenna subordinate, it would be natural to see Greek slowly displace Latin as the language of High Office. It is likely that Heraclius was merely acknowledging an established practice.

Heraclius may have oriented the government in Constantinople more toward Greek than Latin, but that would not have been seen as odd in a city populated mostly by Greek-speakers. It is not, itself, a sufficient break with the old Empire.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Where does the creation of the Themata sit with regards with the division from Roman to "Byzantine"? The 'Provincial" system was undoubtedly classical Roman, and changing to the Thematic system was a considerable reorganisation of governmental structure. So does that make it an important milestone on the path of transition?

The creation of the Themata is generally quite misunderstood. In the seventh and early eighth centuries, the Themata were one and the same as the former field armies, the Comitatenses, that had simply been pulled out of their old command regions (the Magistri Militi) into Anatolia: even the names were the same, albeit translated into Greek. The old Roman provinces seem to have continued on "beneath" these structures as best they could throughout the seventh and eighth centuries, although evidence is so sparse for the period it's difficult to say for sure.

Reforms came with the Isaurians, who began the process that would end in the eventual disappearance of the Themata in the eleventh century: this was probably linked to an initially successful attempt to overthrow Constantine V by one of the field armies of the Themata. Constantine seems to have responded by trying to neutralise the political strength of the field armies by splitting up the commands into smaller "province sized" areas, blending them with the late Roman civil administration, and creating a new elite army in the form of the Tagmata. The process was a slow one but gradually the Themata absorbed and were themselves absorbed by provincial administration while the Tagmata replaced them as the professional armies- the process was probably accelerated by the tenth century soldier Emperors and Basil II's reaction to them, although that's straying away from the OP.

As an aside, I'd just like to say how great it is to get a thread like this filled with such well informed posts.

 

[LSCatilina]

Not correct with regards to European coinage in Francia

It was proven by Bolin that Carolingian denarius followed the same ration of precious metal than Islamic coins at least between Early VIIth and half of Xth century.. (cf. Dark Age Economics)

As for penetration of Arabo-Islamic coins in Gaul, they follow the exact same places than Byzantine then Provencal coins after 580 (re-using africano-byzantine gold up to the VIIth century, interestingly happening in one of the most romanized aeras of Merovingian kingdom), arguing for a takeover of these roads rather than their collapse. (At this point, it's not unthinkable that Arabo-Islamic coinage was issued from same sources, making transition even smoother).

While the latter idea, the idea of Byzantine craftsman living in Spain, is quite plausible, your assumptions about the influences on jewelry is off.

It's less mine than a general assumption on the question.
Quoting Collins in his "Visigothic Spain".

However, the items of material culture assigned to the fourth period are so markedly different in appearance to most of those that precede it that it might be wondered if a whole-sale sartorial revolution took place in the early seventh century.

Onthe other hand, it may just be that the classification upon which this is based is too doctrinaire, and derives from an assumption that a major change of identity took place among the Gothic population in this time, and in consequence all Byzantine or eastern Mediterranean-inspired styles can be expected to be influential in Spain only after
the end of the sixth century

As you see, it's not an uncriticized assumption, but it's still important enough to not be rejected a priori.

The Trasure of Guarrazar attests to this. The votive crowns in that collection look identical to contemporary mosaic portrayals of royal headgear used by the Emperors in Constantinople.

You adopt a mechanist historical view there, Byzantine influence wasn't the point of disagreement, but your argument that Byzantium was THE Roman civilisation and the only provider of such in the West.

I will have to partially disagree here. While the Romano-Germanic kingdoms bordered a strong Empire, I would argue for considerable cross-cultural contact between them. Theodoric the Great, for example, spent much of his youth in Constantinople.

I never said that you didn't had cross-contact. My point was Late Roman culture didn't disappeared in West as you affirmed, but that two sub-Roman cultures, from the same sources, existed and exchanged, Constantinople not being the only pole of exchange on this regard.

That is part of what made him an effective ruler (and somewhat more immune to Imperial political influence): he knew how to handle the Imperial Court.

You'll observe that he was surrounded by Italo-Roman scholars and elite, practically the same administration and nobility than Odoacer or Late WRE.
These didn't disappeared and was heavily used as in every Romano-German realm (at the exclusion of AS, that landed admittedly on a poorly romanised province to begin with).
Bruno Dumézil published recently an interesting work on this : "Servir l'Etat Barbare dans la Gaule Franque".

I could quote the Lex Gundobada, that was written with the support of Avitus, and a Syagrius. Or the Lex Romana Visigothorum that were written before Justinian Codex (being directly issued from Theodosian Codex) and would ignore it even after its redaction up to the XIIth century.

If you look at the Codex Argenteus, you will see a heavily Greek-influence Gothic alphabet.

Said Gothic script that didn't lasted very much after Goths entered in Romania. It was before all things an identity marker, made to distinguish them from Romans while still making them integrated into.

It never really managed to make runic script disappear totally, and even less to face the rivalty of latin script even before the VIIth century.

Codex Argentus or Ambrosianus themselves as copy of previous works, are more an identity marker (as Arianism was) than a real dynamic and widespread custom.

The actually original works made once entered in Romania, as previously indicated Laws, but as well acts of Councils, are using latin.

More so, for Roger Collins, "there is no evidence for the use of Gothic in Spain in the sixth and seventh centuries" while Hispano-Romans tought themselves as Goths (in a similar way than the earlier process in Francia)

The Visigoths and Ostrogoths were the most heavily influenced Romano-Germanic kingdoms precisely because they bordered the still-living Empire.

You simply handwaving the existance of strong roman points, Hispania, Aquitaine and Italia being the most "romanized" (as in most close of imperial tradition) regions of WRE.
Either you'd have to argue that Germans all destroyed in the process, either

The Franks were somewhat less influenced

Depsite having regular contacts with Eastern Roman basin, at least up to Mauricius, thanks to the conquest of Aquitaine.
The main difference between Francia and Hispania on this regard, is the absence of a strong imperial tradition north of Loire, while provincial romanity was more present. Frankish scholars were coming in good numbers from Aquitaine/Auvergnat elite, lasting up to the late Merovingian era (Desiderii-Salvii, Syagrii, etc.) even when they were present in Francia proper.
In order to make Constantinople the beacon of all Roman civilisation, you'd have to ignore that.

As for their excellent Latin tradition (passed to the Irish), I can only say that they were also one of the first peoples to write in the vernacular, too.

The most obvious explanation is that vernacular roman disappeared quite quickly in AS England, making any "bastardisation" of classical and vulgar latin less likely (as for Chilperic's reforms).
Franks did wrote their language since the Vth century, but eventually adopted gallo-roman uses and script when they entered in Gaul entierly.

For the Irish, you must be mistaken. Irish scholarship was already declining when Anglo-Saxon scholarship became a model. (Not that the first didn't influenced the latter, but the main cause was the romanisation of AS court)

Old English written orthography is some of the finest in the Western World, and it appeared long before continental vernacular works were common.

That's mostly due to the importance of roman tradition, even if peripherical aeras. Where existed even a local roman elite, they were generally part of the administration (if not the administration).
At this point, there was a "inner stuggle" regarding which rules to choose : either "barbaric" (meaning there vulgar latin) or a "classicism" (meaning I/IIth century texts serving as reference).
Not having to deal with a two-headed romance speech, AS get the best of it.

At first, perhaps. The Rashidun Caliphate was somewhat less hostile to Roman culture and trade than the Umayyads and Abbasids that followed. But even they weren't exactly friendly.

Umayyads were quite friendly with Roman culture, more than you seem to think : architecturally (use of cardo/decumanus; architectural style, mosaics, etc.) , and even institutionally (an exemple among many others, Berber hostility towards Arabs in Ifriqya was partially based on the continuation of byzantine palatial custom from the walis, particularly the taxes and establishment of a guard).

Abassids, I'll give you that, but that's mostly a political feature, in order to enforce a rupture with "imperial" Umayyads.

In 602, the Empire's supremacy, though somewhat diminished in territory, economic production, and military power, was still strong in cultural hegemony, trade and still essentially controlled the Mediterranean. Even the distant Franks were, theoretically, still within the Roman sphere of influence.

I'm absolutly not denying that, but that the rupture between West and East happened because of a crisis of the Roman state. Cultural and economical contacts were maintained (essentially in Italy after Arab conquests) and both regions maintained common features including institutionally, as Carolingia, especially after Charlemagne, is "Romanized" (as in "ideal" Christian Empire, inspired by Byzantium but searching to be distinct)

The period from 602-751 saw, progressively, remaining Roman territory diminished. It saw Roman religious dominance extinguished along with losses in the West.

Even when Constans II acted like that, it couldn't have changed many things. Coercitive Byzantine power was indeed more important, but its religious power over Latin churches was really limited.
Even at its peak, Romano-German kings remained the ruler of their churches and depsite some occasional influence (By exemple, on Dagobert and anti-judaic measures), and Byzantium had no real religious dominance outside its own empire.
The fact that roman popes continually struggled with them, instead to comply, point out that this so-called dominance shouldn't be exagerated.

In 800, the Pope could crown someone else as "Roman Emperor" and nobody in Constantinople could do a thing about it. So, something happened in that intervening period, and that could only be the fall of the Italian Exarchate.

It's not like exarchs didn't tried to use the Pope against Constantinople : Eleutherius tentative could have been very interesting on this regard, if he didned end killed by his troops.

And there, you confuse cause and consequence. You didn't had a shift in alliances in favour of Franks after the fall of Exarchate and Frankish takeover of Italy, but before (and actually making it possible).

I'll give you that it's mainly due to Byzantine incapacity to deal with Italian matters against 1) Lombards, 2) Independence de facto (and partially de jure) of popes (as they, by exemple, coined their own money without mention of the emperor) and dukes. But that's symptomatic of a more slow change, rather than a political collapse.

Not that the pope gained much, being nothing but a carolingian client, that didn't had much prevalance after the collapse of Carolingia. (hence the presence of a pro-byzantine roman faction up to the Ottonian dynasty).

Roman economic power fell apart during this period, too. The Arabs took to the sea, and though Constantinople proved impregnable as ever, and Greek Fire a fearsome weapon, Cyprus, Crete and Sicily fell in turn (though the latter in the 800s)

Constantinople might have remained the Queen of Cities, but she was no longer peerless, and her reach was diminished.

Was she peerless? Alexandria was one of the most important trade centers of Romania, especially regarding
Egypt and North Africa represented economic powerhouses in that day, and their loss was extremely disruptive.

With the decline in economic power, the number of artisans and craftsmen declined. Concrete was lost as a building material. In Justinian's day it was still known. New construction in Constantinople was diminished until the Macedonian period.

"Concrete" being lost is the Dark Ageists' cliché : first, it's not a concrete (while I suppose it looked better on paper when it came to promote an historical collapse) but a cement. Modern concrete

Then, anyone looking at Vitruvus can see the reciepe, and this book was known and copied.

Rather than lost, then, it was unused.
It should be noted that it wasn't hugely used in Roman times, asking for some precise ressources found relativly easily in Italy, but not that much elsewhere.
As long you benefited from an economical and administrative continuum, that wasn't much of a problem, but when it disappeared at least in West, it became more complex.

Another thing is on what it was used in Roman times : used in monumental features when medieval architecture was more utilitarian (not that it wasn't used in medieval Italy, admittedly without the engeenering and know-how knowledge). A combination of this and turn to more easily avaible ressources (wood, stone) made it.

The case for Constantinople is a bit particular because it's basically what they would have wanted, but as after Justinian, the city began to really decline (plague, war, crisis), with the disappearence (and here I'd agree with you) of traditional Roman ervegetism to a more Christian based one (Churches replacing monuments in these matters).

 

[Xeal II]

It was proven by Bolin that Carolingian denarius followed the same ration of precious metal than Islamic coins at least between Early VIIth and half of Xth century.. (cf. Dark Age Economics)

There is nothing odd in that. Even as enemies, the Empire and the Arab world consistently trade with each other. For that matter, the Sassanids still used weights very similar to that of the Parthian, who in turn were using the Greek measures. The Arab name "Dinar" is a rather obvious hint as to why they followed similar metal content and denominations as the previous Roman (and Visigoth) administration.

As for penetration of Arabo-Islamic coins in Gaul, they follow the exact same places than Byzantine then Provencal coins after 580 (re-using africano-byzantine gold up to the VIIth century, interestingly happening in one of the most romanized aeras of Merovingian kingdom), arguing for a takeover of these roads rather than their collapse. (At this point, it's not unthinkable that Arabo-Islamic coinage was issued from same sources, making transition even smoother).

While true, this has little bearing on the assertion that 602 - 751 was the critical transition period for the Empire. Still, trade routes continued to follow Late Roman patterns for some time due to inertia, however there was a marked decline in the amount of trade going on. To give you an idea, the Lombards still minted gold coins, but the Carolingian's prized currency was silver. The Carolingian Empire had disconnected from the reduced, but still partially cash-based economy of Constantinople. There was a lot more bartering going on.

It's less mine than a general assumption on the question.
Quoting Collins in his "Visigothic Spain".

There is a certain tendency to see the Visigoths as more disconnected from Roman culture than they really were. Yes they were Arians for some time (though most eventually converted to Catholicism). Yet they had also lived on the borders of, and often inside of, the declining Empire since the third century. They had been a consistent feature of Imperial politics for long enough to acquire a lot of Roman habits and culture. In fact, it's difficult to see exactly what it is we are disagreeing on here.

You adopt a mechanist historical view there, Byzantine influence wasn't the point of disagreement, but your argument that Byzantium was THE Roman civilisation and the only provider of such in the West.


I never said that you didn't had cross-contact. My point was Late Roman culture didn't disappeared in West as you affirmed, but that two sub-Roman cultures, from the same sources, existed and exchanged, Constantinople not being the only pole of exchange on this regard.

You'll observe that he was surrounded by Italo-Roman scholars and elite, practically the same administration and nobility than Odoacer or Late WRE.
These didn't disappeared and was heavily used as in every Romano-German realm (at the exclusion of AS, that landed admittedly on a poorly romanised province to begin with).
Bruno Dumézil published recently an interesting work on this : "Servir l'Etat Barbare dans la Gaule Franque".

I could quote the Lex Gundobada, that was written with the support of Avitus, and a Syagrius. Or the Lex Romana Visigothorum that were written before Justinian Codex (being directly issued from Theodosian Codex) and would ignore it even after its redaction up to the XIIth century.

We don't disagree on that. Consider that seventh century Rhomania looked an awful lot like the Roman Empire proper in the middle of the Third Century crisis, with the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires seceded from it. What I'm positing is a bit more nuanced. When Constantine refounded Byzantium as his capital, he was ending a process that had begun in 212 by Caracalla, who pronounced all free peoples in the empire to be citizens. Rome had become a nation, not a city. The "Byzantine" Empire was, ironically, the reverse process, the Empire slowly becoming a city.

In other words, Constantine created a new center of gravity for the empire, shifted further to the East. Over time, it became the center of Roman culture in ways that Rome no longer fulfilled. That doesn't mean the Empire immediately lost its Romanness, if you will. Rather, it means that as regions were, one-by-one, cast off from central authority or conquered by others, they were slowly withdrawn from the influence of that central (and still evolving) Roman culture.

602-751 was the process by which that centralized culture had changed so much that the cast-off regions, if you will, were no longer similar enough to be thought of as the same. Early Visigothic Spain and, as you point out, Ostrogothic Italy were near enough to Late Roman culture to be thought of as essentially the same. Different Germanic rulers. Still one country, one common folk.

In fact, Dr. Kelley Ross in his seminal work, Decadence, Rome and Romania, the Emperors Who Weren't, points out that Theodoric ought to have simply declared himself to be Emperor during his regency of the Visigothic Kingdom. That he didn't was because of the scrupulous observation of citizenship. He was not a Roman. As a German, he could rule over Germans as their king, and he could protect the Roman civilization, but it was not conceivable that he should be Emperor. By the time the Pope crowned Charlemagne, it was too late. Too much of Rome had gone and, in any event, the differences between East and West were too great.

Said Gothic script that didn't lasted very much after Goths entered in Romania. It was before all things an identity marker, made to distinguish them from Romans while still making them integrated into.

It never really managed to make runic script disappear totally, and even less to face the rivalty of latin script even before the VIIth century.

Codex Argentus or Ambrosianus themselves as copy of previous works, are more an identity marker (as Arianism was) than a real dynamic and widespread custom.

The actually original works made once entered in Romania, as previously indicated Laws, but as well acts of Councils, are using latin.

More so, for Roger Collins, "there is no evidence for the use of Gothic in Spain in the sixth and seventh centuries" while Hispano-Romans tought themselves as Goths (in a similar way than the earlier process in Francia)

You simply handwaving the existance of strong roman points, Hispania, Aquitaine and Italia being the most "romanized" (as in most close of imperial tradition) regions of WRE.
Either you'd have to argue that Germans all destroyed in the process, either

The first part is essentially correct. The usage of the Gothic alphabet presented in the Codex Argentus was a sort of transitional period for the Goths who, in Hispania at least, eventually adopted late Vulgar Latin anyway. This was around the same time they became Catholic, so it might be accurate to say that Arianism was a transitional belief system for them in the same fashion.

However, your second point misses something. The Goths WERE destroyed. In Italy, Belisarius and Narses defeated them terribly. Granted, it was a Pyrrhic victory, but it essentially destroyed the Ostrogoths as an independent people, forever. The Visigoths were already subsumed into Hispano-Roman culture by the time the Arabs completed the process. Rather more of them survives, in a number of Spanish personal and place names, but they were eliminated as well. Only in Francia did a Germanic conqueror stay in place over a largely Roman populace. In Britain, Romanization was incomplete and most of the island fell back into Brythonnic language and custom before being overrun, over an agonizingly long period, by Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Normans.

So Francia is our only example of what happens to a Roman population over a long period of continuity. And it's interesting that French is considered to be the most innovative of Romance languages when compared to Latin.

But in any event we would be splitting hairs at this point. I don't argue that France, Spain, Italy and Portugal could not trace their heritage back to Rome in some fashion. After all their language and religion certainly does. Even the Germanic and Nordic nations have a Roman heritage in them too, for as the declining Roman culture was subsumed into the larger medieval framework, so did it spread. There's a reason we call these places "Western" countries, after all.

Depsite having regular contacts with Eastern Roman basin, at least up to Mauricius, thanks to the conquest of Aquitaine.
The main difference between Francia and Hispania on this regard, is the absence of a strong imperial tradition north of Loire, while provincial romanity was more present. Frankish scholars were coming in good numbers from Aquitaine/Auvergnat elite, lasting up to the late Merovingian era (Desiderii-Salvii, Syagrii, etc.) even when they were present in Francia proper.
In order to make Constantinople the beacon of all Roman civilisation, you'd have to ignore that.


The most obvious explanation is that vernacular roman disappeared quite quickly in AS England, making any "bastardisation" of classical and vulgar latin less likely (as for Chilperic's reforms).
Franks did wrote their language since the Vth century, but eventually adopted gallo-roman uses and script when they entered in Gaul entierly.

Essentially correct. We agree on this. Constantinople was not the beacon of all Roman civilization. What it was, was the center of the declining medieval variant of it. And it separated from the Germanic version (to which it had still been connected up to this point) during the aforementioned 602-751 period.

For the Irish, you must be mistaken. Irish scholarship was already declining when Anglo-Saxon scholarship became a model. (Not that the first didn't influenced the latter, but the main cause was the romanisation of AS court)

I think you misread me. It is my assertion that Latin religious and monastic traditions entered the British isles even as the Roman administration and vulgar language left it. From there, it made its way to Ireland. After this time, the Anglo-Saxon vernacular writing began in earnest, but Ireland was already well on its way to its own tradition.

Umayyads were quite friendly with Roman culture, more than you seem to think : architecturally (use of cardo/decumanus; architectural style, mosaics, etc.) , and even institutionally (an exemple among many others, Berber hostility towards Arabs in Ifriqya was partially based on the continuation of byzantine palatial custom from the walis, particularly the taxes and establishment of a guard).

Abassids, I'll give you that, but that's mostly a political feature, in order to enforce a rupture with "imperial" Umayyads.

No, not really. The Rashidun Caliphate was most friendly toward the Empire, in so far as Arabs could be said to be friendly. This is a topic I find personally fascinating, due to the Hadith of the prediction in Sura ar-Rum. Mohammed was actually relatively well-disposed toward the Empire, viewing them as fellow monotheists. This faded over time following his death. Basically, the further from Mohammed you get, the more Christian-Islamic hostility you find. The Abbasids were worse than the Umayyads, true. But the Umayyads were worse than the Rashidun, who were worse than Mohammed himself. In fact the break in Umayyad feeling toward Roman civilization can be clearly articulated. It occurred during the reign of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. He consciously broke with Roman coinage styles and after his reign, Arabic architecture began to diverge from the Roman precedent. It is no coincident that the siege of Constantinople occurred not long after his death.

I'm absolutly not denying that, but that the rupture between West and East happened because of a crisis of the Roman state. Cultural and economical contacts were maintained (essentially in Italy after Arab conquests) and both regions maintained common features including institutionally, as Carolingia, especially after Charlemagne, is "Romanized" (as in "ideal" Christian Empire, inspired by Byzantium but searching to be distinct)

No, the state was fine. Heraclius had more or less restored the Empire to predominant power in the region, and the state was evolving just fine. What it could not contend with was the Arabs. Consider that Heraclius had smashed Persia thoroughly. It was a wreck. The traditional enemy of Rome had its back broken. He and his subordinates had beaten the rival superpower of the age. And yet these same men lost every important battle with the Arabs. It was a military failure, and I've never heard it adequately explained. What is clear is that the state continued on despite horrific losses after just fighting Persia harder than they had at any time since Trajan.

It was due to the strength of the state that the Empire didn't just roll over and die like Sassanid Persia did. Despite losing most of the battles, it held on long enough to wait out the Arab tide.

Even when Constans II acted like that, it couldn't have changed many things. Coercitive Byzantine power was indeed more important, but its religious power over Latin churches was really limited.
Even at its peak, Romano-German kings remained the ruler of their churches and depsite some occasional influence (By exemple, on Dagobert and anti-judaic measures), and Byzantium had no real religious dominance outside its own empire.
The fact that roman popes continually struggled with them, instead to comply, point out that this so-called dominance shouldn't be exagerated.

If authority in Italy had been maintained, it is likely more popes would have found themselves languishing in the Crimea. Sure, it wasn't likely to extend much temporal authority over Frankish kings, but the cultural influence would have continued, at least.

It's not like exarchs didn't tried to use the Pope against Constantinople : Eleutherius tentative could have been very interesting on this regard, if he didned end killed by his troops.

Typical politics for the Empire. Heraclius, remember, came out of Carthage, the son of the Exarch there. When Maurice reorganized the West into the Exarchates, he was really creating quasi-independent Roman states, spiritual successors to the Western Empire, and they acted like it sometimes. Gennadius was practically independent for some time in Africa, in the mid-600s. The same thing happened in Italian Exarchate from time-to-time.

It would have been interesting to know what would have happened if the Arabs hadn't shown up. It is likely you would have seen a Southern and Western Empire, eventually, replacing the Exarchates.

And there, you confuse cause and consequence. You didn't had a shift in alliances in favour of Franks after the fall of Exarchate and Frankish takeover of Italy, but before (and actually making it possible).

I'll give you that it's mainly due to Byzantine incapacity to deal with Italian matters against 1) Lombards, 2) Independence de facto (and partially de jure) of popes (as they, by exemple, coined their own money without mention of the emperor) and dukes. But that's symptomatic of a more slow change, rather than a political collapse.

Not that the pope gained much, being nothing but a carolingian client, that didn't had much prevalance after the collapse of Carolingia. (hence the presence of a pro-byzantine roman faction up to the Ottonian dynasty).

The Ottonian Dynasty was fascinating. It teases the historian with the possibility that, perhaps, East-West reapproachment was possible. It ultimately failed, but if a century or so could have been shaved off from the period of low communication between East and West... well this is an Alternate History forum. Someone ought to write that scenario out.

Was she peerless? Alexandria was one of the most important trade centers of Romania

Yes, at the time, Constantinople was peerless. Alexandria may have been a trading center and a large city, but Constantinople absolutely dominated it politically and culturally. This wound up being one of many reasons the Muslims had little difficulty securing Egypt. It was a hotbed of dissent, envy and rival religious thought. Even in Justinian's day it was difficult to control.

"Concrete" being lost is the Dark Ageists' cliché : first, it's not a concrete (while I suppose it looked better on paper when it came to promote an historical collapse) but a cement. Modern concrete

Then, anyone looking at Vitruvus can see the reciepe, and this book was known and copied.

Rather than lost, then, it was unused.
It should be noted that it wasn't hugely used in Roman times, asking for some precise ressources found relativly easily in Italy, but not that much elsewhere.
As long you benefited from an economical and administrative continuum, that wasn't much of a problem, but when it disappeared at least in West, it became more complex.

No, it is most commonly referred to as "Roman Concrete." Of course, this is semantics, since Portland Cement is also referred to, in finished state, as "concrete." But I would rather not get caught up in that sort of thing, if you please.

Now, it did vanish in the West. Keep in mind, steam technology was known to the Greeks, and it vanished too. As you say, nobody used it, and if it was copied by monks preserving earlier works, it was not utilized. It was entirely theoretical. You see, a technology is more than a formula (and even that was lost, only the general gist of thing was preserved), it is engineering and practical application. The Hagia Sophia utilized some of it, as I understand (and according to Norwich), but that was the last documented use of the original Roman formula. A lot of Roman engineering techniques were lost, not necessarily because conception of them had been lost, but because experience with them had been lost. And, in any event, after Justinian, who had the money to do things like that anyway?

The case for Constantinople is a bit particular because it's basically what they would have wanted, but as after Justinian, the city began to really decline (plague, war, crisis), with the disappearence (and here I'd agree with you) of traditional Roman ervegetism to a more Christian based one (Churches replacing monuments in these matters).

That's Gibbon's view, and I think it's missing something important. Gibbon believed Christianity weakened the state, which brought down the Empire. I do not. I think Christianity was a product of the Empire's decline, not the cause of it, and that the decline was largely economic in nature. Even so, I suspect it could have weathered it, much like China had its ups and downs, if it hadn't been for the bad timing of the Arabs. The Arabs broke the unified meta-culture of the Mediterranean and shattered the possibility of a Roman resurgence. That one was possible is exemplified in China. The Sui Dynasty of China reconquered much of the old Empire at roughly a similar period in which Justinian was busy with his project. Unlike Rome, however, the Sui were followed by the Tang who, not having to contend with a near-invincible invasion by religious fervor, were able to complete the restoration.

Nobody calls the Tang reactionaries or failures, because they succeeded. Heraclius and his dynasty could have been that force for Rome, had Islam not shown up.

 

[LSCatilina]

There is nothing odd in that.

I never said it was odd, my point was to say that the "byzantinisation" of coins in the West wasn't a proof of cultural or political domination.
It was a current use by Romano-German kingdoms to melt byzantine monetary to coin their own, critically since the end of VIth century while it was used as such before.

It could be interesting to make a comparison with the Romano-Persian Wars happening in the same time, critically when some local coinage (Essentialy provencal) actually use byzantine features that disappeared from contemporary byzantine coins (but present in Italian coins of the previous century).
Not that you have a disengagement of byzantine coinage in western Europe, but they happen to be found mostly on peripherical aeras or outside Romano-German kingdoms (Rhine, Frisia, England for gold coins; while cooper coins are more easily found along trade roads : Septimania/Aquitaine, Rhone-Seine/Loire)

Rather than a brutal collapse of Byzantine monetary presence, you probably have a more smooth evolution, adapting to a wake of "nationalisation" of romano-germanic or germanic entities (Interestingly happening in the same time the fuse of population was important enough for that the ethnic name became the name for all elites) that if still respectful of byzantine models in a first time, introduce an affirmation of local models (rather than regnal features, more or less absent).

You pointed out the "byzantine-looking" aspect of Gallic (but that can be said as well for Italian or Hispanic coinage) was "telling" as for Byzantine domination.
The fact that they were increasingly different, while Byzantine coinage still was used along trade roads points out a different genre of domination more economical than cultural (even if, of couse, it wasn't absent) as Arabo-Islamic coinage was used in Carolingian Europe (use of silver coins to coins denarii, presence of Arabo-Islamic coins along trade roads).


While true, this has little bearing on the assertion that 602 - 751 was the critical transition period for the Empire. Still, trade routes continued to follow Late Roman patterns for some time due to inertia, however there was a marked decline in the amount of trade going on.

To give you an idea, the Lombards still minted gold coins, but the Carolingian's prized currency was silver. The Carolingian Empire had disconnected from the reduced, but still partially cash-based economy of Constantinople. There was a lot more bartering going on.

I think there might be a confusion there.

Carolingians did established a standardization of denerii, but silver-based coinage was established in Francia around 675, gold coins not disappearing (Carolingians still minting solidii).
Not that it prevented Late Merovingians, Peppinids or Carolingians to coin gold money, of course.
Italy is different on this but not radically : Lombards kings did issued a silver coinage (siliquae).I'll give you that it was a bi-mettalism that, at the contrary of Meorvingian gold coins (that had only a small metal ratio), maintained a strong solidus.
But that's, as I mentioned above, a point towards the maintain of Late Roman trade roads in Italy, and the absence of a radical rupture between Italy and Constantinople even as the Exarchate was disappearing.

There's again, you have a more gradual change rather than a radical rupture : silver currency existed earlier in Francia, but rather than local, it was issued from AS and critically Frisian coinage (sceattas).

As for barter, I would disagree with you : the decline of Merovingian mintage up to later VIIth century most probably provoked that, but the monetary influx of Arabo-Islamic coinage re-used into denarii highlight a renew of trade exchanges in a silver-based economy (both with Arabo-Muslims, but as well towards North Europe).
If something, we see the stregthening of a monetary trade in Carolingia.

In fact, it's difficult to see exactly what it is we are disagreeing on here.

I think we misunderstood each other there : my point is that while they did were part of Post-Classical Roman culture (would it be only because they ruled over hugely romanized aeras), you had an important resistance towards Eastern Roman influence that didn't get really resolved before the Byzantine abandon of Spania (It's quite telling that Arianism, a strong identity marker among Germans, to distinguish themselves from Roman elites, even if it was doomed to disappear sooner or later, was maintained for more long than in any other romano-germanic kingdom).

What I'm positing is a bit more nuanced. When Constantine refounded Byzantium as his capital, he was ending a process that had begun in 212 by Caracalla, who pronounced all free peoples in the empire to be citizens. Rome had become a nation, not a city. The "Byzantine" Empire was, ironically, the reverse process, the Empire slowly becoming a city.

On that, I think we both agree.

Rather, it means that as regions were, one-by-one, cast off from central authority or conquered by others, they were slowly withdrawn from the influence of that central (and still evolving) Roman culture.

But that's where we may disagree (if I didn't misunderstood) : that the imperial roman culture survived in ERE, is a thing.
But while Constantinople was the main center of romanity, it was far from being the only one : "romanisation" of Romano-Germanic kingdoms owes as much if not more, to a provincial romanity issued from the same legacy than imperial one.
More Gallo-Roman, Hispano-Roman, etc. elites took an important role on these and up to the fusion of populations (that wasn't one-sided, I'll give you that : while Franks designated as well Franks and Gallo-Romans since the late VIth century; Aquitains still called themselves Romans including Vascon or Germanic elements. Not that it prevented multual influence)

Using the Aquitain exemple (I know I keep using sources that are probably not translated, you'll excuse me for that, as there's the ones I've a more easy access), Michel Rouche pointed out that the division of the region among Frankish sub-kingdoms came from a necessity to each Frankish ruler to have access not only to ressources of a rich province, but as well as a "fish tank" for managers.
Not that these romans elites didn't had relations with Byzantines (as for the half-assed Mauricius' probable tentative to set up an "exarchate-like" presence in Southern Gaul with the support of Syagrii and Desiderii-Salvi) but even before 602 and a political disengagement, they tended to be more prone to cooperate if not merge with German elite, forming an original romanity (that, I agree, as for its multipolar nature, was distinct enough from Imperial ERE culture. Interestingly, it would make Western Post-Classical Romanity closer to the Late Classical model you described)

602-751 was the process by which that centralized culture had changed so much that the cast-off regions, if you will, were no longer similar enough to be thought of as the same.

I understand your point, but I wouldn't agree. For my point-of-view, it's rather the beggining of a process that would definitely end only two centuries later.
It's not a that important deal or even disagreement, so I suggest we agree to disagree there.

By the time the Pope crowned Charlemagne, it was too late. Too much of Rome had gone and, in any event, the differences between East and West were too great.

But even Charlemagne didn't considered himself as a "Roman Emperor". Not only that Romans, for Early Carolingians had a different meaning (Either Aquitains, Italians or Byzantines), but about the relativly bad reputation Romans had (it's roughly at this time you see appear the prototype of Frankish origin tales, in a attraction/repulsion mode to Roman uses, using them to create a distinct and opposite Frankish historiography).

The titulature he used was "Emperor reigning over the Roman Empire", a bit strange denomination, but understable regarding his goals : being an Emperor at the likeness of Byzantine Empire (whom he claimed the translation), claiming the overlordship over an imperial entity but not claiming being roman himself (In Carolingian solidii, by exemple, even after the coronation, Charlemagne is still depicted as "Kings of Franks and Lombards" rather than emperor*)

*It could be an interesting lecture about Theodoric choices : maybe as much than a respect for romans uses and conceptions, his power came from his "national" kingship over Goths. Rejecting it for the purple would have made him loosing a fair deal of legitimacy for a title that wouldn't have owed him much support from Italo-Roman or Hispano-Roman elite (and could have actually pissed them).
On this regard, the distinction isn't fudamentally distinct than Charlemagne's.

Louis I's situation is really distinct, on the other hand : raised among Romans (Aquitains) depsite actual orders from Charlemagne explicitly asking that his son doesn't become akin to the people he ruled over, and among a clergy full of hopes regarding a restauration of the empire, he was certainly more prone to consider himself as a Roman Emperor (and the Byzantine or pseudo-Byzantine influence at this point became more important).

The Visigoths were already subsumed into Hispano-Roman culture by the time the Arabs completed the process. Rather more of them survives, in a number of Spanish personal and place names, but they were eliminated as well.

I disagree there, about Francia being the only exemple : I'd point out the presence of a gothic nobility in southern France up to the XIth century (where it became undistinguishable from Medieval Occitan) including in the territories taken over by Franks in the VIth century (Wulfarius of Albi, in early IXth century by exemple).
Gothia itself is an exemple, in the former visigothic province of Gaul, of a fusion of population quite achieved (and, admittedly, distinct from Hispanic one, as highlighted by the regular sub-kingdoms, when not outright tentatives of secession).

Even in Hispania, we have clear traces of such fusion that not only remained in place in North-Western Visigothic successor states, but as well present in the VIth century.

In the succeeding Asturian (718–910) and Leonese (910–1037) king-
doms in the north, there is only one context in which the word Romanus appears. In a number of documents of manumission from these centuries, the freed slave is invested with Roman citizenship, thus allowing him to own property, marry freely, and give legal
testimony. In part this was antiquarian.

There are other similarfeatures, such as anachronistic references to the Lex Aquila, in the
notarial practices of this time, but it is also testimony to the fact that “Roman-ness” was seen, as under the empire, as a form of legal status and not as an ethnic determinant.

These texts also closely follow the text of documents of manumission of the Visigothic
period. No practical examples of the latter survive, but a number of model forms are preserved in a collection of notarial formulae put together in the Asturian kingdom from a range of Visigothicexamples, some at least of which came from Córdoba.

These again would seem to imply that “Roman citizenship” was regarded in the late Visigothic kingdom as a category of status, rather than as a form of ethnicity.

Visigothic kings were said to rule over one people and one motherland, called "Patria Gothorum" (7th Council of Toledo), highlighting a similar process than in Francia, delayed partially because of Byzantine presence in Spain.

No, not really. The Rashidun Caliphate was most friendly toward the Empire, in so far as Arabs could be said to be friendly.

I think we disagree there : being friendly to Roman legacy is distinct from being friendly towards the Roman Empire, as this one didn't had the monopole of Roman culture (would it be only because Arabs took over province with their own conception and variant of Post-Classical Romanity).

The roman legacy over Umayyads and their wali (critically in Africa and West, where they enjoyed much autonomy) lasted a good time, in matter of institutional (military, palatial, and cultural (architecture) legacy.
Granted, it's further than Rashidun Caliphate, for the good reason these had no imperial tradition to speak of : they simply used

If authority in Italy had been maintained, it is likely more popes would have found themselves languishing in the Crimea. Sure, it wasn't likely to extend much temporal authority over Frankish kings, but the cultural influence would have continued, at least.

But the imperial authority in Italy wasn't exactly to be maintained : it was to be restored. The popes and the roman dukes began quite quickly to issue their own coingage (issued from Byzantine, but without mention of the emperor, something you didn't had even in Provence).
Constantinople can try to hold with monothelism as much they want, and put popes in Crimea, it wouldn't change that they wouldn't have been able to impose it because nobody really wanted it apart the emperors.

At best, you'll end with another East-West divide caused by monothelism instead of filioque.
At worst, you'll end with an even more humiliating abandon of monothelism by the emperors.

Typical politics for the Empire.

It's my point : the dominance of the emperors over their peripherical provinces, and under papacy is far from being a crushing one.

It would have been interesting to know what would have happened if the Arabs hadn't shown up. It is likely you would have seen a Southern and Western Empire, eventually, replacing the Exarchates.

I'm not sure : Exarch revolts were usually made by claimant of the imperial title rather than "independentist" tentatives. It could be more akin to the "Gallic" Empire, a Roman Empire without "Rome"-Constantinople and eventually crushed on (either by Byzantines or neighbours).

The Ottonian Dynasty was fascinating. It teases the historian with the possibility that, perhaps, East-West reapproachment was possible. It ultimately failed, but if a century or so could have been shaved off from the period of low communication between East and West... well this is an Alternate History forum. Someone ought to write that scenario out.

I think it was definitely too late. Long story short, Ottonian reforms were ultimatly rejected as not only being foreign-inspired (look at what Theophano had to fight, or about how she was pictured), but threatening to change german-imperial kingship, favouring the intervention of german nobility, to an imperial authority that nobody really wanted to begin with.

At this point, East and West are too much estrangered.

Now, it did vanish in the West. Keep in mind, steam technology was known to the Greeks, and it vanished too.

That's another cliché on this regard : the perception of technology and immediate applications is a modern one. Greeks themselves tought them less as applications than demonstration of their theories.
When even contemporaries saw it more as a toy than a possible practical application, it wasn't likely that someone would by just looking at it, have a stroke of genius.

As you say, nobody used it, and if it was copied by monks preserving earlier works, it was not utilized. It was entirely theoretical.

And then can't be seriously considered as lost : there was knowledge of such, there were application of such in medieval Italy. That the know-how was lost, with a lack of transmission is another thing.

You see, a technology is more than a formula (and even that was lost, only the general gist of thing was preserved), it is engineering and practical application.

I agree, but it would necessit for using a technology that
1) There was a need for this (And the construction of monumental buildings wasn't exactly on the agenda)
2) There's the ressources for this. The fact pozzolane is a volcanic ressource, something that is more easily found in Italy than other former western Roman regions, didn't helped much.
As long you had a centralized administration to deal with opus caementicium ressources and cost, it wasn't really a challenge (while the massive part of such constructions were still found in Italy). With its disappearance, it joined up with roman brick in disuse (while the latter was re-used after the VIIth century, mostly because ressources were directly avaible).

Would ERE maintained its grasp on Italy and other sources, it would may had an impact on it.

That's Gibbon's view, and I think it's missing something important.

You misunderstood me : I didn't said Christianity caused the decline, but that it provided a new context for the Imperial Romanity.
In a state of almost permanant crisis for the ERE, it eventually provided a way for Roman elites and authority to translate itself in a declining city where building new urban monuments was irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

Even so, I suspect it could have weathered it, much like China had its ups and downs, if it hadn't been for the bad timing of the Arabs. The Arabs broke the unified meta-culture of the Mediterranean and shattered the possibility of a Roman resurgence.

This meta-culture and economical contiuum was already shattering, partially due to the consequences of Roman-Persian wars from a hand, and the constitution of relativly strong entities in the West from another.
At this point, the development of West/North trade roads, and the growing importance of Romano-Germanic kingdoms (once fusion of population achieved) was more or less a given, Arabic Conquests quickening it. (In fact, without AI presence and subsequent crisis, Viking raids may be lowered if not butterflied, giving Western realms a better chance)

A roman resurgence is possible in TTL (Clientelisation of Lombards being very much probable, while costly), but would still be, due to both its size and ambitions, prone to several crisis (Arabs to begin with : even without Islam, they would have represented an important threat; Steppe peoples, Slavs, without mentioning inner crisis) and, IMHO, unable to fully impose itself as it did during the V/VIth centuries, at least in a "forseeable" TL (I won't bet on anything past the first or two centuries past such an enormous PoD, would it be only because it butterfly several events)