How The Byzantines Viewed The Earlier Romans

[Parius]

We know that the "Byzantines" considered themselves Romans and took that fact very seriously.They came into conflict with the Western emperors more than once, over which empire was the "real" Roman.We know about the incident where Nicephorus Phocas threw the Papal embassadors to jail becaused they addresed him as emperor of the Greeks(instead of the Romans).

 

But what exactly did they mean with the word "Roman"?Looking at various writings and chronicles of the era,(e.g the Alexiad) you find a lot of references to early Christian emperors like Constantine the Great(of course),Justinian or Heraclius but very little for the "pagan" emperors.Actually the only ones that come to mind are the biographies of early christian martyrs where only the persecutions are mentioned...

 

And i seem to recall a passage from Liutprand, where he asks Nicephorus Phocas how can the "Byzantines" call themselves Romans, when they did nothing to protect the City of Rome from invaders.Phocas's response is something in the lines of "old" Rome falling to her enemies because it was too much connected with paganism and descendence."New" Rome(Constantinople) is the one that really matters now, because that's the city God himself "chose".

 

Was that pretty much the attitude the Byzantines had?That the Roman empire before Constantinople and Christianity, didn't deserve much interest or respect, because it was "pagan and degenerate"?

 

Curius to listen to your opinions..

[Honorius]

I dont think they fought eachother to prove they were the 'real' Roman Empire... and by the time Nicephorus rose to the throne of Byzantium the western empire had fallen unless you consider the frankish kingdom of Charlemagne a true successor to the western empire.

 

The Byzantines did retake Rome and defend it from the Goths but if your referring to the sacking of Rome in 410, 455 and the subesquent fall of the west in 476 you must remember that both halves weren't always on good terms. Also the fact that the eastern empire was at almost continual war with the Sassanids and the distance from Constantinople to Rome didnt help that much either.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I don't think it was a matter of who was Roman, but nothing other than political slandering because I think the real issue is sucession. Who would control over who after their predecessor. Calling the Greeks not Roman was merely an attempt at legitimizing the West's pursuit of domince over the east and vice versa with the East.

 

One instance concerns a Eastern Roman Empress, can't remember her name, but the Pope viciously tried to illegitimize her rule.

[Honorius]

I don't think it was a matter of who was Roman, but nothing other than political slandering because I think the real issue is sucession. Who would control over who after their predecessor. Calling the Greeks not Roman was merely an attempt at legitimizing the West's pursuit of domince over the east and vice versa with the East.

 

One instance concerns a Eastern Roman Empress, can't remember her name, but the Pope viciously tried to illegitimize her rule.

 

I believe your talking about Irene, the mother of Constantine Copronymous

[Parius]

I dont think they fought eachother to prove they were the 'real' Roman Empire... and by the time Nicephorus rose to the throne of Byzantium the western empire had fallen unless you consider the frankish kingdom of Charlemagne a true successor to the western empire.

 

The Byzantines did retake Rome and defend it from the Goths but if your referring to the sacking of Rome in 410, 455 and the subesquent fall of the west in 476 you must remember that both halves weren't always on good terms. Also the fact that the eastern empire was at almost continual war with the Sassanids and the distance from Constantinople to Rome didnt help that much either.

 

I was indeed refering to Charlemagne's kingdom and the later "Holy Roman empire" of Otto.But you are right, i don't consider them true successors to the western empire, i just used the term for convenience's sake.

 

It's been a while since i read that passage, but i believe that when Liutprand mentioned the "failure" of the Byzantines to protect Rome, he was talking about the 8th c. when the Pope turned to Pepin and his Franks for protection from the Lombards, instead of the Byzantines.

 

In any case, this wasnt my point. The reason i mentioned all these is to show the importance the Byzantines gave to the fact that they were the continuation of the Roman empire.What i'm interested in, is to get a picture of how they themselves(the Byzantines) saw,thought,felt,wrote about, etc. about the empire when it was still pagan and the capital located at Rome.

[Kosmo]

They really believed that they were romans. I think that our concept of ethnicty it's not the same with the roman one. All roman citizens of the empire were romans regardless of language. So, even when they started to use greek more in official acts they were still romans.

"byzantine" identity was based on christianity so their interest in the Republic and Early Empire was small.

From a political point this periods are even less important as the byzantines had a mix of christian ideology and absolute kingship divine. So, the absolute christian emperors of Late antiquity were the model and the direct predecessors of byzantine emperors.

[Gaius Octavius]

They meant exactly what we mean by 'Romans'. Constantinople was the 'Queen City', 'New Rome', 'The City'. Moscow styled itself the 'Third Rome' after Constantinople fell.

The kings of the west looked to 'The Emperor of the Romans' at Constantinople for ligitimacy, and addressed him thus.

'Byzantine' was an appplication of western writers during the alleged Dark Ages and perhaps used as a pejorative, referring back to The City's pre-Constantine name.

The so-called Byzantine emperors were as Roman as Diocletian if not Augustus.

I don't think that there ever was a conflict over which was the 'real' Rome between Romans. Perhaps only in the mind of early western writers.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Caius Maxentius]

This is a fascinating question. It dovetails with the question of who considered themselves Romans, when and why.

 

What was implied by the phrase, "I am a Roman?" This must have changed dramatically over the centuries. It went from meaning that one had the Roman franchise, could hold public office and vote; by the fifth century and after, Christianity was an important part of what was implied by such a statement, and the Republican traditions had mostly faded away.

 

Obviously, the Roman identity was strongly adopted in the Greek lands of the empire, but it doesn't seem to have been so strongly taken up by the Jews or the Egyptians, who did not fight much against the Arabs in the seventh century, and seem to have been fine with discarding Roman citizenship.

 

The so-called Byzantine emperors were as Roman as Diocletian if not Augustus.

 

Isn't this a bit like saying that Queen Elizabeth II is as English as Henry VIII if not Edward the Confessor? English, yes, but in very different ways. Edward would scarcely recognize Elizabeth's England, and wouldn't even speak the same language.

 

The Byzantines could point to continuities with the earlier Empire, but how different was their idea of Romanitas from that which people had during the high Empire? I would expect that there had been a lot of revision and change.

Edited July 26, 2006 by Caius Maxentius

[Gaius Octavius]

CM, one could say the very same of G. Washington and Peter the Great.

Q.E. II, of Saxe-Coburgh-Hesse, isn't as 'British' as Richard? Better not let Prince Charles get an earful of that!

During the so-called Dark Ages, western Europeans considered themselves Christians first and then French, German, etc.

The meaning of being a Roman did change, from perhaps strictly a noun to an adjective. Elagabulus, Aetius.

Cicero was from an "Italian" family; still a Roman.

Perhaps, being a Roman became and was and is a state of mind.

Romanus sum!

Edited July 26, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Lex]

How about this; they still regarded themselves as being "politically" Roman? I think being "Roman" for them meant adhering to the political and legal system of the Roman state. Being Roman meant subscribing to this political system.

 

I also don

Edited July 27, 2006 by Lex

[P.Clodius]

Well, right up until the turks took over they referred to themselves as 'Romaoi'...

[historyfanatic]

Actually from what I recall since most of the Byzantium population were of Hellenic ethniticity with smaller populations of Armenians, Jews, Assyrians they considered themselves Hellene and Orthodox Christians. As a matter of fact they wanted nothing to do with Western Rome they were actually considered barbarians.

[Gaius Octavius]

Read Michael Psellus.

[DecimusCaesar]

I read once that the last Emperor of Constantinople, Constantine XI made a speech to the defenders of the city, telling them not to be afraid of the Ottoman turks, for he reminded them that their ancestors- the Romans, had not been afraid when they had faced Hannibal and his elephants.

[Kosmo]

For a byzantine "hellene" was an insult and it was used and taken as such. They were "romanoi" not until the ottoman conquest, but until the nationalist revolution of 1821.