When did the Roman Empire become Byzantine?

[wormyguy]

Historians and members of this site often refer to the late Roman Empire in the east as the "Byzantine Empire." However, the division between the Empire of antiquity and its medieval "successor" is unclear. At what point would you consider the [Eastern] Roman Empire to have become more "Byzantine" and medieval than classical in character?

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Personally I'd put the cut off point as the Iconoclastic Controversy- when the Emperors actively turned their backs on the West, and began to forge a very different path. It's rather an abitrary thing though, since it was really the same state at least until 1204, and even after then there was limited continuity right through the Ottoman period.

So yeah, I tend to call them Romans before about 720, and generally use the term Byzantine for after this date. Both are interchangeable terms for the whole of the ERE's history though.

 

[wormyguy]

I just realized that I posted that poll and forgot to put 1054 - The Great Schism.

*facepalm*

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I just realized that I posted that poll and forgot to put 1054 - The Great Schism.

*facepalm*

I'm afraid you've also got the date of Manzikert very wrong.

 

[wormyguy]

I'm afraid you've also got the date of Manzikert very wrong.

That's just a typo. I hate that you can't edit polls.

 

[Philip]

It's rather an abitrary thing though, since it was really the same state at least until 1204,

Agreed.

So yeah, I tend to call them Romans before about 720, and generally use the term Byzantine for after this date.

I can agree with that. I was going to name the Heraclian Dynasty as the transitional period, so that matches up well with your date of 720.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I can agree with that. I was going to name the Heraclian Dynasty as the transitional period, so that matches up well with your date of 720.

It's a minor point, but look at the names of the Emperors- prior to the Isaurians, they still retain very Latin names: Heraclius, Constans, Justinian, Tiberius etc. Afterwards, the names become much more "Eastern" with Greek, Armenian and Hebrew influence: Michael, Basil, John, Manuel. The only name that carries on to the end is Constantine, but this is hardly surprising.

 

[Zyzzyva]

I was kinda tossed-up between 620 and 636, but definitely sometime during the reign of Heraclius.

 

[GreatScottMarty]

I thought the reign of Heraclius was the dividing line. I didn't realize there was a debate.

 

[SJK]

I personally say the division, which firmly established two separate states with separate identities.

 

[Brancaleone]

Funny thing is , the term "Byzantium" was never actually used by the state it was ment to describe . It was invented centuries later by german scholars , who felt that the schismatic greek speaking remants of the eastern roman empire should not be confused with the glory of the past . The christening of Charlemagne's realm as the holy roman empire was , in their opinion , enough for the germans to usurp the name . The term byzantine (or greek for that matter) was never used by the "byzantines" who thought of themselves as romans till the very end . The point , however , which did mark the passage from the roman era to the "byzantine"one was the official adoption of the greek language by the state during the reign of emperor Heracleius

 

[democracy101]

I know it was mentioned before, but the term "Byzantine" did not come into widespread use before 1800-1900. The rulers of both empires considered themselves to be "Roman," and if you want to go further, the Latin Empire, which was founded by Crusaders, was also considered to be "Roman" because the leaders felt that they were justified in bringing back the glory of the Roman Empire and linking that with Christianity.

And Ivan the Great of Russia even married a noblewoman from the Byzantine Empire, and claimed that he was the new "Roman" Emperor.

Also, if you look at South America, the inhabitants call themselves "Latin" American because Spain had been under Roman rule, and they had become culturally assimilated.

So I'm sorry, but to tell you the truth, there is no real such thing as a "Roman," "Byzantine," or "Latin" Empire.

 

[Wozza]

I'm afraid you've also got the date of Manzikert very wrong.

And Did Harry Turtledove send some legions??


The reign of Heraclius works best, in particular the Islamic Conquests. Pre that time the Empire is a dominant state in the Mediterranean/Near East with a largely culture.

After than date it is a regional power with an agrarian culture: ie it is medieval. Distinctive I guess because it has an urban culture in the capital.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

I say about 7th Century when Heraclius substitutes Latin with Greek as official language of the Empire, changes his title from Imperator Augustus to the more greek title "Basileus" (aka Rex in Latin) and abolishes the old Roman Praetorian Praefectures while dividing the Empire into "Themata"...
I say that the most important change was the change of the title... Taking the title of King (Greek "Basileus" Latin "Rex") was considered a sacrilege by the Romans... Even Diocletian who adopted the ways of an Eastern Despot didnt took the title of the King... Rome remained a Republic (only in name though) until the official change of the title to King by Heraclius...

 

[Skokie]

Hmm. I would pick break it in three. Alpha Byzantine Empire with Diocletian. Beta Byzantine Empire with Justinian. And finally Byzantine Empire 3.0, for General Availability, with Heraclius.

 

[jkay]

Personally, I tend to give the name a state gives itself alot of weight; and the Roman Empire called itself the Roman Empire right up to its final fall to the Ottomans.

The Empire kept cultural continuity the whole time; so, even though the end was very different, indeed, than the beginning, there was no real breakpoint. Constantinople and Rome's religious break also came gradually; and the formal break just acknowledged a reality, like the change of official language. Do we consider the United States to be unamerican because its president right now has a nonanglo name?

 

[Chengar Qordath]

The distinction is really a pretty arbitrary one; as others have said, it is a distinction created centuries after the fact, primarily to justify rampant nationalist fantasizing by other nations that wanted to claim some part of the Roman legacy. The Romans did not stop being Roman just because they started being a bit more Greek and less Latin.

Changes to Rome's political structure shouldn't really count as enough to justify a break in continuity either, considering how many changes the Roman state went through while it was still around. The change between Republic and Principate and Dominate were equally massive, but aren't generally seen as breaking the continuity of the Roman state.

 

[Skokie]

Personally, I tend to give the name a state gives itself alot of weight; and the Roman Empire called itself the Roman Empire right up to its final fall to the Ottomans.

That seems ill-conceived. Didn't the Franks, Russians, Ottomans, Germans and Austrians all claim to be Romans (to varying degrees)? What makes the Greeks so special?

The Empire kept cultural continuity the whole time; so, even though the end was very different, indeed, than the beginning, there was no real breakpoint. Constantinople and Rome's religious break also came gradually; and the formal break just acknowledged a reality, like the change of official language. Do we consider the United States to be unamerican because its president right now has a nonanglo name?

I don't know about that. There were points of real upheaval in which culture and society were revolutionized over the course of only a few years. I'm thinking of the Third Century Crisis and the Plagues of Justinian.

 

[Horgus]

What makes the Greeks so special?

The Greeks were so special because they were able to maintain political continuity with Augustus.

Even right up to 1204 (and arguably beyond that, to 1453) the Byzantines were able to rightly claim a direct line of political succession to the very founding fathers of modern European civilization. This is an undeniable achievement.

 

[Skokie]

The Greeks were so special because they were able to maintain political continuity with Augustus.

Even right up to 1204 (and arguably beyond that, to 1453) the Byzantines were able to rightly claim a direct line of political succession to the very founding fathers of modern European civilization. This is an undeniable achievement.

Are you sure about that? Didn't the Byzantine emperors themselves at one point (Heraclius?) stop claiming Pericles, Alexander and Augustus as their ancestors and acknowledged only later figures like Constantine and Justinian?