"Byzantium" vs "East Rome"

[ProgramTheta]

Many people disagree over whether the continuation of the eastern roman empire that persisted after the fall of the city of Rome should be called Byzantium or East Rome. I will state now I am firmly in the East Rome camp.

The main thing that must be understood is that peoples and nations evolve and change over hundreds or even thousands of years. If you look at any people group alive today, they are NOT the same as they were 200 years ago, let alone 1000 years ago. They might even be totally unrecognizable. Just because people change over time does not mean they are now completely different people. They are the evolution of their ancestors. They still call themselves the same thing.

This isn't just about what empires called themselves. If we went that route the Ottomans would also be Rome, but everyone knows that claim is ridiculous(except turks). The main marks of distinction that are cited when justifying "Byzantium" are that the state was Greek, not Latin, based around Constantinople instead of Rome, and Orthodox Christian. The problem I see with these arguments is that they were all already true before the fall of western rome. In fact, they were also partly true of the western half itself.

Greek language and culture heavily influenced Rome from its inception. Many romans spoke Greek as a second language, and eventually it would become the official language of many parts of the Empire's governance and administration, long before the fall of Rome. Greek culture is heavily present in it's domination of Roman architecture and art.

Constantinople was also the capital of the entire Roman Empire for almost 100 years, from Syria to Lusitania, until it split for the final time shortly before the fall of the west.

And Rome had been officially Christian since Constantine, and majority christian for far longer. These changes all occured late in the Empire, but people still call Rome in 400 AD the Roman Empire, even though all the things that supposedly seperated Byzantium from it had already emerged throughout the Empire.

Byzantium really is just the Roman Empire's natural evolution progressing. It was much more greek-christian dominated than united Rome in the 300s, but that's because it had been more than 1000 years. Of course things would change, it was still the same state populated by the descendants of the people who had lived there 1000 years earlier(although a lot smaller).

[bri]

Personally I prefer "purple stain that should be removed from the map post-haste"...

[DeadRabbit]

Byzantium is more just a term used to distinct between the two. Back when Byzantium was still a thing, Byzantium wasn't actually the term people used to describe it, they just called it Rome. Only reason we use the term Byzantium today is the fact that it's sometimes hard to understand what period of Roman history we're talking about. "Eastern Rome" (Anatolia), existed as "Roman" from 130 BC to 1453 AD, obviously a very long time.

So Byzantium refers to Rome after the fall of the city of Rome, as a distinction to separate the two entities. Not that I'm not a historian, that's just how I've always looked at it in my eyes. I could be very much wrong.

Also, after the fall of Byzantium, we all know that the Spanish Empire was the true successor to Rome, as Constantine XI's will, he designated Isabella and Ferdinand as his successor.

[Malvastor]

Originally posted by DeadRabbit:

Byzantium is more just a term used to distinct between the two. Back when Byzantium was still a thing, Byzantium wasn't actually the term people used to describe it, they just called it Rome.

From what I understand it was common in Latin Europe to call the Byzantines "Greeks" and their emperor "the Greek Emperor".

[ProgramTheta]

Originally posted by Malvastor:

From what I understand it was common in Latin Europe to call the Byzantines "Greeks" and their emperor "the Greek Emperor".

The western Europeans pretty much always avoided calling Medieval Rome by it's name, especially when they were pretending to be it(most of the time). They came up with Byzantium shortly after it fell. The West Europeans also tended to call the HRE just "The Roman Empire".

[EA Latium]

I initially decided to study Roman history in Rome before realising what a terrible idea it was, allow me to go through a couple of points.

The Split

The split never actually happened as it is often portrayed, it was totally political for managing the extensive empire; the capital was never changed, but the headquarters were temporarily moved to Northern Italy for managing the Barbaric Invasions, first to Mediolanum (Milan) then to Ravenna. The latter is in Romagna, later would be ruled by the Papal States.

Identity

Byzantines, or Eastern Romans, always considered themselves Romans only politically speaking, their identity and culture has always been Hellenic, they in fact claimed to be the "Protectors of Ancient Greece", this was an important aspect both during the Late Antiquity both during the Middle Ages, as it defined many of the most important events.

Claim

Their claim on Rome was recognised for a long time, but they were a de facto successor state first and foremost, that's why we consider that under Justinian they reached their greatest extent, the time that follows with the Exarchate of Ravenna in Italy is also known as Byzantine Italy. It was undoubtedly the political continuation of Rome and recognised as such, but it was a different population even before the fall of Rome, that's why they were referred as the Kingdom of Greeks by other populations, even when the relationships were still positive. They also initially planned a marriage between Empress Irene and Charlemagne, which it never happened due a conspiracy that deposed her.

As for EU4 they don't really fit, the reason why they were included was to appeal CK2 and other strategy game players; the naming overall could be considered correct, as historians refer to them as Byzantine for the Medieval era and Eastern Romans for the Ancient era.

Originally posted by DeadRabbit:

Also, after the fall of Byzantium, we all know that the Spanish Empire was the true successor to Rome, as Constantine XI's will, he designated Isabella and Ferdinand as his successor.

That's the "game of claims". As for contemporary populations the Italian nation state is based on the Roman heritage, while the Greek one on the Byzantine. We can't really talk about real successors as Rome became an idea at some point.

[PFJackalope33]

Calling the Eastern Rome Empire the Byzantium Empire is the equivalent of splitting the USA into the Eastern and Western USA, moving the eastern capital to NYC and then having historians a thousand years from now call the Eastern USA the New Amsterdam Republic.

[EA Latium]

Originally posted by ConstantineTheVulture:

Calling the Eastern Rome Empire the Byzantium Empire is the equivalent of splitting the USA into the Eastern and Western USA, moving the eastern capital to NYC and then having historians a thousand years from now call the Eastern USA the New Amsterdam Republic.

Not exactly, both sides of the USA are basically the same population (which is a very different context being a former colonial nation, ergo not having a dominant ethnicity/culture), in that case would be two countries splitting from one.

In case of Rome the West and East were two different populations to start with, that were united under the same flag, obviously they shared many cultural traits, even in this time and age Italians and Greeks refer to each other being "one/my face, one/my race" (race meaning kind) due their interwined histories, but are still two different populations.

[Goose]

The words 'Byzantine Empire' were made up by aristocrats during the Napoleonic Age. The Eastern Roman Empire never, ever, ever referred to themselves as the Byzantine Empire.

They were Romans.

Catholics decided to call them "The Empire of The Greeks" because they wanted the title "Roman Emperor" for the Catholic Pope, who claimed to be the rightful descendants of the Empire.

So pretty much, Western europeans slurred the (real) Roman Empire in an attempt to steal the titles for themselves.

[EA Latium]

Originally posted by Trump 2020:

The words 'Byzantine Empire' were made up by aristocrats during the Napoleonic Age. The Eastern Roman Empire never, ever, ever referred to themselves as the Byzantine Empire.

It was historians that started using that name from the 16th century; it wasn't indeed the name they used for the empire, but people from Constantinople called themselves that way, it was a reference to the original name of the city in Ancient Greek time, allegedly founded by Byzas from Megara.

They were Romans.

This word has two meanings; first political, which they used very often; second is cultural, which refers to the people of Central Italy. National identities didn't exist yet, local and cultural identities were much more common, they always considered themselves Hellenes, even when the Empire was united.

Catholics decided to call them "The Empire of The Greeks" because they wanted the title "Roman Emperor" for the Catholic Pope, who claimed to be the rightful descendants of the Empire.

They used to be called like that even before the Schism, they talked about Greek traditions. The Papacy was actually established by the Byzantine, it was only later that it started growing in influence with Religion playing a prominent role in European politics. It indeed replaced the authority in the West.

So pretty much, Western europeans slurred the (real) Roman Empire in an attempt to steal the titles for themselves.

At this point the real Roman Empire was long dead, there were only two claimants which one encompassed new regions in Central Europe and the Kingdom of Italy, the other being the former Eastern Rome that was never disbanded, they both recognised each other as legitimate and impostors at different points.

[Fellelin Gohkhwkhip Pi Kopqi Sú]

after a while they lost true roman values , byzantine emprie was created after lati nwas no longer spoken in the east, they dropped the roman part right there

[ProgramTheta]

Originally posted by EA Latium:

This word has two meanings; first political, which they used very often; second is cultural, which refers to the people of Central Italy. National identities didn't exist yet, local and cultural identities were much more common, they always considered themselves Hellenes, even when the Empire was united.

I thought they called themselves "Romaioi", or Romans?

[EA Latium]

Originally posted by ProgramTheta:

I thought they called themselves "Romaioi", or Romans?

They actually did, it also appears in most diplomatic documents. Historians observed that their identity was based on Christianity, the Greek cultural heritage, and being the political heir of the Imperial era; important to note that Hellenic was normally the form of Greek spoken by scholars and written in literature and Romaic was the name of vulgar Greek.

This was one their major differences with their Western counterpart, as there culture and law was more inclined to merge, so their perception of being Roman while it was there, had a different meaning.

At later date they started using the name Greek with its original meaning again, as for a time it meant to be pagan for Christians.

[Jason]

byzantium is a more modern name they referred to themselves as roman's

[Preacher]

Finland is rome

[Psychotic Fury]

The byzantine empire was never its name, it was first called that in 1557. Then in 1580s the french wrote some books about them, increasing the popularity of the name. However it wasnt untill the 19th century when the name became popular by the western world that it was used to identify what we call the byzantine empire. It was always the eastern roman empire (or Roman empire).