When did the Roman Empire become a Greek Empire?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

The edict of Caracalla in reality was less revolutionary than we think, it only affected the citizens of the cities while the indigenous people usually located at the bottom of the social class were excluded from this extension of the citizenship, which makes the majority of the provincial people non eligible to the citizenship.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...owAccess=falseThe Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana-Herbert W. Benario

This study comes to the conclusion that "the dediticii were former slaves who were under the jurisdiction of the lex Aelia Sentia, since the freedmen were undoubtedly a relatively small group and the problem of citizenship for them had not, and could not have, come into question. Hence, Ulpian and the others were right in relating that citizenship had been given to all, since the ones who did not receive it were, in the eyes of law, persona non gratae."

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Aelia_Sentia

"This law had several provisions. One such provision stated that certain slaves who were manumitted could not become full Roman citizens, but rather would become members of a lower class of freedmen (Peregrini dediticii)"

[Principe Alessandro]

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...owAccess=falseThe Dediticii of the Constitutio Antoniniana-Herbert W. Benario

This study comes to the conclusion that "the dediticii were former slaves who were under the jurisdiction of the lex Aelia Sentia, since the freedmen were undoubtedly a relatively small group and the problem of citizenship for them had not, and could not have, come into question. Hence, Ulpian and the others were right in relating that citizenship had been given to all, since the ones who did not receive it were, in the eyes of law, persona non gratae."

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Aelia_Sentia

"This law had several provisions. One such provision stated that certain slaves who were manumitted could not become full Roman citizens, but rather would become members of a lower class of freedmen (Peregrini dediticii)"

Well still in the case of the Gasparri theory about the identity of the dediticii there is still the later stele of Anastasius and other literary evidences that are in line with his theory that the grant of citizenship wasn't truly universal, it wasn't even added to the Codex Justinianus, it was only mentioned in a novella of the year 539 were mistakenly he attributed this edict to the emperor Antoninus Pius and the text itself was known only through the papyrus of Giessen.

The contemporary sources like Herodian and the Historia Augusta doesn't mention at all the edict while Cassius Dio mention it only in relation to the fact that he wanted to increase the number of taxable subjects.

Cassius Dio was a senator while Herodian writings were aimed to the provincial classes, yet how it was possible that Herodian hasn't mantioned at all the edict if it was truly revolutionary for the provincial classes? And why for Cassius Dio it was just an expedient to raise the sum of taxes collected? Probably the explanations are two: the citizenship wasn't any more worth and a significant title with little meaning, the citizenship was granted only to a limited group of selected people.

[neoptolemos]

So you are quoting a clearly laughable source making a so bold statement with so weak arguments? Rome was culturally Greek? In what twisted fantasy a Western European-Italic and more specifically Latin people became a Greek people?

not really, it is a referrenced article so it is ridiculous to try to disregard it without providing a disputation.Even wiki disproves your cultural chuavinism.Try harder.I will continue to be entertainted by your assertions.

Yes it happened that Latins borrowed a lot of cultural features from the Etruscans mainly about the architecture, so what? This is the definitive proof that the Roman civilization was a bizarre fusion of disparate cultures? Try harder, they are all laughable arguments that doesn't make any sense.

Roman cutlure is both a fusion and unique at the same time.I don't know how many times it should be posted to understand that this is the mainstream view on Roman civilization.As for Etruscans, there are books written on their contributions and the quotes i provided are just a glimpse.Roman culture is not unique not came from parthenogenesis and its power came from the adaptability and its potential to intermigle different cultural traits when it came in contact or originated from them.Since I have provided mutliple sources on the matter, your laughable attempt to downlplay its importance it's in vain.You haven't provided anything apart from your bias here.But here is a possible explanation of your stance.

" I can never succeed in understanding why Italians still fail to recognize the enormous contribution that the Etruscan civilization has made to our Western civilization. We keep on believing the teaching that the Greeks and above all the Romans are the peoples to whom the Western world owes its origins. All of this is considerably exaggerated and based on historical falsehoods. However, I have ascertained instead that it is the Etruscans, coming from the East, who are the true founders of our European culture, for both good and bad aspects. This truth continues to be understated and at times hindered by various Italian historians while it has been being recognized for numerous decades by the majority of the historians of the whole world. Etruscology is now a subject of enormous interest all over the world and a lot of falsehoods and commonly held beliefs are crumbling because they were used to discredit a people for appropriating of their worths. In the past centuries first the powerful and unculturated Rome h as falsified its own origins and has ignored the legacy of the defeated Etruscan civilization, then the first Christian emperors have completed the work with their edicts. Subsequently on the ruins of the empire, the Pontifices of the new religion appropriated many ancient insignias of the Orient handed down to the Romans from Etruscan leaders and priests. For example the purple of the Lucumones became the colour of the cardinal, the Etruscan priest's Littus became the Pastoral one of the Bishops. The solemn ceremonies of the new religion are a reproduction of the Etruscan religious ceremonies. The ancient former Etruscan cities became the first Episcopal centers (Volterra, Vulci, Orvieto, etc). The longest existing Etruscan text is a calendar containing 12 columns with the religious instructions for every day.

http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/intro.html

From your own source:

What are you talking about? I didn't use the word romanitas as an argument but the concept of being Roman mentioned in the article. You just made fool of yourself here man.

You aren't debunking anything, you are again just listing some repeated arguments that for the most part proves nothing, it happened that the Roman elites were proficient with the Greek culture. So what?

As I ve said earlier, you ve just arguing against yourself here.The elites where proficient in Greek culture because Greek culture was part of the Roman culture you ve just said it yourself actually.
Here is another source
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...695.x/abstract

The end of Suetonius’ Life of Augustus depicts the old emperor approaching his final hours:
in an unusually festive mood, he takes himself to the Bay of Naples. Every day he distributed to his companions a variety of small presents, including togas and
pallia, setting the condition that the Romans should both dress and speak in Greek, and the Greeks in Roman clothes and language.’
We all know that in the last two centuries BC, leading up to this episode, contact with the hellenistic east brought about a transformation of Roman culture, the Roman way of life, and even the Latin language, that had profound consequences for the western Mediterranean. The imperialist project of ‘romanization’ was preceded by its apparent reverse, ‘hellenization’. To civilize others, the Romans had to be civilized: the paradox is that it is the losers who win out, Graecia capta ferum cepit victorem.2 Or so the story goes.

The source you provided is continuously too vague, it doesn't in what consists this supposed malleability regarding the integration of the different cultures.

It is not my or sources fault that you failed to understand the concept of it, but you could bring your own source which you didn't.

Yet a decree of the emperor Anastasius made a clear distinction between the Romans and Egyptians, it was a marble stele now in the Louvre museum. Sestan concluded that the privileged testimonies of the late Roman history were mainly the members of the Senatorial and of the provincial ones assimilated to the first. Everything mentioned here is contained in the book "Prima delle nazioni" by Stefano Gasparri, it talks extensively about the situation of the Pre-Roman natives, it paints a situation totally different than the one mentioned in a completely theoretical way by the source mentioned by you with extensive proofs from the ancient authors. See for example the revolts of the Celtic peasants (bacaudae).

Excuse me?What are you talking about? Are you arguing that Romans are an ethnicity now?
For starters Roman protonation=/= Roman ethnicity. But since you ve mentioned some authors and a stele you are obligued to provide them with links or text.You have clearly misinterprated my quotes thus I am not sure that you didn't do it for these works as well.

This isn't the truth at all, in the Roman-Barbaric kingdoms there were two parallel societies were barbarians and romans lived apart from each other using different laws, in case when it was concerned about a barbaric and roman citizen the barbaric law takes the precedence.For example the legal codes of the Lombards was valid only with the Lombards while the Romans retained their old customs and laws to manage their affairs. Of course a legal problem concerned a Lombard and a Roman citizen the Lombard law takes the precedence.

I really can't see how is this related with what I have stated or how it contradicts me, your point being?

So what were the peoples of Italy, Southern Gauls and Southern Iberia? Martians?

All my money to Martians.Your call now.I am really interested in this.

I don't need to debunk anything because simply your methodology is totally erratic, you cannot make bold statements with those arguments because then I can claim that Phoenician culture was part of the Greek civilization following your method in drawing conclusions:

Well Phoenicians and other cultures indeed have effected Greek cutlure becuase Greek culture like Roman wasn't born from scratch and by parthenogenesis. this is not my logic this is the mere historical truth you so arrogantly and chauvinistigly ignore.
But not nowhere near the extend Greek culture affected Roman culture and became part of it.You ll find plenty of historians arguing for the hellenization of Romans as i have provided by sources, but not that many supporting that Phoenicization of Greeks after all.

Still waiting for your sources.

[Ludicus]

So what were the peoples of Italy, Southern Gauls and Southern Iberia? Martians?

Romanized peoples, obviously.
Romanization was the introduction of Roman ideals to non-Romans in Italy, Gaul, Iberia, etc.
In Italy,Jane Websters (article, "Creolizing the Roman Provinces") calls the blending of the Italian society, "multicultural adjustment". For Collingwood, a fusion, a blending of cultures.

Romanization in Ancient Iberia: Religion and Ideology -Iberia and Gaul: Differing Versions of Romanization
Lindsay McNeill
Full article,
The Romanization of Iberia
Excerpt,
"In Iberia in many cases took on Roman appearance, but its people did not entirely abandon their culture; they held their influence with the new Roman inhabitants.
...Iberia changed over a long period of time; the Iberians were not suddenly Roman after they were conquered. The process where Roman cultural practices entered Ancient Spain was slow. Roman culture was not forced upon the Iberian people instead it was introduced and allowed time for adaptation.

...The Gauls were choosing between a fate of being overtaken by the Barbarians or the Romans...Nor the Iberians, nor the Gauls were forced into the Roman way of life. They became more Roman because the world around them was changing. They saw the adoption of Roman culture as a means of progression. They recognized the power and wealth associated with being a Roman citizen. Yes, there was a certain amount of manipulation; but manipulation to the Romans wasn’t entirely bad. The outcome of that manipulation was an Empire of diversity, yet in diversity they came to see themselves as Roman"

[neoptolemos]

Romanized peoples, obviously.
Romanization was the introduction of Roman ideals to non-Romans in Italy, Gaul, Iberia, etc.
In Italy,Jane Websters (article, "Creolizing the Roman Provinces") calls the blending of the Italian society, "multicultural adjustment". For Collingwood, a fusion, a blending of cultures.

Romanization in Ancient Iberia: Religion and Ideology -Iberia and Gaul: Differing Versions of Romanization
Lindsay McNeill
Full article,
The Romanization of Iberia
Excerpt,
"In Iberia in many cases took on Roman appearance, but its people did not entirely abandon their culture; they held their influence with the new Roman inhabitants.
...Iberia changed over a long period of time; the Iberians were not suddenly Roman after they were conquered. The process where Roman cultural practices entered Ancient Spain was slow. Roman culture was not forced upon the Iberian people instead it was introduced and allowed time for adaptation.

The Gauls were choosing between a fate of being overtaken by the Barbarians or the Romans...The Gauls were choosing between a fate of being overtaken by the Barbarians or the Romans...No, the Iberians, nor the Gauls were forced into the Roman way of life. They became more Roman because the world around them was changing. They saw the adoption of Roman culture as a means of progression. They recognized the power and wealth associated with being a Roman citizen. Yes, there was a certain amount of manipulation; but manipulation to the Romans wasn’t entirely bad. The outcome of that manipulation was an Empire of diversity, yet in diversity they came to see themselves as Roman"

Couldn't say it better myself than this excellent post my friend,I owe you some rep!

[Copperknickers II]

Yes, except you have been arguing that for some reason calling them a term that was invented after said Empire actually existed shows they were not a continuation. What I was saying is that seeing a continuation from the Roman empire is not at odds with using the term Byzantine...

No, I am arguing that the fact we had to come up with an invented term shows that, despite their native nomenclature, from the point of view of a historian they are sufficiently different that it is necessary to give the ERE a new name after the wall of the Western Empire.

Hilarious...

I honestly don't know if you are being serious or not, given that my quote was entirely real, but either way, it was not simply appealing to authority, it was demonstrating that just because historians use the term Byzantine out of convenience, this does not stop them recognising the continuity from the Roman empire, as above, and for the same logical reasons that people have been posting in this thread.

I know it was a real quote, Prof. Mango used to teach in my department at my university, my lecturer in Byzantine history was one of his students. My point is, using him to make an argument doesn't make the argument any more convincing when you are misunderstanding MY argument, which is that the fact the name 'Byzantines' exists and is used by most historians demonstrates that nobody in their right mind thinks that studying them as a direct continuation of the Roman empire is not practicable, despite the nominal and superficial political situation.

[HuangCaesar]

How is "Byzantine Empire" not a continuation?

Imperial linage?-Augustus never set up it to be heretiary. Byzantines still use an Imperial cult and adminstrative systems of Rome. There were no Greek nationalist uprisings destroying them and proclaiming a new nation.
Divison between East and West?- as adminstative systems. So what is the Western Roman Empire then after Theodosis? Germano-Latin Empire? Ravenine Empire? Theodosis made no Constituion dividing ethnicity.
Ethnicity?-obviously not a reason. We can start calling the Byzantine Empire, the Armenian Empire or Illyrian Empire then.
Language?-not till 622. Borders are still kinda the same till Arab conquest.
Culture?- Culture constantly changes. Greeco-Roman traditions are both preserves. However Byzantine art is nothing like classical art of Ancient Greece. It is pretty much a new culture.
Military?-that I kinda agree with. But not till 7th century.
Lost of Italy?-not till Lombards conquered them. The Edict of Carcalla made it an intertnational empire.
Lost of Rome?-not till 751.
Idea of Roman Empire-Lost after Heraclius I suppose.

We don't know the true line, it was an evolutionary process but the Empire from Theodosis-Heraclius was indeed Roman.

[Colossus]

No, I am arguing that the fact we had to come up with an invented term shows that, despite their native nomenclature, from the point of view of a historian they are sufficiently different that it is necessary to give the ERE a new name after the wall of the Western Empire.

You really think the original conception of the term Byzantine was carried out with the same logic by which 'we' (historians today) use the term? No.

I posted that quote to emphasise that historians use the term out of convenience, not because it fundamentally signifies that everything was suddenly different. As I have said, there is also the matter of considering the Middle Ages rather than Antiquity, which is again a historical construction.

You said yourself, you cannot just put a date on it, as massive as 476 looks historically, it does not really mean that much in terms of changes for the Eastern Empire; it reverted to one emperor and carried on as usual. It is a standard of Byzantine history that there is no one solid starting date. It does not suddenly become necessary to use a new name simply because of the fall of the Western Empire, hence why many studies of Byzantium start either before or after that date. I know you appreciate this, because you said as much on the last page, so I do not know why you have suddenly reverted back to the singular case of a distinct break with the fall of the West.

I have said many times, if you put emphasis on continuation in terms of culture, that's fine, but in which case, the fall of the Western Empire is a shoddy point to look at (compared to, for example, Heraclius' reign). Indeed, the very nature of cultural change means you cannot just pick a date, whereas with legal change, you can. However, cultural change does not automatically contradict the notion that the same entity continued to exist, as has been discussed at considerable length in this thread and others.

I know it was a real quote, Prof. Mango used to teach in my department at my university, my lecturer in Byzantine history was one of his students.

Fair enough, can never be sure.

which is that the fact the name 'Byzantines' exists and is used by most historians demonstrates that nobody in their right mind thinks that studying them as a direct continuation of the Roman empire is not practicable, despite the nominal and superficial political situation.

Is this meant to be a double negative? What you said reads as everybody thinks it is practical to study them as a continuation...

Anyway, what is practical to study depends entirely on who you are and what you are studying. If you are a cultural historian of Byzantium post 7th century, of course the Roman heritage is not the most important issue. If you study something like late antiquity/pre-Arab conquest political, military or religious history, you probably do care that there is a direct continuation, because you are essentially studying the same state and its institutions, which do not suffer any sudden break at the time the West fell.

That aside, we are not arguing what is practical for who. You said 'I don't give a damn if they thought they were the continuation of the Roman Empire, I don't think they were'.

Now clearly, many people do think they were a continuation, including the quote I gave.

[Roma_Victrix]

Romanized peoples, obviously.
Romanization was the introduction of Roman ideals to non-Romans in Italy, Gaul, Iberia, etc.

This is a fantastic post, and deserves +1 rep.

[Basileus of Byzantium]

It's amazing that some people don't consider the Byzantine (Roman) Empire as a continuation of the old Empire. There were no political events in its history that permanently dissolved the Roman government after the fall of the Western half, save for its defeat at Ottoman hands. I'm beginning to think a lot of people don't consider the Byzantine Empire a Roman one because they didn't have the stereotypical legionary armies or look for the majority of its existence. Why I remember someone even told me that they considered the Byzantine Empire to be a separate Empire based solely on the fact that Constantine the Great had "cut the Empire into two halves" which was completely wrong; He only moved the capital to Byzantium and it was tradition for the Empire to be split into multiple parts during the time period in order to ensure higher survivability. Still... it shows how powerful the legacy of the Roman Empire is. To this day it is one of the few dead nations we still fantasize and discuss about, compared to others who have long been gone.

[Anna_Gein]

When the last WRE Emperor Romulus Augustulus died, the WRE ceased to exist as a polity. Odoacer became king of Italy with the permission of the sole remaining Emperor, Zeno. You could perhaps say that the Kingdom of Italy was the closest to a "heir" of the WRE, though not a continuation.

Odoacer as the humble servent of Zeno ... Nice joke.

The sole remaining emperor was emperor of the Eastern Roman Half, now only remaining half with the domain of Soissons. Being the only remaining Roman Emperor did not made him Emperor of the whole Empire.

But the Empire of Charlemagne is too far to be considered a heir.

Through his military might, Charlemagne earned the right to create and rule the Frankish Empire, which was a political entity that simply covered former territories of the Roman Empire. It wasn't a continuation, or a heir. It was something completely new. And as stated earlier, even Charlemagne did not claim himself to be an heir of the last WRE Emperor. He claimed to be filling the vacuum created after Constantine VI death in the East.

I am primary talking of "heir" as "spiritual and cultural successor" if it makes any sense to you. Charlemagne was an heir of the Western Emperors as he was in a position of domination of the Continent similar to the Western emperors (before the empire had fallen into complete chaos of course).

The Ostrogoth Kings were nowhere near powerful to Charlemagne or a Roman Emperor like Valentinian. Their power was restricted to the Italy and its surrounding.

Anyway I repeat that for me the birth of a deep political separation of interests between the two 'Partes' has started many, many, many years earlier ... when in Ammianus you read that the Gallic Auxila Palatina refused to be sent to die in the East to save the Eastern Part from the Persians ... well it's clear that something is no more working in the Imperial political machine, from the West now, the Pars Orientis is considered no more a good reason to die ....

Good point.

Also, after Theodosius death, the rivalry between the different emperors and their administration followed more and more the logic of two different states with territorial tensions. They did not attempt to reunite the Empire under a single emperor (or his court) but were still ready to risk conflict via their foederati over the Illyricum