Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Continuity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Continuity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium
    Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 14:51
Definetly, the Byzantines as we call the mtoday did call themselves Romans and not Byzantines. Maybe even Greeks but the official name of the Empire stayed as Roman Empire until 1453, even the Nicaean Empire was called such.
 
 Therefore, the Byzantines could not call themselves Byzantiym administration.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 15:30
yeah we all know there was a continuity of emperors but can we really ingore the fact that the core and the population of the emprie moved wetswards? also, i completely disagree that there was a political continuation of both empires. back then there were 2 ideologies, the western republican world domination ideology (supreme ruler of all the world) and the Persian (basically Assyrian in origin) ideology of the despotic King of Kings = supreme ruler over other countries, not one single emprie inclduign everyhting. so it si clear they moddeled themselves idoelogically on Sassanian iran, not their Roman ancestors. and as i already mentioned, you cannot really ignore the fact that the empire changed from Latin culture & tongue to Greek (Graeco-Roman) culture & tongue. the classical Roman empire included around 30% to 50% native latin speakers (including assimilated Celts etc), the medieval roman empire was more like almost 100% greek in population (including assimilated ppl).
 
also people happily ignore the fact that the roman empire offically split in 2 halfs, so you cannot really say there was a perfect continuation. the same hereditary split btw effectively led to nations that are today known as france & germany who aren't really the same language & culture even though a group of german people call themselves as Franks even today just like the french.... and even religiously there was a discontinuation.
Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote akritas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 16:04
When I spoke for Byzantiym administration I didn't mean that they identified as Byzantines.Just I tried to give  the picture what was the meaning of the imperium romanum

Edited by akritas - 16-Aug-2006 at 16:06
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
  Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 03:29
Originally posted by Temujin

yeah we all know there was a continuity of emperors but can we really ingore the fact that the core and the population of the emprie moved wetswards? also, i completely disagree that there was a political continuation of both empires. back then there were 2 ideologies, the western republican world domination ideology (supreme ruler of all the world) and the Persian (basically Assyrian in origin) ideology of the despotic King of Kings = supreme ruler over other countries, not one single emprie inclduign everyhting. so it si clear they moddeled themselves idoelogically on Sassanian iran, not their Roman ancestors. and as i already mentioned, you cannot really ignore the fact that the empire changed from Latin culture & tongue to Greek (Graeco-Roman) culture & tongue. the classical Roman empire included around 30% to 50% native latin speakers (including assimilated Celts etc), the medieval roman empire was more like almost 100% greek in population (including assimilated ppl).
 
also people happily ignore the fact that the roman empire offically split in 2 halfs, so you cannot really say there was a perfect continuation. the same hereditary split btw effectively led to nations that are today known as france & germany who aren't really the same language & culture even though a group of german people call themselves as Franks even today just like the french.... and even religiously there was a discontinuation.
1. the core moved westward?
2. different political ideologies
This is why I wrote before that some people are unable to differ the Roman Republic/early empire and the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire is changed, evolved during its existance. The Roman Empire of BC 30 and the Roman Empire of AD 400 are the same empire, while their structure and ideology is different.
3. different language and ethnicity
Language and ethnicity are not key factor in ancient or medieval empires. In the east the hellenism was decisive, but this was the case even in the time of the early emperors.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 14:54
Originally posted by Raider

1. the core moved westward?
 
sorry, what i meant to say was that the core of the empire was the western part. western rome = latin italy and assimilated Celt provinces & colonised northern africa which became new Romans. when the empire was created, Rome was all that + some Greek states as vassals which were not part of the empire. Roman empire in medieval times was almost JUST Greek with NO Latin elements at all, except for those inherited from roman overlordship.
3. different language and ethnicity
Language and ethnicity are not key factor in ancient or medieval empires. In the east the hellenism was decisive, but this was the case even in the time of the early emperors.
 
yeah i agree, that's why they continued to call themselves Romans even though they weren't. had nationality played any part back then, there's no chance in hell they would have still called themselves as Romans.
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 22:40
Originally posted by rider

Definetly, the Byzantines as we call the mtoday did call themselves Romans and not Byzantines. Maybe even Greeks but the official name of the Empire stayed as Roman Empire until 1453, even the Nicaean Empire was called such.
 
Supposedly some of the Greeks living in the Aegean islands were calling themselves Rhomaioi even as late as World War I!  My undergraduate Byzantine history professor told us a story about his advisor (Peter Charanis), who said this growing up on an island.
 
Originally posted by Temujin

Roman empire in medieval times was almost JUST Greek with NO Latin elements at all, except for those inherited from roman overlordship.
 
Justinian I was the last Byzantine emperor who spoke Latin as his main language.  Illyricum, his birthplace, was pretty much the dividing line between the Latin and Greek parts of the Empire. The Latin element definitely died out and the focus shifted east after his reign and all the "reconquests" were lost.
 
Back to Top
Herschel View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 30-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 172
  Quote Herschel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 11:38
I am really pissed off because last night I wrote an entire essays worth of material for a reply, only to get a forum "error" that seems to strike this site a lot. I had not backed up what I had written, either! :(

So here is my abridged response:

Latin did not die out. It remained the first language of the Dalmatian coast until at least the 15th and 16th centuries before finally sucumbing to Slavitization. There is also a theory that the modern inhabitants of Romania are not the descendents of the Romanized-Dacians, but rather of the Romanized-Illyrians who migrated from the Adriatic Sea to Bulgaria, and then to what is now Romania during the Byzantine period.

Also, regarding technology, I aruge that they did not continue the Roman tradition of Science and Technology, but rather the Alexandrian/Hellenized form of learning. In my post last night I argued that the road system was more developed in the West and did not have the same results in the East due to terrain, climate, and culture. I also used engineering points that are too long to include. Famous examples of Roman engineering in the East such as the Aspendos aqueduct were constructed by (and for) Latin immigrants in Lycia.


Edited by Herschel - 20-Aug-2006 at 11:39
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.