Not going to write full development on every bit of disagreement as I feel it would dilute the initial discussion in never ending details arguments. So please accept the few sentences I am going to formulate in response to this quote as simple explanation of my personal opinion and not argument.
- I disagree that the Pope created a completely new tradition when he made Charlemagne Emperor. I think on the opposite that what he did is a synthesis of past tradition with present realities. This enable the most powerful ruler in the West since Romans rulers (and arguably a good deal of them were less powerful in their times) to recreate the ideal of the universal Empire that never disappeared.
- I don't think the agreement of the official who initially created/affirmed a title or his successor is needed. Otherwise things would be incredibly problematic with all the Romans usurpers. Beside it, a large part if not the majority of a title existance is how people recognize it or not. The one who initially created the title is just a single person even if he might bear a lot of influence.
- The Holy Roman Empire (forgive me but I don't wish to be drag into this historic conflict on the name) was not working as fundamentaly differently as you would like to portrait it compare to the Roman Empire. Or more precisely compare to the Roman Empire when the destiny of the East and the West varied dramatically. The aftermath of Andrinople (378 AD) initiate a tradition of existing kings retaining their power over their people who kept all their tradition and a great deal of independence while being part of the Empire and integrate into it. While
All this passage makes me think that if we appear to be in disagrement, that's before anything else because we are not even discussing the same thing. While you did not state it explicitly in bold, you appear to focus your development on the sole line of political inheritance from Rome while what I am been arguing from the beginning is that the Roman identity is something by far greater than the political identity.
Sorry but what ?
Let's forget that the small remaining part you quote doesn't seem to be linked with your response but what non controversial point I am questioning ?
For sure what terms contemporaries historians use has a fair bearing if we are to discuss the use of x or y term.
Anyway my main point is that the name Byzantine is an excepted term and in fact the most used to refer to the identity that spam from the Late Antiquity to the Late Middle Age across the East Mediterranean Sea, at some point controlling a territory going from North Africa (and even small enclaves in the Iberian Peninsula) to Syria.
In addition to the previous point, I would remind everyone that in all Period, varying names are used to refer to unique events, identities while other names are artificially created as to allow quicker and more precise comprehension.
Never claimed the rule of Constantine must be seen as the starting point of the Byzantine history. I was just pointing that the use of the name "Byzantine" does not prevent history book to start the Byzantine history with Emprerors indisputably described as Romans leading the Roman State. In fact all the books I had the luck to read on the Byzantine History stress the slow and progressive evolution of the Ancient Rome to the Medieval Byzance. Starting from varying date depending of the specific subject studied.
While the name "Byzantine Empire" came from an biased opinion, it has been a long time since this name no longer carry this bias.
You sound as if Stilicho was but an exemption while a great deal of Roman military officers were Germanics in the IV and the V centuries. Not only that but others Romans personalities who were born in Roman territories from families who always lived in Romans territories were described by their contemporaries as more that just Romans but with regional identities too. Be it Gaulish, Illyrians, Isaurians, Syrians, etc ...
Why does this specific identity suddenly becomes problematic when it is a Germanic identity ?
And how could the Frankish identity not incorporate or even merge with the Roman one ? It almost sound as if Charlemagne Frank identity was the same as the 300 AD Frank Identity while in truth Charlemagne came from a world as much Germanic as it was Latin.
I don't see where I have claimed Roman identity for modern states. The Byzantine states was the political continuation of a part of the Roman Empire and legally was the Roman Empire in this region but was arguably not the legally the Roman Empire in its previous totality as the Justinian Reconquest failed and a ruler from an other states managed to recreate in most geographical part and in essence the Western half of the Roman Empire.
More importantly the Byzantine slowly diverted dramatically from say, the 400 AD Roman society and a Byzantine identity came to existence.