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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Byzantine or Roman?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361 		  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Byzantine or Roman?
    Posted: 09-Dec-2005 at 01:44
Originally posted by Alkiviades


So, are we all agreed that Byzantium is Rome and move on?




I don't think there was ever any serious doubt in the first place.
How can you argue with a people that understood themselves as Romans till the better end, and were understood by all, save the barbarian upstarts in the West, as the only rightful successors of the concept of a Roman Empire.
Where to go next? Where was the "New Byzantium"? Was it the old one in a new Turkish guise or was it Moscow, the heir of the Imperial Orthodox tradition?
Answers in many old threads, or on postcards please!
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565 		  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2005 at 02:10
Well, I don't agree that Byzantium is Rome like that. Rome is the city of Rome and, while this belonged to Byzantium for some time, it was longer the time that it belonged to other (Western) entities.

Also, you can just ignore the huge remaining influence, able even to transform Germans and other barbarians, and say that Rome vanished in the West. Culturally it didn't and that is probably the most important fact.

And this is not because I personally feel related to Rome or I think that my nation is. No. In fact my nation is one of the exceptions: one of the few countries that do not have a Roman legal tradition, one of the few in which Romance was a foreign language, in which the legacy of Rome was basically supressed by the anti-feudal Bagauda... But I know what is around me and they are damn Romans: call them Spaniards, call them French, call them Italians... they are all Neo-Romans speaking Neo-Latin and having a Neo-Roman law in cities that were often founded or by Romans and following (often) a religion that is centered in Rome and which was the oficial religion of the late Roman Empire.

There are no Frankish roads nor Visigothic bridges nor Lombard aqueducts nor Burgundian theatres. Got the idea?

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
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: 12-Dec-2005 at 04:17

In my opinion the Byzantine Empire was technically the same state than the ancient Roman Empire. On the other hand it was gradually changed. I think it is natural during a 1000 years.

The western empire ceased to exist in 476. Naturally it has an tremendous impact and has many heirs, but the Roman state vanquished.

I usually called the empire Eastern Roman Empire before Heraclius and Byzantine Empire after him.



Edited by Raider
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711 		  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 05:34
Byzantium is the true heir of Rome. To say that it is not because certain characterists were different is not satisfactor, the Roman state was always adapting to the circumstances in which it found itself and Byzantium was the logical continuation of the evolution. As an autocratic state whose territories encompased some of Rome's richest and most defensible territories, Byzantium was the only state in the world which could claim an unbroken succession of Emperors dating back to Augustus himself.
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: 12-Dec-2005 at 08:08

Constantine XI.

I disagree with the word heir. The Byzantine Empire as a state was the same as the Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire or the Papacy would be the heir of the western empire, but I think the Byzantine empire was the Roman Empire itself (or herself ???).
Back to Top
tadamson View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451 		  Quote tadamson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 08:35
Originally posted by Maju

Well, I don't agree that Byzantium is Rome like that. Rome is the city of Rome and, while this belonged to Byzantium for some time, it was longer the time that it belonged to other (Western) entities.


Remember,  whilst we might call them Byzantines, they always called themselves Romans, and the city (Constantinople) was officialy 'New Rome'.
rgds.

      Tom..
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231 		  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 08:36

 I look at Byzantium more as a continuation more than an heir, at the death of the western empire the entire eastern empire was intact, just as it had always been. Byzantium was one half of the Roman world when the western half was alive so why cant it be THE whole Roman world when the western half died?

 There isnt really an inheritance just a continuation, it was Roman when the empire was united, it was Roman when the empire was split and it continued to be Roman until the empire itself was destroyed, regardless of how different it looked, how big it was or what language it spoke IMO.
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565 		  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 10:54
Originally posted by Heraclius

 I look at Byzantium more as a continuation more than an heir, at the death of the western empire the entire eastern empire was intact, just as it had always been. Byzantium was one half of the Roman world when the western half was alive so why cant it be THE whole Roman world when the western half died?



The western Roman world didn't die. That's my point. The only thing that died were the state institutions, the concept of empire. But Romanity was alive and kicking in the streets and fields of Western Europe. We talk of Gallo-Romans of Ibero-Romans of Britano-Romans... who were they if they weren't Romans? The transitions to new nationalities would take still many centuries... that's why the Empire was resurrected: because it was an element of shared identity.

Here maybe more important than language or religion it was the feeling that the remaining Roman Empire wasn't there and wasn't theirs anymore. I don't care how legitimate was Byzantium... it was bussy in the east and was near to powerless and disinterested in the west. It wasn't the empire of Western Romans but just a distant cousin. The only Roman authority in the west was that of the Germanic kings and the Church of Rome.

But the people were Romans.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151 		  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 11:34
That would be saying that the Britishness didn't die in the U.S., Australia, Canada, India, etc., which is true, but doesn't have a lot of real meaning. In fact, when Byzantium was losing its territories, the concept of Roman was also passed on to the Turks. This same concept also traveled into Russia and Moscow was known as the Third Rome. So Medieval Western Europe was not the only one who took the concept of "Roman". So in this case, by self-proclaimed identity, the Romanovs were as Roman as the Germanics.

Also as for the Germanic Kings, the Holy Roman Empire was for the most part, not Holy, not Roman, and not an Empire.


Edited by Imperator Invictus
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565 		  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 12:03
I never said that Rome belongs only to Western Europe. Obviously its influence is much lager. But one can't deny that Western Europe, particularly Romance-speaking countries are natural heirs of Rome, at least as much as Byzantium.

People tend to emphasize the political structure when talking about this issue and it's clear that's not the most important thing: culture and identity are much more important.

And you are right in comparing with the British colonies: they are heirs of the British Empire as much as Britain itself is. The same can be said about other empires' offsprings. Yet, in the case of Rome is even more obvious, as Italy (the Imperial motherland, comparable to England in your example) wasn't but temporarily part of the Eastern Empire and in any case not anymore its center.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151 		  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 12:25
I guess that mainly comes down to an opinion, but there are two points I want to raise.

1. Then by that logic, the United States is just as much of an "heir" to the British Empire as is modern Britian. If you might say that modern Britian was the heart of the British Empire and that Constantinople was not the heart of the Roman Empire - I must disagree because starting at Constantine's reign, Byzantium was the real heart of the Roman Empire.

2. The problem with cultural heirs is not that its wrong, but that it becomes too "diluted" for a significance. Then by the same argument, the Sultanate of Rum and the Russian Romanov dynasty are natural heirs of the Roman Empire at least as much as Byzantium and the HRE. Why not just say that the whole mediterranean and Europe are heirs of the Roman Empire.


Edited by Imperator Invictus
Back to Top
Alkiviades View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 01-Sep-2005
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 469 		  Quote Alkiviades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 00:10
OK, here is a nice compromise:

- Byzantium was the Roman Empire. No "heir" or anything.
- The whole mediterranean and Euerope are "heirs" to the Roman Empire

Leg one should keep all of us minus Maju satisfied.
And leg two is there for Maju's sake
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 01:00

 For me without Rome there is no Byzantines and mind you for me the Roman Empire actually died in 1453 AD and not 476 AD as history says. the west part of the empire just decayed but the eastern part is still flourishing during the Dark Ages..

Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151 		  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 00:33
the Roman Empire actually died in 1453 AD and not 476 AD


I don't know. One day, a bunch of Trebizond fans might pop up in these forums.


Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565 		  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 03:12
Originally posted by Alkiviades

OK, here is a nice compromise:

- Byzantium was the Roman Empire. No "heir" or anything.
- The whole mediterranean and Euerope are "heirs" to the Roman Empire

Leg one should keep all of us minus Maju satisfied.
And leg two is there for Maju's sake


Yes I'm not totally satisfied: Byz was the Eastern Roman Empire, that's half of the original Roman Empire. Therefore it can't be THE Roman Empire, just the EASTERN Roman Empire, with all its particularities. The Western half (the Latin one, btw) was diluted in several kingdoms. That is satisfactory.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Nagyfejedelem View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 19-Aug-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 431 		  Quote Nagyfejedelem Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 15:36
Hungarian hystorians called Byzantium Later-Roman Empire.
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231 		  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 15:59

Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by Alkiviades

OK, here is a nice compromise:

- Byzantium was the Roman Empire. No "heir" or anything.
- The whole mediterranean and Euerope are "heirs" to the Roman Empire

Leg one should keep all of us minus Maju satisfied.
And leg two is there for Maju's sake


Yes I'm not totally satisfied: Byz was the Eastern Roman Empire, that's half of the original Roman Empire. Therefore it can't be THE Roman Empire, just the EASTERN Roman Empire, with all its particularities. The Western half (the Latin one, btw) was diluted in several kingdoms. That is satisfactory.

 I'm so confused  it'll always just come down to opinion in the end and interpretation.

  II is right what if a bunch of Trebizond fans come along and start saying 1461 is the most important date and not 1453 and the true end of the Roman empire argh!

A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711 		  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 19:46
Originally posted by Heraclius

Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by Alkiviades

OK, here is a nice compromise:

- Byzantium was the Roman Empire. No "heir" or anything.
- The whole mediterranean and Euerope are "heirs" to the Roman Empire

Leg one should keep all of us minus Maju satisfied.
And leg two is there for Maju's sake


Yes I'm not totally satisfied: Byz was the Eastern Roman Empire, that's half of the original Roman Empire. Therefore it can't be THE Roman Empire, just the EASTERN Roman Empire, with all its particularities. The Western half (the Latin one, btw) was diluted in several kingdoms. That is satisfactory.

 I'm so confused  it'll always just come down to opinion in the end and interpretation.

  II is right what if a bunch of Trebizond fans come along and start saying 1461 is the most important date and not 1453 and the true end of the Roman empire argh!

Stuff it, I'll just ban them all!

Back to Top
Alkiviades View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 01-Sep-2005
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 469 		  Quote Alkiviades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2005 at 03:17
Originally posted by Constantine XI

Originally posted by Heraclius

Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by Alkiviades

OK, here is a nice compromise:

- Byzantium was the Roman Empire. No "heir" or anything.
- The whole mediterranean and Euerope are "heirs" to the Roman Empire

Leg one should keep all of us minus Maju satisfied.
And leg two is there for Maju's sake


Yes I'm not totally satisfied: Byz was the Eastern Roman Empire, that's half of the original Roman Empire. Therefore it can't be THE Roman Empire, just the EASTERN Roman Empire, with all its particularities. The Western half (the Latin one, btw) was diluted in several kingdoms. That is satisfactory.

 I'm so confused  it'll always just come down to opinion in the end and interpretation.

  II is right what if a bunch of Trebizond fans come along and start saying 1461 is the most important date and not 1453 and the true end of the Roman empire argh!

Stuff it, I'll just ban them all!

Damn, you people have a case against Trebizond! I protest! 

Are there no Pontians here to defend their homeland?

Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231 		  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2005 at 08:37
Originally posted by Alkiviades

Originally posted by Constantine XI

Originally posted by Heraclius

Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by Alkiviades

OK, here is a nice compromise:

- Byzantium was the Roman Empire. No "heir" or anything.
- The whole mediterranean and Euerope are "heirs" to the Roman Empire

Leg one should keep all of us minus Maju satisfied.
And leg two is there for Maju's sake


Yes I'm not totally satisfied: Byz was the Eastern Roman Empire, that's half of the original Roman Empire. Therefore it can't be THE Roman Empire, just the EASTERN Roman Empire, with all its particularities. The Western half (the Latin one, btw) was diluted in several kingdoms. That is satisfactory.

 I'm so confused  it'll always just come down to opinion in the end and interpretation.

  II is right what if a bunch of Trebizond fans come along and start saying 1461 is the most important date and not 1453 and the true end of the Roman empire argh!

Stuff it, I'll just ban them all!

Damn, you people have a case against Trebizond! I protest! 

Are there no Pontians here to defend their homeland?

  @ Con

 This is outrageously complicated, have barely included the existance of the 3rd Rome/Moscow or the supposed inheritance by the Ottomans. *brain melts*
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
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 0.086 seconds.