good idea

Great idea for the group. The term "byzantine" is certainly used with a political agenda, and I avoid it at all costs.

Most definitely and people just accept it because they know, no better. I was taught about the "byzantines" in school years ago, but because they are called as such I disassociated them with their roots and identity and so forgot about them. Later I was reintroduced to them in 2002 with Medieval Total War and found myself becoming interested in the "Byzantines" again.

If you wish to learn about these later "Romans" you must first do a search for "byzantines" the term is so ingrained.

from my point of view this is just the Byzantine ERA is just that the time at which the west fell and the eastern capital of constantinople/Byzantium became more prominent...so its still the roman empire...just a little different...

No my Friend the 'Byzantine era' was a much earlier time when there were Greek pagans before the future capital of Rhoma Nova.

Dear Armatus,
of course I support the term medieval roman empire, east roman empire or just roman empire.
Don't let us forget why the wording "byzantine empire" was developed. It occured the first time some years after the ERE was fallen. It was used by 2 german historians - and it's still in use today - falsely.
However, we shouldn't forget the reason and the political background.
Especially for those who accept the legacy of that country - and for those who observe the development of the army - have a clear advantage compared to those who think that a byzantine empire was established ad-hoc after the reign of Constantius, Justinian or Herakleios.
The facts are that no emperor has declared a break with the Roman traditions or with roman law - independently if greek was the main language since Herakleios -
It was always de jure and by law the legal empire. We know some Auxilia Palatinae units from the 8th century who were still garrisoned in the east.
Of course I understand if people claim that after the fourth crusade and the sack of Constantinople - and after the reconquering of the capital - it was another empire. Actually it was still the same dynasty who ruled, at least at the beginning in exile. But even in this case is was "de jure" the same empire.

I don't understand (and this discussion becomes sometimes a little bit childish) when people say it was another country (a byzantine empire) just because it was greek speaking or the army was based on themes, or because the city of Rome was lost or something like that. A pointless discussion because by law it was always the Roman Empire (Basileia ton R(h)omaion). And this was also underlined and accepted by Charlemagne after his coronation in Rome. He sent several letter to Eirene to arrange a wedding with her or to get an official paper from the east which confirmes his new title as Augustus Imperator.

Another positive message is given my many new history books. Let's start with low-level books from Osprey. I say it is "low level" because Osprey don't make any kind of academical evolution. However, even Osprey published 2 new books about byzantine infantry and cavalry. And those books are:
Byzantine Infantryman: Eastern Roman Empire c.900-1204 (Warrior) and Byzantine Cavalryman C.900-1204 (Warrior)
In both books the term medieval Roman soldier\cavalry or Roman empire is used surprisingly often. That's a positive correction of historical facts.
Furthermore John Haldon is using that term many times.

Another interesting note: when I check my old books (from 1950s or 60s) with translations of the Taktica of Leo VI then I see that in the greek original many words like "Romaioi" are translated in english as well as in german as "byzantine". In my opinion it is simply a derision or a contumely. It is actually a falsification of a document.
But when I check my new books concerning the Taktika or the praecepta militaria (2 years old) then I see that some modern authors or translators are using the word "Romans" to translate "Romaioi". And this is pleasing.

If people claim that the "real" Roman Empire is fallen in 476AD, just because the western emperor was removed, then they have to bring sources and evidences that the east was NOT the Roman empire. However, even today I'm still waiting for some documents from those people. An historically term like Imperium Byzantinorum or Basileia ton Byzantion is not recorded or evidenced in any contemporary books, in contemporary art, military handbooks, reliefs, grave stones and so on. This term is simply not existing.
Furthermore we shouldn't forget that the Roman empire was several times ruled by sole-rulers before (like Julian or Theodosius or Constantine the great).
Furthermore we shouldn't forget that the Ostrogothic king Theoderic was officially ruling as Magister Militum under an emperor in the east. This situation wasn't new at all.
That the military and politically influence of the Eastern Empire was comparatively low in the case of the Ostrogohtic kingdom is another question.

Ergo: A country called "Byzantine Empire" was not existing in history. If people claim that - then it's just their own personal opinion. It is their own subjective opinion. It is not based on any facts.

Regarding TW games, I was really dissapointed to see the term "byzantine" appear in SS6.3. It was Roman Empire in 6.2.

Yes it is disappointing to see new works perpetuating the term.

Pompeius glad to have your support! I knew you would become the heavy weight in this cause. You have given perfect explanations in regards to usage of the word. I would like to add to your comments with a little about the origin of the modern term "Byzantine"

From wiki (and yes it's verifiable)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine#Nomenclature

The designation of the Empire as "Byzantine" began in Western Europe in 1557, when German historian Hieronymus Wolf published his work Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a collection of Byzantine sources. "Byzantine" itself comes from "Byzantium" (a Greek city, founded by colonists from Megara in 667 BC), the name of the city of Constantinople before it became the capital of Constantine. This older name of the city would rarely be used from this point onward except in historical or poetic contexts. The publication in 1648 of the Byzantine du Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiæ Byzantinæ), and in 1680 of Du Cange's Historia Byzantina further popularized the use of Byzantine among French authors, such as Montesquieu.[4] The term then disappears until the nineteenth century when it came into general use in the Western world.[5] Before this time, Greek had been used for the Empire and its descendants within the Ottoman Empire.

The Empire was known to its inhabitants as the Roman Empire, the Empire of the Romans (Latin: Imperium Romanum, Imperium Romanorum, Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn, Αρχη τῶν Ῥωμαίων, Arche tôn Rhōmaíōn), Romania[n 2] (Latin: Romania, Greek: Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía), the Roman Republic (Latin: Res Publica Romana, Greek: Πολιτεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, Politeίa tôn Rhōmaíōn),[7] Graikía (Greek: Γραικία),[8] and also as Rhōmaís (Ῥωμαΐς).[9]

Although the empire had a multi-ethnic character during most of its history[10] and preserved Romano-Hellenistic traditions,[11] it was usually known to most of its western and northern contemporaries as the Empire of the Greeks[n 3] due to the increasing predominance of the Greek element.[12] The use of the term Empire of the Greeks (Latin: Imperium Graecorum) in the West to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire also implied a rejection of the empire's claim to be the Roman Empire.[13] The claims of the Eastern Roman Empire to Roman inheritance had been actively contested in the West at the time of the Roman Empress Irene of Athens, due to the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor in the year 800, by Pope Leo III, who, needing help against enemies in Rome, saw the throne of the Roman Empire as vacant (lacking a male occupant). Whenever the Popes or the rulers of the West made use of the name Roman to refer to the eastern Roman Emperors, they preferred the term Imperator Romaniæ instead of Imperator Romanorum, a title that Westerners maintained applied only to Charlemagne and his successors.[14]

By contrast, in the Persian, Islamic, and Slavic worlds, the Empire's Roman identity was generally accepted. In the Islamic world it was known primarily as روم (Rûm "Rome").[15][16]

In modern historical atlases, the Empire is usually called the Eastern Roman Empire in maps depicting the empire during the period 395 to 610, after the new emperor Heraclius changed the official language from Latin to Greek (already the language known by the great majority of the population); in maps depicting the Empire after 610, the term Byzantine Empire usually appears.

It is refreshing to see all my friends here, discussing a similar sentiment. I often in university, or work, have to explain, the Roman empire did not fall in 476, it was destroyed by the Turks at the birth of renaissance. You will still find many arguments to say the Roman empire fell and Greek one began, at Herikliaus . But a culture change argument, is the same as Caesar's Rome being a different empire to Diocletians

To be honest the cultural transformation the Eastern Roman empire went under the centuries that followed the fall of the west is such, that it does need a term of its own (even if Byzantine is clearly not correct in my eyes). From republic to Principate, to Empire, to "Byzantine" phase. And during the last phase the changes ERE went under were rather big. State language shifted to Greek, adoptation of eastern ideas of divine monarchy.

But for the majority of the history enthusiasts (can't speak for academics nor will I attempt to) the real reason is that in minds of many an empire that kept loosing ground as time was passing does not match the "glory of Rome" that they have in their minds. Also the greek speaking orthodox thing is a bit alien to the Rome stereotype.

But the fall of WRE is such a quiet thing, almost went unoticed at the time. While the fall of ERE in 1453 was something that, even expected and awaited, came as a shock.

We can end it in 476 AD with a child emperor overthrown quitely by a warchief or on one last epic siege, fighting to the last man with the Emperor among em. What would be more fitting end for the Sons of Mars, than the last defiant stand of faithfull in Christ Basileus (think that was their title?) against overwheling odds?

Originally Posted by Faramir D'Andunie

To be honest the cultural transformation the Eastern Roman empire went under the centuries that followed the fall of the west is such, that it does need a term of its own (even if Byzantine is clearly not correct in my eyes). From republic to Principate, to Empire, to "Byzantine" phase. And during the last phase the changes ERE went under were rather big. State language shifted to Greek, adoptation of eastern ideas of divine monarchy.

'Regnum Romanum' would have been the first phase. Clearly that was quite different than the Republic though rightfully Roman, being the platform from which the Roman state launched. State language was just a necessary efficiency, everyone was already speaking Greek in the East, so the shift was a sensible one, even if it gave some bit of newness, it is still the Greco-Roman world we're talking about, something that goes much further back than "Rome" itself. The divinity in rulership was not a unique thing in the ages prior, and in regards to the later monarchy of the east it wasn't quite the same since the Emperor was not God.

Originally Posted by Faramir D'Andunie

But for the majority of the history enthusiasts (can't speak for academics nor will I attempt to) the real reason is that in minds of many an empire that kept loosing ground as time was passing does not match the "glory of Rome" that they have in their minds. Also the greek speaking orthodox thing is a bit alien to the Rome stereotype.

I think in part that is because people don't have much knowledge of this era, but understandable as scholarship has called this era a dark age. Sure the "Byzantine" empire suffers from internal and external strife, yet how is this all of sudden a "new thing" that supposedly only plagues the Greek speakers? Not sure what you mean by orthodox being alien, it considers itself "Catholic" too.

Originally Posted by Faramir D'Andunie

But the fall of WRE is such a quiet thing, almost went unoticed at the time. While the fall of ERE in 1453 was something that, even expected and awaited, came as a shock.

I don't know how unnoticed it went, certainly not for Italians, but it wasn't as if that was to end the world for the rest of the empire so maybe that's why? And in the final fall of Constantinople yes I'm sure it was a pretty big shock since the rest of Europe could no longer rely on the East as a buffer to foreign threats, as well as no longer having easy access to far eastern trade.

Originally Posted by Faramir D'Andunie

We can end it in 476 AD with a child emperor overthrown quitely by a warchief or on one last epic siege, fighting to the last man with the Emperor among em. What would be more fitting end for the Sons of Mars, than the last defiant stand of faithfull in Christ Basileus (think that was their title?) against overwheling odds?

Romantic it is.

hello why was i envited to this group

Probably because you were apart of another group relating to Byzantines. I randomly selected people I thought might be interested.

I too support the movement,but have simply called it The Byzantine Empire to avoid confusion.No more.As an Italian(Sicily specifally)there is probally some connection to Rome in my family,so I proudly support this movement for my ancestors and Rome the eternal city which even today continues to be independent through the Vatican which makes me even prouder as I'm a Catholic.

As modern people, descendants and or inheritors of western philosophy, religion and politics just about everyone has something to thank the Greco-Roman world for. Let us be clear not a mere nationalistic movement. I for one am an American born and bred, and although proud of my Calabrian (Southern Italian) heritage it by no means clouds my ability to see the politicized usage of "Byzantine" one way or the other.

The origin of this terminology has largely been forgotten, much like the Empire it refers to and so little justice is done to history nor the contribution of Greece in the middle ages.

I think this is a neat idea, even if the concept is probably fighting an uphill battle with an incorrectly applied name. Although I have nothing in particular 'against' the term 'Byzantine', it has always irritated me that such a great empire just got a name change because a couple German historians decided it was more appropriate. They had no right to decide that, and it's a travesty that historians from then on just accepted it. The surviving eastern part of the Roman Empire never called itself that officially, so why would we?

Thanks and yes it's an uphill battle, but one that the common man may take on, if enough common men decide.

And you can say it was the Total War Center who spear-headed it among other faint but growing to ever so clear voices!

Byzantion was the name of the original Greek city that Constantinopolis is based on, correct? So, the question is whether we call them Greek as they were or Roman as they called themselves.

Yes you can see that in one of the maps in our group album. As for 'Roman' it has been applied to many different ethnic groups, even though originally it did not. I think Eastern Roman, Greco-Roman, Medieval Roman as well as simply 'Roman' (when the distinction isn't necessary) are all fine.

Finally a movement I really agree with!!

The Eurocentric tendencies of history that outdate our ways of thinking need to go... next up is a discussion that Greek and Persian are as close as they are opposite

Dunno if I'm on par but,

The struggle to establish Christianity as the new official religion of Rome and the resulting controversies reflect the political and religious turmoil of the centuries immediately following the birth of Jesus..."Early Christian" is a historical more than a stylistic designation. It refers roughly to the first five centuries AD and to Christian works of art made during that period. The term Byzantine, derived from the city of Byzantium, is used to describe a style that originated in the Eastern Roman Empire, including works made in Italy under Byzantine influence. At first the two terms ovelap. However, as Rome and the Western Empire were overrun by northern European tribes and the East rose to prominence under Justinian, the distinction between the Eastern and the Western empires became more pronounced, and Early Christian and Byzantine cultures grew apart.

-Adams, Laurie S., Art Across Time. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.: New York, 2010.

The empire was itself, called the ERE, or other nicknames of people during that time. Byzantine came up from historical studies of that era.
I think it was called such because there was such a huge difference in culture that started to appear between he East and West that a certain style can be evident in the ERE. Thereby, calling and coining it the Byzantine Empire under a certain style that most people of that time followed.

The West stayed with tradition Hellenistic and Roman antiquity which developed the medieval styles later from 7th-13th century.
The East were influenced by the Greeks and Orients.

Rome was famed for assimilating with the cultures and nations they took over, Christianity is no different. Just, the Roman Empire itself was starting to deteriorate on both sides, and a new...nation started to emerge from the Christian-influenced ERE.

Byzantine should only be used in the stylisation of the Roman Empire of that time. Because it does make it seem as if the Roman Empire just...disappeared after 476 AD, but in truth they lasted up as late as the 16th century.