Where does the Byzantine Empire begin?

[Belisarius Ryan]

This is a question I have floated around in my head since I was 12: at what point in history does the Roman Empire begin and the Byzantine Empire begin? Every history book on the subject seems to have a different answer. I am listing several possible points in time that could be considered the definitive turning point of the Eastern Empire (i.e. when it became Byzantine and ceased to be Roman). Please tell me which is the best answer, in your opinion. If I didn't list a date you believe to be the definitive answer, then please offer your own answer.

 

a) 286: Diocletian appoints a co-emperor to rule one half of the Roman Empire

c. 330: Constantine makes Nova Roma/Byzantium/Constantinople the new capital, thus shifting the cultural and economic centers to the eastern regions of the Roman Empire.

c) 395: the death of Theodosius the Great, the last emperor to rule over a unified empire. (it was after his death that many of the Eastern emperors began ignoring the western half altogether.

d) 476/480: Romulus Augustus deposed in 476; Julius Nepos, last western emperor legitimately recognized by the eastern empire dies in 480.

e) 565: Justinian the Great dies. Not long after his death, many of the western provinces he reconquered fall back into the hands of the Germanic barbarians in the west.

f) 610: Heracleus becomes emperor. He makes Greek (already the dominant language in the east) the official language of the empire.

g) era of Charlemagne: circa 800, the pope crowns him Roman Emperor. As a result the eastern roman empire begins to be referenced as byzantine, not roman, by inhabitants of western europe.

[Belisarius Ryan]

I meant to type this in the previous post. I don't really see any one of these dates as turning point. I believe the Eastern Roman Empire gradually evolved into a Greek/Byzantine Empire as the Western Empire gradually declined and splintered into the beginnings of the nations of middle age and renaissance era europe. I still think of Justinian as a Roman and not a Byzantine, although he was a far leap from the Italian born emperors such as Augustuts and Tiberius. If I had to pick only one of those dates, I would go with 610 or 800.

[Northern Neil]

I believe 610 is the most widely accepted date, when Heraclius overhauled the administration of the Empire, and Greek was finally adopted as its official language of government. Prior to this the Empire still appears in historical atlases as the 'Eastern Roman Empire'.

[Ingsoc]

What intresting is if they were a time were the citizens of the eastern empire stop seeing themself as Romans and begin to think of themself as Greeks.

[Belisarius Ryan]

What intresting is if they were a time were the citizens of the eastern empire stop seeing themself as Romans and begin to think of themself as Greeks.

 

I think they considered themselves Romans right up to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. I think it was mainly western europeans that began to see them as 'byzantines' and not romans. Most historians refer to anything later than the 6th century as byzantine, but Toynbee refers to the late byantine empire as the eastern roman empire in A Study of History. The important thing to remember is that they were indeed the inheritors of the roman empire. The eastern empire evolved into a state that was essentially greek, but it was still a hellenistic entity, just as the roman republic and early empire was. In some ways the western european states of the early middle ages were just as roman as the byzantine empire. Althought the last legitimate western emperor was deposed in the 5th century, roman citizens did not simply vanish with the appearance of barbarians such as Odoacer and Theodoric, who basically modeled their governments after what had been used by the romans already. Also, the catholic church, which was probably the major unifying force in medieval western europe, was closely based on the roman imperial government. Even the russian czars after 1453 considered themselves the rulers of the "third rome" however different their culture was from that of Augustus or Justinian or even Basil II.

[Divi Filius]

I believe that the Eastern Romans began to think of itself as more of what we may consider "Greek" when the differences between it and the Latin west became more and more apparent. Especially in the period around the 4th Crusade, when the western Latins became completely vilified.

 

However, this is an impossible question to answer since its questionable whether the eastern portions of the Empire ever considered themselves truly "Roman" to begin with.

Edited January 23, 2008 by Divi Filius

[Belisarius Ryan]

Indeed.

 

Byzantine makes more sense anyway, as it was Constantinople (Byzantium), not Rome, which existed as the cultural and economic nerve center of the Eastern Empire.

 

However, I can see why many citizens of the Byzantine Empire may have taken pride in calling themselves "Roman," just as many U.S. citizens seem to pride themselves on the fact that they are "American". The Roman Empire (especially in the east) was comprised of a diverse population of various ethnic groups, just as the U.S. is now. What gave them a common identity was a sense of pride in knowing (or believing) they were part of the greatest civilization in the world, just as many Americans seem to do in current times.

[Northern Neil]

Maybe it is more helpful to regard 610 as the start of the Byzantine 'phase' of the Empire, whilst recognising that the actual state itself was still the same entity as the one set up by the Romans. I think that slowly but surely the term 'Byzantine Empire' is starting to lose ground, as I see the term 'Eastern Roman Empire ' used increasingly in textbooks, historical atlases etc. even after 610. And about time too! Egypt is not given a different name when the Libyan Pharaohs take over, and the Chinese Empire does not have a different name when it enters a different cultural phase. Indeed, the Persian Empire keeps its name despite the 500 year break between the Achaemenid Dynasty and the Sassanids!

 

Although the Empire was officially re-unified with the deposition of Romulus Augustus, it is perhaps useful to keep the name 'Eastern Roman Empire' to recognise "the many differences between the Roman Empire of Constantinople, and the Classical Empire of Rome"(Colin McEvedy, Penguin Atlas of Medieval History).

[Tobias]

The people of the Later Roman Empire always considered themselves "Romans". By that stage, it can probably be surmised that the original ethnic stereotype of the "typical Roman" had been lost, and to them, the term Roman now referred to them; not surprising considering the swing of the seat of power from West to East. Even as late as the 20th century, individuals in certain parts of Greece still called themselves "Rhomaioi"

 

If you will allow me to be slightly pedantic, the Later Roman Empire was never known as the "Byzantine Empire" at any point during it's existence. It was only after the fall of Constantinople - and after more than a hundred years at that - that a German chap named Hieronymus Wolf compiled his work called Corpus Historiae Byzantinae, which was in 1557. After that, various French writers and historians made the term popular, and in order to define the Empire as opposed to the modern state of Greece, the term really took off.

 

Here is a website that might give you another insight into the difference (or the similarities) between the time periods.

[Kosmo]

Maybe it is more helpful to regard 610 as the start of the Byzantine 'phase' of the Empire, whilst recognising that the actual state itself was still the same entity as the one set up by the Romans. I think that slowly but surely the term 'Byzantine Empire' is starting to lose ground, as I see the term 'Eastern Roman Empire ' used increasingly in textbooks, historical atlases etc. even after 610. And about time too! Egypt is not given a different name when the Libyan Pharaohs take over, and the Chinese Empire does not have a different name when it enters a different cultural phase. Indeed, the Persian Empire keeps its name despite the 500 year break between the Achaemenid Dynasty and the Sassanids!

 

Although the Empire was officially re-unified with the deposition of Romulus Augustus, it is perhaps useful to keep the name 'Eastern Roman Empire' to recognise "the many differences between the Roman Empire of Constantinople, and the Classical Empire of Rome"(Colin McEvedy, Penguin Atlas of Medieval History).

 

For me the name Byzantine Empire it's something like a phase of the roman state like Late Republic or Principate and NOT the name of a different state.

 

The roman state was born as a city with some land around in the valley of Tiber and died as a city with some land around in Bosfor.

[Divi Filius]

The ultimate question comes down to: what is Roman? This was an empire that(if we use the term "empire", in the literal sense) started around the 2nd c. BC. It was an empire that underwent continuous change. Would a Roman citizen of the Principate find himself at home under, say, the Constantinian era? I doubt it. Rome was always changing as was the definition of "Roman". But, I cant consider the "Byzantine era" to be a phase of the Roman Empire simply because the changes are radical. A Roman from the republic could be placed in the principate and would be able to adjust himself. We could not say so for the Byzantine world.

 

What I would say, however, is that the Byzantine Empire was a child of the Roman world, a descendant, but not direct continuation. It became a unique entity as it itself evolved throughout its centuries of life. It would be an injustice to the Byzantine studies also if we simply look at its entire period as a declining Roman leftover...

Edited January 31, 2008 by Divi Filius

[DecimusCaesar]

1453 is usually seen as the end of the Byzantine Empire (even though a part of it survived in the form of the empire of Trebizond till 1461) because the Turks took over the Imperial regalia. In AD 477, Odoacer sent the Imperial regalia to Zeno at Constantinople. Could AD 477 therefore be considered as the breakaway date, considering that Odoacer had sent the imperial symbols of Rome to the Emperor at Byzantium?

 

One interesting thing to note - Zeno ordered Odoacer to accept Julius Nepos as Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, which would imply that the rulers of Byzantium did not see the fall of Rome to Odoacer as a breakaway point.

Edited January 31, 2008 by DecimusCaesar

[Kosmo]

The ultimate question comes down to: what is Roman? This was an empire that(if we use the term "empire", in the literal sense) started around the 2nd c. BC. It was an empire that underwent continuous change. Would a Roman citizen of the Principate find himself at home under, say, the Constantinian era? I doubt it. Rome was always changing as was the definition of "Roman". But, I cant consider the "Byzantine era" to be a phase of the Roman Empire simply because the changes are radical. A Roman from the republic could be placed in the principate and would be able to adjust himself. We could not say so for the Byzantine world.

 

What I would say, however, is that the Byzantine Empire was a child of the Roman world, a descendant, but not direct continuation. It became a unique entity as it itself evolved throughout its centuries of life. It would be an injustice to the Byzantine studies also if we simply look at its entire period as a declining Roman leftover...

 

A portuguese from 1350 would be thoroughly cofused in today Lisabon, but it will still be in Portugal and today's Portugal it's the same state that was in 1350.

I like roman history because of the blend of continuity and change spanning for a huge period.

[Silentium]

Maybe it is more helpful to regard 610 as the start of the Byzantine 'phase' of the Empire, whilst recognising that the actual state itself was still the same entity as the one set up by the Romans. I think that slowly but surely the term 'Byzantine Empire' is starting to lose ground, as I see the term 'Eastern Roman Empire ' used increasingly in textbooks, historical atlases etc. even after 610. And about time too! Egypt is not given a different name when the Libyan Pharaohs take over, and the Chinese Empire does not have a different name when it enters a different cultural phase. Indeed, the Persian Empire keeps its name despite the 500 year break between the Achaemenid Dynasty and the Sassanids!

 

Although the Empire was officially re-unified with the deposition of Romulus Augustus, it is perhaps useful to keep the name 'Eastern Roman Empire' to recognise "the many differences between the Roman Empire of Constantinople, and the Classical Empire of Rome"(Colin McEvedy, Penguin Atlas of Medieval History).

I agree. The Eastern Empire was considered the legitimate heir of the Classical one, one further proof is provided by art history. It is to Byzantine models and iconography that the early medieval kings who wanted to legitimise their power (at least in the Italian Paeninsula) turned to. I'm thinking of the Normans in Sicily, who called byzantine artists to decorate their residences and cathedrals and adopted the byzantine cerimonial, and also of Venice - San Marco for example is built after a VI century Constantinopolitan church, the Apostol

Edited February 1, 2008 by Silentium

[Gaius Octavius]

Perhaps, a bit off topic, but I believe that mediaeval kings sought sanction for their crowns from the Emperor at Constantinople.