Was the Byzantine Empire still the Roman Empire following the 4th Crusade?

[Flavius Phocas]

Since it seems a few of people have been debating this in other threads, I thought it would be interesting to see what the general consensus is as I find this question rather interesting.

One could argue that since the Empire was partioned following the 4th Crusade the political continuity that went back to Augustus was broken. The state would only control most of Greece + Asia Minor at it's greatest extent. It wasn't really an empire anymore and was more like a tiny successor state. The final abolishment of the Senate and introduction of Feudal elements are also good indicators.

One could also argue that since they still considered themselves Roman, had Emperors that (disputably) could be traced prior to the partition of the Empire and still followed Roman law/military customs is enough to still consider them to be the true continuation of Rome.

 

[Deleted member 93645]

Do we need this many Byzantine polls?

 

[Halagaz]

One could argue that since the Empire was partioned following the 4th Crusade the political continuity that went back to Augustus was broken. The state would only control most of Greece + Asia Minor at it's greatest extent. It wasn't really an empire anymore and was more like a tiny successor state. The final abolishment of the Senate and introduction of Feudal elements are also good indicators.

I'm curious about this idea that the Senate was abolished. When did this happen - and did it ever actually happen? The Senate is referenced numerous times after 1204.

The introduction of feudal elements started centuries before the Fourth Crusade. It's certainly worth considering as an argument, but it doesn't really have 1204 as a cut-off point.

One could also argue that since they still considered themselves Roman, had Emperors that (disputably) could be traced prior to the partition of the Empire and still followed Roman law/military customs is enough to still consider them to be the true continuation of Rome.

Those arguments are IMO more than enough.

 

[Behemoth]

I'm curious about this idea that the Senate was abolished. When did this happen - and did it ever actually happen? The Senate is referenced numerous times after 1204.

The introduction of feudal elements started centuries before the Fourth Crusade. It's certainly worth considering as an argument, but it doesn't really have 1204 as a cut-off point.



Those arguments are IMO more than enough.

Considering that other members have brought this situation up on a couple of occasions on the other threads, I have to agree.

 

[avernite]

I would say after the recapture of Constantinople by Nicaea it was 'again' the Roman Empire in its Byzantine form, as Jin China was again China after the three kingdoms period, and Juan China was again China after the Song/new-Jin split. Rome sort of existed in the background among its successors, as Germany was still a thing during the East/West split, but only reunification makes a clear successor available.

Of course it was a much weaker Roman Empire, and much smaller, and there were other post-1204 Roman competitors, so you could argue it was never succesfully reunified.

 

[Tyler96]

One could argue that since the Empire was partioned following the 4th Crusade the political continuity that went back to Augustus was broken.

But the Empire had already been partitioned- if one believes that political continuity survived the East/West split (and that pre-1204 Byzantium was a continuation of the Roman Empire), why can't it survive the Epirus/Trebizond/Nicaea/Latin Empire one?

 

[frustrated progressive]

I would say inasmuch as it was the pre 1204 Byzantine Empire it was Roman, but I don't fully consider it that either, although that's only because they fragmented permanently. If they had done an Age of Miracles-style resurgence, then it'd be fully Byzantine, and hence fully Roman.

 

[Red Orm]

Do we need this many Byzantine polls?

You should make a poll asking about it

 

[Flavius Phocas]

But the Empire had already been partitioned- if one believes that political continuity survived the East/West split (and that pre-1204 Byzantium was a continuation of the Roman Empire), why can't it survive the Epirus/Trebizond/Nicaea/Latin Empire one?

But the crucial difference with 1204 was that unlike say 395 this was done by an outside, non Roman force. The partition was also not administrative and actually destroyed the Empire, one successor state had as much Roman legitimacy as the other etc. Speaking of, would one consider the Empire of Nicea the Roman Empire purely because they recaptured Constantinople? In that case what makes the Latin Empire less legitimate?

Do we need this many Byzantine polls?

I have been lurking these forums for a while now and had this question lingering, since nobody had made a thread about it I decided to make it my first post. If my timing was bad I apologize as it wasn't my intention to come off as an obnoxious spammer.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

I would say after the recapture of Constantinople by Nicaea it was 'again' the Roman Empire in its Byzantine form, as Jin China was again China after the three kingdoms period, and Juan China was again China after the Song/new-Jin split. Rome sort of existed in the background among its successors, as Germany was still a thing during the East/West split, but only reunification makes a clear successor available.

Of course it was a much weaker Roman Empire, and much smaller, and there were other post-1204 Roman competitors, so you could argue it was never succesfully reunified.

That's an interesting position to take. So if after Italian Unification they called itself Rome again, it would be Rome in your opinion? After all, Italy was the heart of Rome. What about Spain, France, Romania or even Britain. If they'd called their countries Rome after unification would it be Rome in your opinion.

 

[SRBO]

It ceased being truly Roman before, when it dropped Latin

 

[avernite]

That's an interesting position to take. So if after Italian Unification they called itself Rome again, it would be Rome in your opinion? After all, Italy was the heart of Rome. What about Spain, France, Romania or even Britain. If they'd called their countries Rome after unification would it be Rome in your opinion.

Not the same Rome.

Now, it always remains a bit of an opinion, but the Italian unification was based on the Kingdom of Italy of medieval times, not Rome of ancient times. Plus there's way more centuries between the one and the other unification (some people might have been alive both at the sack of Constantinople by the 4th Crusade and the recapture by Nicaea).

However, if it claimed to be Rome, and united at least Roman Italia, and continued to have no opposing claimants, it would be a Rome.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Not the same Rome.

Now, it always remains a bit of an opinion, but the Italian unification was based on the Kingdom of Italy of medieval times, not Rome of ancient times. Plus there's way more centuries between the one and the other unification (some people might have been alive both at the sack of Constantinople by the 4th Crusade and the recapture by Nicaea).

However, if it claimed to be Rome, and united at least Roman Italia, and continued to have no opposing claimants, it would be a Rome.

1) The Italian unification was based on Rome more than anything. If you read anything written by Mancini, the national anthem... a Roman Republic was even declared. The development of modern Italian nationalism goes back to the Renaisance. People like Petrarch, who was highly critical of the Byzaantine Empire or Machiavelli who called for a political strong man to kick the "barbarians" out of Italy.

2) I don't think time should be a more relevant factor than language, culture, religion, history, geography etc..

3) So you're saying the Byzantine Empire was a Rome?

 

[Flavius Phocas]

Not the same Rome.
However, if it claimed to be Rome, and united at least Roman Italia, and continued to have no opposing claimants, it would be a Rome.

Well that is the problem with Nicaea, it had several other opposing claimants. The Latin Empire, Epirus, Trebizond and Nicaea all claimed to be Rome because the actual Roman state was destroyed. The reason I oppose the idea the Rome became a Greek Empire at some point is because it was still the same Roman state, but when that state dissappears I can't see the restored Empire as anything but a Greek successor state claiming to be a Rome.