Is the post-476 ERE the Roman Empire?

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Some people believe that after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the half remaining in the East and which lasted about 700 more years cannot or should not be considered a ‘real’ Roman Empire since it didn’t own the city of Rome (which gave the empire its name) any more, and eventually even lost its ‘Romance Language’. On the other hand, there are those (who are not few) who state that not recognizing the eastern half as the Roman Empire is a nonsense since its inhabitants always saw themselves as real Romans and a continuation of the state founded about 700 years BC. I honestly believe that both sides have, in my opinion, very interesting arguments to support their positions and that’s why I’ve been unable to make my mind on this matter. I thought that perhaps many of you are in the same place than I am and the contributions of ideas and information can help us to increase our knowledge on the subject. I think that this theme can make it a great debate. All the ideas, positions and opinions are more than welcome. Let’s have a great exchange of them!!!

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

Yes, it is, until the use of Themes. Militarily at least, the Romans were still much like their forebears until then.

[icydawgfish]

Well, the thematic troops were just a natural evolution, much like it was from the early maniples to the legionary system and from the legionary system to the Comitatenses (sp?) system. They were still a professional standing army.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Themes could also have been argued to be a devolution in the Empire. But if you consider what was going on in the Empire at the time it only made sense. The themes eliminated the standing army system of the Roman Empire thus resulting in regions that became themes forcused on regional issues, maintaining their own force for defence and providing their own economy.

Also Romance languages were Spanish, Italian, and French. You mean Latin.

Anna Commene wrote the Alexis in the 12th century. Throughout the book she frequently refers to her people as Romans, and the empire as the Roman Empire. The last Emperor of the Constantinople COnstantine IX invoked the memories of Romans in order to inspire his men. I beleive they were legitamently the heirs of Rome, despite adopting the greek language they were but an evolution, much as the kingdom of England became the British Empire. The turn really came around 800 AD at the coronation of Charles the Great by the Pope. The coronation effectively proclaim Charles as the Emperor of the Romans disreguarding the legitament Roman Empire in the East. At the time, in Constantinople, The Empire was ruled by the widow of the former emperor, I beleive her name was Irene, but I may be wrong. Anyway because the Empire was ruled by a woman the west saw it as an opportunity to usurp the throne and proclaim a new Roman Emperor.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Themes? Could anyone get me out of my ignorance, please?

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

Themes were basically a feudal system, minus the "baron" aspect. Themes were like provinces, with each seperate theme under a strategos, or general. The strategos had to appear with a certain amount of troops whenever the state required.

[Templar Knight]

well call me stubborn, but i believe that the true Roman Empire died when the West fell

thats just my personal feelings

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Thank you Mr. Cursed for explaining that to me. One always learns something new. You certainly got me out of my ignorance.
@ Templar Knight, your opinion is very welcome here, man. Could you tell us why you think that, please? I'm very interested in knowing everybody's opinion since I don't have a position on this matter yet.

[Coni]

This question was discussed here in a very professional way by the best roman military experts Anthonius II, skywalker and very important Pompeius Magnus.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=72958
I suggest to read at least the last 3 or 4 pages.
And PM explained in his guide that there wasn't a break in history when the empire was transformed to a greek one.
natural evolution, as mentioned by icydawgfish.

PM, sorry that I take your example. I think it is the most easiest one (correct me if I make a mistake):
1. Phalanx
2. new developed system dependend on tax (Hastaii,Princeps and Triarii)
3. the same system, but based on the age of the soldier
4. Cohortes reformata
5. Imperial Legions
6. new system of mobile field armies and static units (Comitatenses/Limitanei)
7. introduction of themes (but even here: cohortes=bandum; new central field army was called Tagmata)
8. System of Pronoia

I also want ask the question as Pompey did before: when did an emperor proclaimed his roman empire to a greek one. Please a fixed year with date and source!!!
When did an Emperor said: "Now I am a greek Emperor of a byzantine Empire". Please no modern history book! I want see a source like a relief, an old Roman script or a mosaic.

The problem is you will only find texts with the name "Basileia ton Rhomaion" - The Empire of the Romans.

the last roman emperor was Constantine XI. these are the facts. all other arguments are private opinions, and fantasy wishes.

Themes:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=107
it is not possible to explain that more easy.
The themes were nothing else than the existing mobile field armies of the late antique.

[Templar Knight]

Templar Knight, your opinion is very welcome here, man. Could you tell us why you think that, please? I'm very interested in knowing everybody's opinion since I don't have a position on this matter yet.

well there are several reasons why i think this

Rome was in the west and true Romans were Italian or of Italian origin, where as the ERE was in the East based around Constantinople and mainly of Greek and Eastern in ethnicity

also i always kinda think of the ERE or Byzantine Empire as more of a Greek/Roman hybrid empire instead of the true Roman empire

also how can you call your self the Roman Empire if you dont control Rome

[Coni]

that means Justinian wasn't a Roman Emperor, bec at the beginning of his reign Rome was in the hands of the goths??
By the way: the capital was Mediolanum, Arles, Trier and Constatinopel long time before Rome was fallen.

You say: Romans were only Italians? You mean italians like greek etruscians, marsii, Samnits or later goths? why not hispania, africa, asia minor since it was Roman for at least 400 years. It was a multi-ethnic empire, long time before Ceasar was born.

There's no logic in that what you said, sorry.

[Templar Knight]

that means Justinian wasn't a Roman Emperor, bec at the beginning of his reign Rome was in the hands of the goths??
By the way: the capital was Mediolanum, Arles, Trier and Constatinopel long time before Rome was fallen.

You say: Romans were only Italians? You mean italians like greek etruscians, marsii, Samnits or later goths? why not hispania, africa, asia minor since it was Roman for at least 400 years. It was a multi-ethnic empire, long time before Ceasar was born.

There's no logic in that what you said, sorry.

EDIT:

You say: Romans were only Italians? You mean italians like greek etruscians, marsii, Samnits or later goths? why not hispania, africa, asia minor since it was Roman for at least 400 years. It was a multi-ethnic empire, long time before Ceasar was born.

i said the original true Romans were Italian and if you dont believe me go ask an Italian person

[Riothamus]

This thread has a potential to turn sour if opinions become facts. Remember even historical facts are able to be interpreted differently with a good sense of logic and they may even change over time.

I admire Templar Knight's conviction to disagree with the idea that the Eastern Empire was not a true Roman Empire no longer but that it was a ''Greek/Roman hybrid empire instead of the true Roman empire" It sounds to me a very logical opinion and one that can be debated. Maybe it was a way of the Eastern Roman Empire to legitimize its importance? They were as we know descendants of various ancient peoples that spoke Greek.

Even though I think the Eastern Roman Empire was and seen by itself as Roman and probably had thought that way for several centuries already before the Western Empire fell, I can't help as to see the the Eastern Roman Empire as nothing more of the continuation of the ideas that were Roman that would be shaped and molded to survive with the circumstances that lay ahead. Does that make it a true Roman Empire I'm not sure or sold on that. Also there does seem sort of missing nostalgia to an empire to me when the name and original home of an empire falls to an other's peoples rule.

Stand firm Templar Knight's

[Draco Borealis]

Roman is not race, nationality or even ethnicity but legal status as full right citisen of the city of Rome and after 212 AD, all freemen in the Empire were granted citizenship by an imperial edict of Caracalla, Technicly speaking Welsh are more Roman than Italians becouse the Romano British Kingdom of Gwynedd and later the United Principality of Wales a legal sucessor state to the Roman Diocese of Britain was conquered by English "Barbarians" only in 1285 AD, 600 hundred years after Italy was ocupied by Longobards. Although the Duchy of Britanny which was incrporated in 1532 to France can be seen as the last outpost of empire which surrendered to germanic invasion... but in high mediaval times the Norman-English, Lombard and French elites were already culturaly romanised.

[Boyar Son]

EDIT:

i said the original true Romans were Italian and if you dont believe me go ask an Italian person

the original true Romans were TROJAN! and if you dont believe me go ask a anatolian!

[paokmam]

the original true Romans were TROJAN! and if you dont believe me go ask a anatolian!

. . . I thought we were talking with facts here . . .

[Draco Borealis]

Wenetians were legaly still part of empire even in 1204. It was like Canadians burning down London. Not being conquered by barbarians woud make the Kingdom of Navarre (Basques), Papal state around Rome and and pre 1283 Principality of Wales (established by Dux Britanorum Cuneida of Red Robe) the last Roman states in the west too. Which is a little stretch even for such Romanophile as me.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

@ Coni: Thank you very much for the link, it is a very interesting thread.
The point discussed in the last posts by Coni and Templar Knight are very interesting to me. Is a country still the very same even if they don't 'own' the territory where they were born as a nation? Interesting (and debatable) question I think.

[Coni]

Is a country still the very same even if they don't 'own' the territory where they were born as a nation? Interesting (and debatable) question I think.

again:that means also that the north of Italy (was gaul!!!!) isn't Roman.
no, no. there is no logic. btw: a lot of roman settlers were sent to the east to found colonies. also several legions bcame setteled here.

And I'm still waiting for an answer on my question: which roman emperor said:" Now I am a greek emperor of a byzantine empire, and my intention is only to follow the idea of Rome."

[Claudio II Gothic]

And I'm still waiting for an answer on my question: which roman emperor said:" Now I am a greek emperor of a byzantine empire, and my intention is only to follow the idea of Rome."

I think no byzantine emperor ever said that,because the byzantines considered themselves the only Roman Empire,which never fall.In fact initially the Byzantines don't acknowledge the Holy Roman Empire,because they were the only Roman Empire!
The word Byzantine was introduced later....