Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Who is your favorite Roman Emperor and why?
I'm personally a fan of Lucius Verus. I think by indulging in vices and taking pretty egregious credit for the accomplishments of his subordinates, he is a far better role model than the long suffering Marcus Aurelius. He's an entertaining/funny emperor without being super malicious like Caligula or Commodus.
Do Byzantines count? Justinian I a restless soul who married an actress in a huge scandal, and was almost brought down by sports fans.
I’m one of those guys who’ll eternally die on the hill that the Roman Empire was not the Byzantine Empire. The argument was never predicated on the naive lay expression of the observation that goes, “If it were Rome… why is it called Byzantine then?…” Yes, we all know it was a made up term and how it came about. If someone wants to come along and say that the Byzantine Empire was a “continuation,” or an “offshoot,” or a “descendant” of the Roman Empire, that’s fine. But it was absolutely not the Roman Empire in the classical understanding of things.
Years ago, I remember getting into a debate with some idiot who argued with me over this exact question. His arguments themselves were remarkably thin, to non-existent, with him mostly [and quite literally] doing the herp derp, and trying to throw a bit of personality after his bad arguments to fortify his case, in the same way a bowler tries guiding the ball along the lane after he’s released his throw. He said “… just because the Eastern Empire no longer wore togas, doesn’t mean they weren’t Roman!… They even referred to themselves as Roman!…,” which was not my argument. And the people who say shit like this never come to terms with the recognition that “empire,” is the key word in that sentence.
Rome was the cultural and ideological capital and epicenter of the Roman Empire. Once the capital moved to Ravenna and subsequently Constantinople, and other evolutionary trends were taking root, there came a point where it would’ve been unheard of for a Byzantine Emperor to do something like dismiss a Visigothic King in the west, without the material boots on the ground to do so…
I fully accept (as anyone should) that Roman emperors had other seats of power such as Milan, and Constantinople and Antioch, and became important seats of power in the east. But all that time, Rome was still the cultural heart of the empire, Rome belonged to the empire or the empire belonged to Rome. The people of say, Constantinople weren't "Roman", by any stretch of imagination, even though they considered themselves to be because they were territorially, part of the Roman Empire (but not culturally).
Once the Western Empire declines and Rome passes beyond the power of the emperors in the east, then the empire is no longer truly "Roman,” in the same way state of Virginia is no longer English. The people in the east remember that their empire was originally Roman, but they are not Romans, and Rome is no longer a part of the Empire. Understanding this is simply basic, and somehow it goes over the heads of so many people.
The argument isn’t that the roots of Byzantium weren’t originally Roman, only that at some point it became something it historically wasn’t. This is exactly why we have divisions between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire in the first place. People don’t seem to recognize that by saying “just because their language was different, just because their religion was different, just because their military was different, that doesn’t mean they weren’t Roman!,” completely misses point. In fact this makes my case for me. At what point when you begin tallying up the differences and separate out the nuances do you have to reach, before you start calling it a different thing?
No. The Byzantine Empire was not the Roman Empire, and Constantinople was never its capital. It was a descendant of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire ended when either Romulus Augustulus or Julius Nepos were deposed. Take your pick.
If you're going to hold the position that Byzantium wasn't Rome, and that Rome ended with Romulus Augustulus, then when did Byzantium start? Would you put it at the partition, at Rome's fall, or somewhere in between?
You could argue the visible trends were taking shape with the partitioning by Diocletian in 285. You could put the start date at either 330 with the founding of Constantinople, when Constantine declared it “Nova Roma,” (literally, “New Rome”) as the successor to historical Rome (“successor,” which incidentally makes the case I make, not the case of those who detract); which is a complete misnomer if you’re someone who thinks the Roman Empire never ended until 1453. Or you could place it in 395 when the division between the eastern and western halves became permanent after the death of Theodosius I.
“State” and “Empire” are two different things. Those two are not identical. And when you distinguish the two notions, you fully understand why “Byzantium” still carries historical weight in academia but somehow not in the public eye. Because by separating those notions, you fully understand the geopolitical reality of the early Middle Ages. An “empire” is a geographic and cultural hegemony. Certainly even historians argue and disagree with each other on the early dating of when the empire’s dissolution happened; but precisely zero of them that I’ve ever read dispute that by the end of the 7th century after losing the west to Germanic tribes and the rest to Arab invasions, the Mediterranean hegemony was gone forever, and hence the Roman “Empire” ceased to exist. What remained as far as an intact but damaged bureaucracy, you had in Constantinople, which was the same in 500 AD as it was in 600 AD. That was what was “left” in some sense that splintered off into it’s own center of power as a distinct, homogenous, highly militarized, Greek speaking kingdom that could hardly be called “Roman” in the original sense of the term. This is why historians continue to defend the use of the term “Byzantine.” Because calling a medium sized, Greek speaking, Hellenic kingdom “the Roman Empire,” feels geopolitically and historically inaccurate, because it is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But they called themselves the Roman Empire and were considered to be Romans by their historical contemporaries. Byzantium is historical revisionism.
And Rome WAS part of the Roman Empire during the reign of Justinian. He initiated a very costly war to retake Italy, which succeeded.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would strongly suggest you read The Sarantine Mosaic. Thank me later.
Thanks in advance!
More options
Context Copy link
Seconded.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link