A few word about the Byzantine Empire

[neoptolemos]

The term Byzantine Empire is a poor, intellectually starved, sadly lacking expression. East Roman Empire comes closer to the truth, and history is better served by accurate language than loaded prejudicial claptrap.

tons of rep for this statement.

[G-Megas-Doux]

"Those Greeks who call themselves Roman." That's the derogatory quote not those Greeks of the Byzantine Empire. No Empire was ever conquered by Byzantium. Constantinople reconquered some lost lands but that was its nickname it was Nova Roma. As a state it was Rome. Every part of it gradually altered throughout time but such is the nature of renewal in an organism which is what a state is. Self identification and history are a major part of what it means to exist as a nation. This is because a nation is a populace who agree to the rule or suffer the rule of a government that operates and controls that state or nation. The history of that government is as much a part of its authority as it is a part of its identity. Historically we have a clear continuity as to the source of Roman Emperors which state apparatus they were operating in when they came to power and what the sphere of influence was. Rome continued to exist sometimes divided other times united in many guises throughout history. At times the separate parts incorporated new blood, ideas and Romanness was overrun however in the case of what history calls the Byzantine Empire, it was most certainly Roman and more so then the city of Rome who's inhabitants left on multiple occasions on mass at one point during Belasarius campaigns wolves roamed the streets and it was near empty.

[AnthoniusII]

The Byzantine Empire as it existed until 1204 was certainly the Roman Empire. Whether it was Greek or Latin is irrelevant, since it was Roman. For me the biggest challenge is in interpreting the Byzantine state from 1261 onward. It retained the same offices, titles, and names as the Roman Empire, but it was much Hellenic in character.

The last men called them selvs Byzantines were those that joined the Roman Empire and were inhabitants of Vyzantion untill it was transformated to New Rome.

Byzantine Empire is as much Roman as Carolingian Empire - both hold the title Emperor of Roman by the way.

That is not quite right!
Explain: You have a president in your country named "x".... In an other part of the world apears someone that title's him self as president of country "x" also!
Who is the real president in this example? The 1st that ryles the country "x" or the one that simply name himself as ruler?
To be more spesific:
When Roman Empire entered its Imperial Era the city of Rome became the "ideal" capital/seat of each Emperor! With one tiny detail though!!!
Roman Imperium had Roma Mobilis. That means that where EVER the Emperor was each time of his ruleship , that place was that IDEAL capital and that place was Rome!!!!!!!
Confused? Maybe but cunfising us does not mean that was not that way!
Constantine the Great was the Emperor that with Nova Roma created the Roma Orbis (the univercal Rome). But the original Rome city was NOT the Capital , ideal or not!
It was Nova Roma that was the ideal and REAL capital of Roman Empire despite the fact that the Empire needed several "local" capitals to be rulled properly (east/west).
So...Continuing the generic example we have:
An Empire (Roman) that has a Universal Capital named New Rome.
The Empire has its legitimate Emperor (August) that is the protector of the Christians in the Entire Universe , the Only Roman Emperor with the right on every former or present Roman Lands and finally one of the TWO Kings of Kings (the other was the Sassanid Shahanshah)!
The Empire has two "official" languages and several local ones thanks to the vast number of races of humans that live in it!
The first official language is the language of Law and it is the Latin.
The 2nd official language is the language of trade, sience and diplomacy and its the Hellenistic version of the Hellenic/Greek Language.
In some momment half of the empire falls to barbaric hands. Does this mean that the rest of the Empire stoped being Roman?
Still it had the official Capital, the Only and ONE and Real Emperor to run it and still had half of its lands and armies!
Why those people should stop being Romans? I am afraid they did not consern about barbaric "european" germanic subtribes people that would despertly need a glorius identity to have for their own and forget their barbaric/german past! Franks, Allamani, Saxons, Lombards, Angles, Goths and so many other German origin people refused their past to emprace an id that never belonged to them! In fact north Africa tribal people have MORE right to call them selves Romans because they HAD the Roman citisenship atleast for some time. Westsern Europeans NEVER had the chance to have that citisenship untill............
And here is where my generic example suits!
We have an empire with its legitimate ruler and one morning one barbarian that was NEVER Roman calls him self ruler of Romans. Do you find any logic in it? Ofcourse everything is politics but politics is one thing and truth is another!!!!!

That the Byzantines switched from Latin to Greek doesn't mean the Empire was not the continuation of the Roman Empire. Using that logic, modern England can't claim to be England, because the ruling class spoke French for several hundreds of years in the Middle Ages. Same goes for my own country were German and French was once prefered by the aristocracy and Royal officials. Languages change or are replaced, but the nature of a state is not solely determined by language.

That is a fair point... Angles and Saxons (modern British claim the Anglo-Saxon heritage) were "germanic" people but England does not use Germanic Language!
Strange....
Now in this point we must clarify one thing!
The official name of a state has nothing to do who people call it.
USA is not America (america is a continent) but people call it that way! Great Britain is not England (England is only a part of the Kingdom) but people call that state that way in their common discusions.
Question: Why many people in the past called the Roman Empire "land or empire of the Greeks" ? There are too many examples of such definisions.
Answer: Imagine that you are a Viking fur trader and you reach Cherson or even better Danube river cities with your ship and you want to trade..
You do not "care" how this the state "calls" its self. All you care is to find people able to understand you one way or an other and sell your furs.
At your first journey most propably you hire a translator but then in your next journeys you learn -a bit- the langauge those people use to trade.
If that language is the Greek then you learn the greek , no matter if the trader that buys your furs is Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek, German, Khazzar or anything else!
When you return in your homeland , people see you with gold and silver coins and ask where you found a market for your furs.. The most obvius answer would be "in the land of the Greeks"!!!
So...in our example you as a trader called that land "land of the Greeks"...Does this mean that its also its official name???
Few examples of OFFICIAL NAMES OF STATES IN OUR TIME:
French call "Germany" Allemagne.
West Europeans call France as France (land of the Franks).
West Europeans call England as such...
West Europeans call Switzerland as such...
Modern Greeks though STILL use the Roman Official names of the provinces with names still had before west part of the Emire collapse.
Examples:
Greeks call "Germany" as Germania (Germans themselves use another official name for their state)!!!!
Greeks call France as Gallia (land of Guals).
Greeks call England as Anglia
Greeks call Switzerland as Helvetia (a name the these people do not use for themselvs officialy).!!!!!!!
Greeks call Spain/Hespana for Spanish people as Hispania.
Language can reveal , influences and cultural past even today!!!!

For me, since Charlemagne , Germanic subtribes that dominated in west europe try despertly to emprace the Roman heritage with no actuall success.
West Europeans love "Rome" as idea and as a possible past but their ordinary lives never influenced by the Greeko-Roman civilisation EVER!!!

St. Constantine-Cyril has, as far as I remember, not converted any Slavic tribes or nations. St. Methodios has, IIRC, converted only (some of) the Czech and Silesian tribes. The other Slavic nations they had contacts with (Great Moravia and Bulgaria) had already converted to Christianity on their own - Bulgaria shortly after the beginning of the brothers' Moravian mission (but for completely other reasons), while Moravia had been Christian since at least half a century before that.
In other words - the two brothers didn't convert the Slavs. They enlightened them and that's how we call them even today - the Slavic enlighteners.

As for the Byzantine Empire being a "Greek Empire" - let's not forget how dominant the Greek language and culture was during the times of the "real" Roman Empire (and even the Republic) itself. "Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio" - anyone remember that quote from Horace?
Thus, for me, "Byzantine Empire" is a strictly scholastic term (born out of political interests), used to designate the "medieval Roman Empire (in the East)" - an empire, which is equally Roman and Greek (or Greko-Roman, if you prefer), Christian in its deepest foundations, and which is the most direct political continuation of the Roman Empire of Antiquity (and which indeed became increasingly Hellenic, particularly after the Fourth Crusade, but without losing its Roman basis at any point of its existence as a state).

Continuing that post... Before Western part of the Empire fall , Roman Officers had to know a bunch of languages to use!
Constantine the Great had to have officers or atleast translators of german languages because many of his troops were "allied" germanic troops .
Local Gaulish people still used the langauge of their ancestors and so officers or their translators had to know that languages too!
In the eastern part of the empire things were much more difficult.
German troops were present also here but local millitias could be Arabs , persians, armenians, georgians, cappadokians, greeks, egyptians, Jews etc...
That fact required a lot of translators in each major army unit... That made orders hard to understand and cuased many defeats!
Maurice was teh Emperor that started the "Romanisation" of teh Army by forcing German troops to be part of the main units of the army. That ment that germans now had to learn atleast one local langauge of the empire to understand their officers. Heraclius was the one that created the medieval Roman Army as we know it by ussing ONE language to replace ALL the others in the Army !!! The idea was simple...Every recruit , knew his mother language plus the langauge of the trade , no matter if he was a trader or a labor! If the lowest in society knew that langauge then 90% of the people knew its atleast in its basic form! So..if an officer could order in THAT language those recruits they would understand him!!!
But since when a langauge determins the official identity of a state? USA troops are imigrants from thousand of places and many of them still use their mother language in their homes with their families. But they all take and give orders in English! But the official name of the state that has this army is not US of England despite the fact they use the english language! Am I right?

"Those Greeks who call themselves Roman." That's the derogatory quote not those Greeks of the Byzantine Empire. No Empire was ever conquered by Byzantium. Constantinople reconquered some lost lands but that was its nickname it was Nova Roma. As a state it was Rome. Every part of it gradually altered throughout time but such is the nature of renewal in an organism which is what a state is. Self identification and history are a major part of what it means to exist as a nation. This is because a nation is a populace who agree to the rule or suffer the rule of a government that operates and controls that state or nation. The history of that government is as much a part of its authority as it is a part of its identity. Historically we have a clear continuity as to the source of Roman Emperors which state apparatus they were operating in when they came to power and what the sphere of influence was. Rome continued to exist sometimes divided other times united in many guises throughout history. At times the separate parts incorporated new blood, ideas and Romanness was overrun however in the case of what history calls the Byzantine Empire, it was most certainly Roman and more so then the city of Rome who's inhabitants left on multiple occasions on mass at one point during Belisarius campaigns wolves roamed the streets and it was near empty.

Also a great post...The question that comes to mind...Why ordinary Italians did not speak Latin for more than 1000 years????
Why they defined them selvs as Lombards and other names?
Only the Pope and his priests knew the language and only when Charlemagne ordered more cholars to learn it the language became the language of the rest of the priests in west europe!
Priests used Latin language that ONLY them could understand for more than 1000 years! Arabs knew better Latin than europeans through the Syrian translations in of Latin and Greek scripts!
IF language -ONLY- determines the cultural heritage of a nation then the Arabic Spain should named Roman Empire and not the German one! More Arabs there knew how to read Latin that in the entire central and west europe!!!!!

[NikeBG]

I think you're underestimating the Roman influence over the Western European areas (like Gaul f.e.), Tony.
I think you're also underestimating the influence of the Greek language in the ancient Roman Empire and especially in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greek was practically a dominant language then, a lingua franca, much like English is today. Yes, Arabs, Jews, Armenians etc. had their own mother-tongues back then, just as they do now, but to communicate with each other, they used Greek, just like they (and we) use English today. The same is true to a somewhat lesser degree in Western Europe as well (don't forget f.e. the famous Irish monks), though the Latin influence was stronger there and thus, eventually, Western Europe became more "Romance" or "Latin", while the eastern part of the Empire had already been heavily Hellenic even during its conquest. Of course, eventually, some of that "Hellenicness" was lost with the Slavic and Arab invasions, at least linguistically, just like some of the "Latinness" was lost with the Germanic invasions.

In any case, "Roman" does not necessarily equate "Latin". It does so in only a few cases.

[Himster]

Conquered we conquer was what happened to the Greeks when the Romans "conquered" them. The entire Roman Empire was incredibly Greek (well the upper class was), when the Eastern Roman Empire endured it's not surprising it maintained a concentration of this Greek influence. Even in the West many Roman practices were diminishing, from art to architecture, dress (they began wearing pants), cultural practices like the games were heavily edited, religion was unrecognizable. What remained throughout the Roman Empire was Roman Law, that's the clincher IMO, The "Byzantines" maintained Roman law.

Yes they called themselves Roman, but so did the Holy Roman Empire (named so because it wasn't Holy, it wasn't Roman and it wasn't an Empire), calling yourselfs Roman doesn't qualify you as such, being Roman requires many things
If the Byzanyine Empire wasn't Roman then neither was Constantine's Empire (which we know it was, right?).

[Anna_Gein]

I find the eternal debate about the name of Romans/Byzantins/Greeks during medieval times to be not only redundant but pointless. What is important in name isn't their etymology but the reality they carry. The reality that doesn't change no matter how the name change. However you call them Byzantines, Romans or Greeks does not change how the people who lived in Constantinople during the 9th century. Just as you can call the people who live in a specific central european country "Germans", "Deutsche" (native language) or "Allemands" doesn't not change the culture of this people.

Thus, for me, "Byzantine Empire" is a strictly scholastic term (born out of political interests)

So much this. "Byzantine" is in my opinion an useful term that allow use to quickly determine about who we are talking about. It allow us to focus directly on the discussion rather than ask ourselves about what times we are dealing with from a thousand years range. At the same time it does not fall into an overly strict classification that would cut each century out of the others.

Yeah one side offers sources, documents and actual historical arguments, the other side says "La-la-la I don't read what you say, Romans spoke Latin and did not change since Caesar oh and Charlesmagne something"....ignoring that Charlesmagne was given the title by a priest a few centuries after there was no Roman administration in those territories while the emperor of Constantinople could trace his title back to Augustus himself.

I think the question is a little more complex alas no side even try to understand the other or gives any value to the others' arguments.

I think the problem with the theory of Constantinople habitant as the strict "Romans" people is that it miss what "Romanity" was. It treat it as a ethnic/national reality while it was first a simple juridical statue that became a cultural reality. Just as all the Empire population did not change dramatically of nature with Caracalla's edict, so did the major part of the Western population remained the same when Germanic lords established their power over the ashes of the Empire.

Secondly people tned to forget the universal range of romanity. Something that was advocated by 4th century authors themselves. Universality quickly sealed by the Christian faith universal in its goal of conversion.

Lastly it is completely ignoring the dynamic of the Empire before half of it was overrun by invaders. Here I am thinking of the increasing regionalism with Gallo-Romans aristocrats concentrating themselves on the administration of the Gallic provinces for example. The same family who would latter participate to the admittedly bare-bones frank administration. In this case the environment changed but the people remained ethnically the same. Theses people had "Romans" ancestors just as the people who lived in the regions controlled by Theodosius II successors.

The East Roman Empire is a less ignorant terms for this polity although the emperors, citizens and subjects of the empire called themselves Romans, as did their neighbours, friends and enemies. For example the Lombard barbarians occupying the city of Rome and most of Italy called the portion still loyal to the Emperor Romagna, the land of the Romans. This is a clear indication modern Italy has at least as much separation from the Roman Empire than states like Greece and Turkey.

Classical Rome was based on a Latin city but absorbed so much more from the cultures around it (especialy Helenic but also Eruscan, Punic, Gallic etc) and became much more than a physical location. Rome lived on by the Golden Horn when the mother city was reduced to ruins and bitter memories.

Snobbish French historians (ashamed of a barbarian origin that paled in comparison to Roman brilliance) and the facist goons of Mussolini (trying desperately to cover their cowardice and ineptitude with stolen antique glory) may have liked to run down the Roman Empire that continued when their provinces fell into uncivilised darkness, but their propaganda is outdated and sad.

The term Byzantine Empire is a poor, intellectually starved, sadly lacking expression. East Roman Empire comes closer to the truth, and history is better served by accurate language than loaded prejudicial claptrap.

Actually the contemporary trend among French historians has been to advocate the Gallo-Roman identity and even the Gallic identity itself rather than attack the identity of other region. Quite funny what poor intellectually starved opinion can make people state but it is sad too. Usually, serious modern book dealing with the whole Byzantine history start with Constantine's reign so let's throw aside the bad will and concentrate ourselves into serious discussion.

Now this is extremely interesting how you are mentioning the phenomenon of cultural assimilation. Maybe you and everyone else will realise this can goes both ways. The germanics kings and their successors did not embrace the Latin language and others "Romans" customs to piss off forum users from 1500 years latter. They were probably honest in their motivations. Keep in mind that a good deal of Germanic people and germanic lords have participated into the upper floors of the Imperial administration previously. A man like Stilicho was for sure Roman.

Yes they called themselves Roman, but so did the Holy Roman Empire (named so because it wasn't Holy, it wasn't Roman and it wasn't an Empire), calling yourselfs Roman doesn't qualify you as such, being Roman requires many things
If the Byzanyine Empire wasn't Roman then neither was Constantine's Empire (which we know it was, right?).

I think you trully need to reconsider your view on the Holy Roman Empire. While the whole might sound incredibly abstract (it is to me) medieval authors defended it quite well. I'm sorry to not re-explain it if full detail. To be honest I read about it a year ago and don't remember of all the details but to be quick the Holy Roman Empire was"Holy" as it was christian, "Roman" because of the universality of Christianity and romanity + the Gallo-Roman historic background of the past Frank powerbase and necessary an "Empire" as it was the continuation of the Western part of the once Roman Empire ranging from the Atlantic coast to Syria. An Empire that was subdivided into smaller kingdoms.

I am going to be able to offer an clearer picture once I grab once again the books on this subject. Possibly the next week if it interest anyone. The last time, no one was interested or even bothered to react to my explanation ...

I think the way people see themselves is on the contrary a central part of identity. Funny how people use it when they are fighting the use of "Byzantine" but otherwise act as if it was not a double-edge sword.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Regarding the Holy Roman Empire as an entity. The Roman Catholic church recognised a need for a protector as it did not want to be subordinated to the Orthadox Catholic Church or the actual Roman Emperor. Regardless of time frame distance from antiquity the Pope was still the major leader of Rome the city and they wanted allies who were strong. The Pope litrally created a new tradition when he Crowned Charlemagne as Emperor. Whether he had the authority to do so was debatable. That this new or revived crown was later dormant and revived or not always recognised may hold some sway regarding the self identity. The King of the Franks was the first Emperor and his authority within his realm was undisputed. His actual realm was not even changed in name from Kingdom of the Franks to Empire of the Romans. Yet he was the one with the greatest claim of all those who held the Title to actually having control of most of the former Western Roman part of the Empire.

The Conradin Emperors did not control West Francia and their successors barely controlled Italy. It is arguable that since the Pope created this title that unless the Pope Crowned you then you were not Emperor of the Romans merely King of the Germans. The German King rarely had control over all of Italy or even the majority of it and Rome was not always co-operative. In comparison to the Roman Empire called Byzantine no matter what they controlled they were always Roman in their identity even when they were Isurian, Macedonian or whatever. The lands were Roman, the administration was Roman the people were transient and still called Roman. In what you call the Holy Roman Empire the people were settled, the lands were local and the government was transient. As institutions they were the polar opposites to each other. The Holy Roman Empire existed at the convenience or a strong secular leader or the Pope. The Roman Empire which historians call Byzantine Empire existed in undisputable fact.

Yes the way people see themselves is part of identity however we do have to look at the Holy Roman Empire as a sporadic institution with only the secondary claim on Roman behind the actual Roman Empire which is popularly called Byzantine. A comparison analogy would be China. Who know themselves as the Middle Kingdom who has had territory shift many times throughout its history and has been divided and reconquered by different parts more than once. Some parts are considered direct continuations of Chinese government and culture and others transgressions before cultural assimilation occurred. In Europe there is considered to be a greater heritage on both Greek and Roman culture and that is because of the consistant back referencing to those identities, cultures and institutions. As such western culture still claims those inheritances due to multiple embryonic splits and cultural osmosis. Cultural plurality exists in all states and that is important to know. What we are trying to trace is the main line of inheritance from Rome.

This means that the actual Roman Empire was still the Roman Empire until it fell. Trezibond was the nearest relative and when it fell the Muscovites claimed that inheritance on the main line. The West claim their inheritance from an earlier scion line that gained its own authority and power as such in the Holy Roman Empire.

[AnthoniusII]

I think you're underestimating the Roman influence over the Western European areas (like Gaul f.e.), Tony.
I think you're also underestimating the influence of the Greek language in the ancient Roman Empire and especially in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greek was practically a dominant language then, a lingua franca, much like English is today. Yes, Arabs, Jews, Armenians etc. had their own mother-tongues back then, just as they do now, but to communicate with each other, they used Greek, just like they (and we) use English today. The same is true to a somewhat lesser degree in Western Europe as well (don't forget f.e. the famous Irish monks), though the Latin influence was stronger there and thus, eventually, Western Europe became more "Romance" or "Latin", while the eastern part of the Empire had already been heavily Hellenic even during its conquest. Of course, eventually, some of that "Hellenicness" was lost with the Slavic and Arab invasions, at least linguistically, just like some of the "Latinness" was lost with the Germanic invasions.

In any case, "Roman" does not necessarily equate "Latin". It does so in only a few cases.

In a previus post of mine , i wrote the exact same thing.
Yes greek culture influenced the entire known world ( i saw a great documentary about the early=hellenistic trade and diplomatic relations of Greeks with India and its kingdoms).
What I was trying to point was the fact that Greek language was a nessesity inside the Roman Empire for the reasons you and I wrote. My examples were posted to allow people here to understand why "sudenly" -for them not for reality- an Empire that was Roman "desided" to speak and write in Greek!

Conquered we conquer was what happened to the Greeks when the Romans "conquered" them. The entire Roman Empire was incredibly Greek (well the upper class was), when the Eastern Roman Empire endured it's not surprising it maintained a concentration of this Greek influence. Even in the West many Roman practices were diminishing, from art to architecture, dress (they began wearing pants), cultural practices like the games were heavily edited, religion was unrecognizable. What remained throughout the Roman Empire was Roman Law, that's the clincher IMO, The "Byzantines" maintained Roman law.

Yes they called themselves Roman, but so did the Holy Roman Empire (named so because it wasn't Holy, it wasn't Roman and it wasn't an Empire), calling yourselfs Roman doesn't qualify you as such, being Roman requires many things
If the Byzanyine Empire wasn't Roman then neither was Constantine's Empire (which we know it was, right?).

History as sience and those that write it in our days , are mature enough to errase historical myths of the past!
"Byzantine" as an imperial identity and not as identity of the Megarian settlers that created Vyzantion colony simple NEVER existed!
That is only one of the historical myths that must fall!
Myths about "Dark Ages", Evil Islam and so many other myths must be errased from our minds.
History is a pack of facts...No matter how we will write them or "read" and understand them , facts are facts and can not be changed.
When Herodotus first used the word "Historiae" he described events that happened and he supposed only brought them to the readers.
Thoukidedes though used another more solid word (gegonos=the action that has happened already and in generic english translation = fact).
Ussing their teachings in our discusion here we can have the following facts:

• There was a Roman Empire.
• That Empire had a vast number of diferent nations and languages in it.
• The "de facto" dominate language was not the Latin but the Hellenistic version of the Hellenic language.
• The Empire did not stop being Roman even when it lost half of its lands.
• Emperors expanded the Greek language for more practical issues in every aspet of the Empire over the Latin one.
• The Emperors Never acknowledged any other "king" as Roman.
• The Emperors never acknowledge any other king as "King of Kings" after the fall of the Sassanid Shahanshah.
• The Emperors used the title August until the last day of the Empire in May 29th 1453AD.
• The Empire was the only one that used the formal Roman calendar and not anything else (NikeBG knows what I am talking about ).
• The Roman Emperor in Nova Roma or in "City of Constantine's" if you like the term better , was the only legitimate protector of the Christian Faith in the Entire Universe.
• The last people that used the name Vyzantioi and not Byzantinoi (Byzantines) were the inhabidants of Vyzantion city untill the momment Constantine the Great demolished it and re-build it as New Rome.
• Since that momment "Rome" was any city that the Emperor used as his base (Roma Mobillis).
• From that momment "New Rome" was the only legitimate Rome -in political issues- and was the ONLY Rome as capital of the Empire/Universe (Roma Orbis).
• The last Roman Emperor ( Ultimus Romanorum) was the one that signed the letter to Mehmet II the Qonqueror that he had no right to surrender the New Rome to him.

Everything else created for political reassons centuries later (late 16th-untill late 19th century). Things changed when great historians "dared" to write the truth about the Romans (Ostrogorsky, Rambaud and others). Ofcourse in a century that "political" reasons of the past created two world wars , historical truth was once again the first victim.
Remember that even few years ago, Crusaders considered "saints" that faught the "evil" muslims to liberate the holly lands. But today we know that this was a great myth created by some people to justify their policies years after the crusades themselvs!!!!!

[Cyclops]

A note on terms, I am the sort of nitpicker who prefers native American to Indian, and USA to America. I think we destroy meaning by bandying loose words around. Of course I slip up and loolk silly when I do, but I'm trying. This sort of discussiomn really interests me because we can sharpen up or meanings by adopting agreed terminology.

...

Actually the contemporary trend among French historians has been to advocate the Gallo-Roman identity and even the Gallic identity itself rather than attack the identity of other region. Quite funny what poor intellectually starved opinion can make people state but it is sad too. Usually, serious modern book dealing with the whole Byzantine history start with Constantine's reign so let's throw aside the bad will and concentrate ourselves into serious discussion...

The term "Byzantine" when used to describe the East Roman Empire originates among 17th century French historians. This isn't a controversial point, and I'm surprised you question it? I'm less aware of current French historiography but it has no bearing in this case.

As for "Byzantine" history commencing with Constantine, thats certainly one milestone but of course there is so much continuity. I'm with the camp that suggests the slow transition between the classical and medieval Roman states has crossed a real threshold with Heraclius.

...Now this is extremely interesting how you are mentioning the phenomenon of cultural assimilation. Maybe you and everyone else will realise this can goes both ways. The germanics kings and their successors did not embrace the Latin language and others "Romans" customs to piss off forum users from 1500 years latter. They were probably honest in their motivations. Keep in mind that a good deal of Germanic people and germanic lords have participated into the upper floors of the Imperial administration previously. A man like Stilicho was for sure Roman....

Certainly Stilicho seems to have been Roman but that doesn't change the fact legal and social institutions were severely disrupted in the West and institutions like the Frankish state were definitely seperate developments to the continuing polity based on the Bosphorus. Charles the Great was born a Frank and died a Frank. The Roman Empire of the German nation (only much later was it called Holy) was an elective kingship based on Germanic duchies and prince bishops.

We are all Romans in some sense, but to claim Roman identity for modern states is foolish and to deny it to a state that directly continued the political, legal and social traditions of Rome is plainly wrong.

[AnthoniusII]

A great article :
WHAT, if anything uis a Byzantine? Part1
Part 2

Also:


There was no Byzantine Empire by Charles Collins

Also I repeat my humble request to all that doupt (still) to read books of great historians like Ostrogorsky and Rabaugh

[Cyclops]

Just a note, IIRC East roman poets in the post Makedonian Hellenising period did occasionally refer to the inhabitants of Konstantinopoulos Nea Roma as Byzantines. So there were a tiny handful of aesthetes using the word to describe a small number of Romans in the later periods of the ERE.

[AnthoniusII]

Just a note, IIRC East roman poets in the post Makedonian Hellenising period did occasionally refer to the inhabitants of Konstantinopoulos Nea Roma as Byzantines. So there were a tiny handful of aesthetes using the word to describe a small number of Romans in the later periods of the ERE.

I am afraid the you confuse the late Hellenistic era with the late Roman Imperial Era (they have few centuries gap). The ONLY thing that survived from Vyzantion city was its banner sympol and that was banner -in Roman middle ages Era- with dark green backcround with a golden Cresent. Cresent moon was the symbol of Artemis Goddess!
After few years of the official rename of Vyzantion to Nova Roma, the local population refered to the city by its founder (Constantine the Emperor). So for common folk it was the city of Constantine ( Constantinou Pollis in greek that transformed in to Constantinoupollis )....

[NikeBG]

What Cyclops means is that many of the intellectual elite of the Empire called the city "Byzantion", due to the favourite (as you know) trend of the said intellectual elite to use archaic names for contemporary things. Thus Constantinople was called somewhat poetically Byzantion, the Russians were called Tauroscythians, the Bulgarians were Moesians, the Seljuks were Persians etc.

[AnthoniusII]

What Cyclops means is that many of the intellectual elite of the Empire called the city "Byzantion", due to the favourite (as you know) trend of the said intellectual elite to use archaic names for contemporary things. Thus Constantinople was called somewhat poetically Byzantion, the Russians were called Tauroscythians, the Bulgarians were Moesians, the Seljuks were Persians etc.

True , Academic (sholars) people in 9th-11th century had a preference to clasic pedia and terms. But ONLY when it comes to academical conversations and books. In the real life comon folks still used terms of the "Roman" education.

PS: I added the correct 2nd part of the article What If anything is Byzantium.

[neoptolemos]

Just a note, IIRC East roman poets in the post Makedonian Hellenising period did occasionally refer to the inhabitants of Konstantinopoulos Nea Roma as Byzantines. So there were a tiny handful of aesthetes using the word to describe a small number of Romans in the later periods of the ERE.

Indeed it was an anachronism used by some atticisiing scholars.

[Hobbes]

I wish atticism had been abandoned. It really caused tons of problems for centuries.

[neoptolemos]

I wish atticism had been abandoned. It really caused tons of problems for centuries.

True but somehow an expected phenomenon and a consequence of the impact of classical Athenian literature on Greek language.
During the Macedonian renaissance there were also latinists who lamented the loss of latin in the Eastern Roman Empire as well

[AnthoniusII]

Indeed it was an anachronism used by some atticisiing scholars.

I wish atticism had been abandoned. It really caused tons of problems for centuries.

True but somehow an expected phenomenon and a consequence of the impact of classical Athenian literature on Greek language.
During the Macedonian renaissance there were also latinists who lamented the loss of latin in the Eastern Roman Empire as well

Such "mistakes" rescued and preserved the antiquity's knowlege though.
Without such mistakes Arabs would not coppy the Greek and Roman knowlege and passed it to barbarian europeans (1st renessance).
Without such "mistakes" there would be no 2nd renessance in 15th century!!!!!!!!
Yes such anachoristic preferense caused historians many problems but they created the world as we know it!!!!

[NikeBG]

I wish atticism had been abandoned. It really caused tons of problems for centuries.

I wouldn't be surprized if it still gives food for "thought" for the likes of Fomenko and his followers.

[Hobbes]

God, Fomenko is, without a doubt, an idiot. But the problems I refer to are mainly those cause by the extent of diglossia that was present in Greek society up to the 70s. Wikipedia has a huge article on it (no clue who took the time to write that in the English wiki; pretty weird) but I suggest checking it out. I wonder if anything similar ever happened to your country, NikeBG, seeing how Bulgarian has an extensive literary history.