Rome/constantinople Etc...

[Spartan19]

Hey, could someone please explain to me how the "main" Roman empire descended into having split empires with 2 capitols and what part Byzantian(sp) and Constantinople had to do with it?

Thanks.

[pompeius magnus]

in brief, constantine moved capital to his newly built capital at constantinople around 4th century AD. gradually the two parts split into eastern and western. Rome fell to Aleric in the 6th century and ceased to exist as an empire, although the eastern part lasted until it was conquered by the Ottoman turks in the 15th century through gradually eatting away the territories of the byzantines. The issue of when the eastern empire ceased to be roman is very debatable as the latin kingdoms in the west thought of it as greek during the first crusades, and I argue that the date it became more greek than roman was in 1054 with the great schism.

[Spartan19]

Ok, I think I got it, so Constantinople was the capitol for the eastern empire while Rome was the capitol for the west? Didnt the Eastern empire turn into the Byzantine empire or something, or how did it fit in?

Thanks.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Revenna was basically where the politics of the Emperor were conducted after 400A.D.

Rome was literaly a rat infested dump by then.

[Ursus]

It was also easier for the imperial court to flee by sea at Ravenna, which was a prudent concern by that time.

[Hamilcar Barca]

Rome fell to Aleric in the 6th century and ceased to exist as an empire, although the eastern part lasted until it was conquered by the Ottoman turks in the 15th century through gradually eatting away the territories of the byzantines. The issue of when the eastern empire ceased to be roman is very debatable as the latin kingdoms in the west thought of it as greek during the first crusades, and I argue that the date it became more greek than roman was in 1054 with the great schism.

 

 

Actually, Alaric died in 410AD after he sacked Rome. But the Roman Empire was not officially ended until the last Emperor Romulus Augutus was deposed in 476AD by the Germanic chieftan Odoacer. As for the Byzantines, they officially became Greek when Heraclius came to power to power in 610AD. He was the first to refer to himself as Basileus, the Greek word for Emperor which would be continued by his successors. He also phased out Latin as the empire's official language and replaced it with Greek.

[pompeius magnus]

My apologies for some incorrect dates, like I have said before, I am a man of the Republic and my knowledge of the empire is a little vague right now.

[Sebastianus]

It was not inevitable that Constantinople (a greek city state called Byzantion had been in place since the 6th century BC) would be the capital of the Eastern Empire.

 

Constantine like many of the later emperors resided in capitals closer to the frontiers along the Rhine/Danube/ or Eastern frontiers. Milan, Trier, Nicomedia and Antioch among others had been employed as imperial capitals by emperors before Constantine.

 

Constantine choose a location in the east for his capital because the eastern part was much richer than the west. and the principal recruiting grounds for the army had shifted to the east. He choose the site of the old greek town of Byzantion because of it's easily defendable placement like a horn out into the Marmara lake. It also had a natural and easily defendable harbor as well as being situated between Europe and Asia and between the Mediterranean and the Black sea.

 

There's no doubt that Constantine wanted the city to rival Rome or at least be the equal of Rome. He tried to persuade old senatorial family's of Rome to move to the new capital. But it wasn't until the early 5th century that the emperors resided there on a regular basis.

 

The actual division of the empire was officially done by Diocletian the initiator of the tetrachy (the four emperor system) of the late 3 century AD. He devided the empire between two 'senior' emperors with the title Augustus, and two deputy (junior) emperors with the title Caesar.

 

The division between the eastern and western half of the empire was made along the line of the where the Latin and Greek languages dominated repectively. Greek in the east and Latin in the west.

 

This system collapsed when Constantine gathered absolute power for himself. But in willing the empire to his three sons Constantine re-instated the division at his death. Constantine's son Constantius II eventually became sole emperor, but then appointed a deputy (Caesar) to help with ruling. Thus in fact dividing the empire again, but this time with only one senior ruler.

 

The two emperor system was what persisted (with the short sole rules of Julian and Theodosius the Great as exceptions) until the end of the Western empire in 476 AD. The division along language barriers was permanented under Theodosius the Great's sons Honorius and Arcadius. Generally the eastern emperor was percieved as the senior partner, because of his greater power, and the increasing troubles in the west during the 5th century.

 

The eastern empire though greek speaking used Latin in all official documents up until the emperor Heraclius rule, when it was changed to greek.

 

The citizens of the 'Eastern Roman Empire' never looked at themselves as greek, they were Romans living in the Roman Empire, as the greek speaking world had done for at least half a millenium by then.

 

This idea of them being Roman continued until the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. Even after the fall while the former citizens of the Estern Empire lived in the Turkish Ottoman Empire they never looked at themselves as greeks, but always as Romans.

 

Indeed the term 'greek' was a offensive to them (because of its connotation with pagan beliefs). That is why it was popularly used in the west to annoy the Eastern Romans.

 

To this day you can find greeks who look upon Constantines city (Eastern Rome) as their capitol, not the 'greek' Athens.

 

I believe that in naming states one should, as much as possible, use the term that would have been satisfactory to the then inhabitants of the state. In this case it would not be the 'Byzantine Empire' something that too much recalls the 'greek' (pagan) heritage of the site of Constantinople. The only name that would satisfy the 'Eastern Romans' would be 'The Roman Empire' maybe with the addition of the geographical term of Eastern.

 

btw 'Hamilcar Barca' Basileus is not the greek word for Emperor, but it's the greek word for King. But in a supreme effort of selfdenial the eastern romans managed to collectively convince themselves that Basileus was a direct translation of Augustus Caesar. Thus avoiding having to feel bad about using a non-roman and hellenic-pagan title.

 

To answer your question Spartan 19. The Empire was divided because it became to much to handle for just one emperor (because of constant invasions). This division eventually became permanent during the 5th century. Constantinople (Byzantion) had by then become the capitol city in the east. In the west Rome was still the nominal capital, but the emperors resided in safer Ravenna. When the west collapsed in 476 AD there were only one Roman emperor left the ruler of the Eastern Roman Empire. By the 7th century, the greek language took over as the imperial language in the Eastern Roman Empire. Some historians (totally missguided in my opinion) have marked this event by renaming the state The Byzantine Empire. But in fact besides the use of greek as an official language very little had changed. It was still Roman institutions which ruled the empire, the citizens lived by Roman law, the read roman historians, and roman litterature, they dressed in roman fashion, they percieved themselves as Roman.

 

In fact the new barbarian rulers in the west acknowledged the status of the eastern emperor as the sole Roman Emperor, trying to legitimate their rule of the old western roman provinces, by getting titles from the Roman emperor.

 

So the name the Byzantine Empire is just an invention of historians of the 18th century. In fact the state that was founded on seven hills in 753 BC lasted until the Turks conquered the last remnant in 1453 AD. The Romans lasted over 2000 years!

 

Sorry this was a bit too long

[Primus Pilus]

Rather than repost my own very brief synopsis on this subject...

 

Related topic

[Hamilcar Barca]

Basileus is not the greek word for Emperor, but it's the greek word for King[/quote

 

Yeah, but the two serve the same purpose. The point is the Greek itself and what I was saying is that this is when the Byzantines (Eastern Romans as you insist) adopted the Greek language.

[Ursus]

The citizens of the 'Eastern Roman Empire' never looked at themselves as greek, they were Romans living in the Roman Empire, as the greek speaking world had done for at least half a millenium by then. 

 

 

Good point. When the Pope crowned Charles the Great as "Holy Roman Emperor" didn't the regime in Constantinople bristle, considering itself the only rightful Roman government?

[Sebastianus]

When Charles the Great was crowned by the Pope Leo III, the Romans were ruled by a woman, Irene. And because there was no precident for an officially ruling empress, she had styled herself as emperor (basileus).

 

The Pope in a masterstroke of political machination, therefore considered the Roman imperial throne empty (not recognizing a woman as ruler) and was able to legitimately crown Charles Roman Emperor without the trouble of getting consent from the (senior) ruler in the East.

 

Even more than 300 years after the fall of the west these legal wranglings were necessary to offset the still very rigid tradition of the dual imperial system developed through the 3rd to the 5th century AD.

 

Then of course the floodgates were opened. The papacy could consider themselves and the Western emperors that followed, right up until the fall of the last habsburgs in 1918, the senior part in the dual imperial system. Thereby not requiring the consent of the Roman Emperor at Constantinople.

 

Of course the Eastern Throne was appropriated by the Russian Grand Dukes at Moscow after the fall of Constantinople in AD 1453 (by marriage with a Roman princess) styling Moscow as the 'Third Rome'. Thus the dual imperial system originally concieved by the Romans lived on (although somewhat changed) until both the Habsburgs and the Romanovs fell during the 1st World War.

 

There was an upset reaction from the Romans, but they could do very little. Furthermore Charles attacked the Romans and being still weakened by the century long great struggle against the Arabs and the inner strife of iconoclasm they were not able to stop him effectively. And what happened didn't help the legitimacy of Irene as emperor. She was deposed in 802. The Eastern Romans eventually acknowledged Charles as Roman Emperor in the west, as a result of a peace treaty in AD 812. But the emperors at Constantinople never regained their senior status in the west.

 

This is a very compressed account of the motivations behind the crowning of Charles, there were more factors, but I'm trying to be shorter than above. ;-)

[dnewhous]

When Charles the Great was crowned by the Pope Leo III, the Romans were ruled by a woman, Irene. And because there was no precident for an officially ruling empress, she had styled herself as emperor (basileus).

 

The Pope in a masterstroke of political machination, therefore considered the Roman imperial throne empty (not recognizing a woman as ruler) and was able to legitimately crown Charles Roman Emperor without the trouble of getting consent from the (senior) ruler in the East.

 

I thought that the empires were formally divided in 2 in 396. I suppose no one took the "formal" division seriously then?

 

By "formal" I was supposing based on earlier info that the two emperors were separate but equal at that point.

[Augur]

What well-structured, ambitious posts Subastianus, nicely done. One small item.

 

 

"Diocletian the initiator of the tetrachy...

[Guest Silencio]

Actually Heraklius did not turn the Eastern Roman Empire into a Greek one. He himself was Armenian. And his name - Flavius Heraclius, clearly shows what he thought of himself.