Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, I think you are not understanding. It is not too strong...it is LITERAL. They never referred to themselves as "The Byzantines" or "Byzantium." Nor did anyone else in their times. There LITERALLY is no such thing. It is a made up fantasy.
They referred to themselves as Romans, their allies and enemies did the same. "Byzantine" is completely made up to create that false difference.
I am well aware of the fact they referred to themsleves as Romans. I believe the term "Byzantine" was credited to Montesquieu who wanted to separate the late empire from the Roman and Greek antiquity he loved so much. I just don't agree with your railing against the name as a classification used by modern historians for that particular time period of the Roman Empire. It's a classification and a way to differentiate "other" and there is enough "other" for it to take on its own identity separate from the classical Roman Empire.
Quote:
Also, that language change, though irrelevant anyway, is also nonsense two times over.
1) There is no primary source that confirms that this happened. It is part of the created fiction. There is no grand proclamation noted by any ancient author.
The language change had to do with the admnistrative language of the empire. 620 is chosen as the date, but it happens over that entire decade. The laws are all translated into Greek, amendments and decrees are written in Greek, daily administrative logs and books are written in Greek and the army adopts Greek as the standard language. Are you claiming that every manuscript written after 620 is a forgery to support some conspiracy to invent the Byzantine Empire? The change is known and proven beyond a doubt. The empires administration was pretty good at keeping records and after 620 they were all largely kept in Greek. Go ahead and find one academic source that disputes that administrative language was changed. On top of that we also have the emperor in 629 abandoning the use of the title "Caesar" and adopting the title "Basileus".
Quote:
2) The Lingua Franca of the Roman empire was ALWAYS a form of Greek known as koine.
...and even Koine changed during the 7th century and evolved into what is now called Medieval/Byzantine Greek which is a distinct subfamily of the Greek language. Unless of course you would now like to argue with every linguist as well.
Like it or not, by the 7th century the culture of the Eastern Roman Empire had changed to such a degree that it was "more different than similar" to classical Roman culture. This time period of the Eastern Roman Empire is now called "Byzantine". It's not that they called themsleves that, it's just a classification.
Quote:
As for the military overhaul, cavalry had become progressively more important since the second century, and infantry never stopped being important. Again, it was a very gradual evolution. The Romans had been fighting heavily in the east since the Mithradatic wars in the time of the Republic.
I was not hanging my hat solely on cavalry tactics which were an evolutionary process. Themes and Tagmata would have been foreign concepts to the Roman military organization. Within that we also see the Tagmata as being largely a cavalry force. Of the 22,000 or so troops of the Tagmata, 16,000 of them were cavalrymen that formed the actual "elite" professional core of the emperors army.
Ultimately, you want to argue a point of semantics that they weren't "Byzantine" they were "Roman" because that's what they called themselves. Fine, but you can't deny that the Eastern Empire beginning in the 7th century embodied a different culture. I guess you can deny it, but you need to prove it, not just say it.
I am well aware of the fact they referred to themsleves as Romans. I believe the term "Byzantine" was credited to Montesquieu who wanted to separate the late empire from the Roman and Greek antiquity he loved so much.
And you just hit the nail on the head beautifully. The division is ex post facto: artificial, illegitimate, anachronistic, foolish....based on absolutely nothing. It was the Roman empire...period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
I just don't agree with your railing against the name as a classification used by modern historians for that particular time period of the Roman Empire. It's a classification and a way to differentiate "other" and there is enough "other" for it to take on its own identity separate from the classical Roman Empire.
Again, you keep speaking the truth and coming to strange conclusions about it. It is a term used by modern historians to differentiate...they should not be differentiated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The language change had to do with the admnistrative language of the empire. 620 is chosen as the date, but it happens over that entire decade. The laws are all translated into Greek, amendments and decrees are written in Greek, daily administrative logs and books are written in Greek and the army adopts Greek as the standard language. Are you claiming that every manuscript written after 620 is a forgery to support some conspiracy to invent the Byzantine Empire? The change is known and proven beyond a doubt. The empires administration was pretty good at keeping records and after 620 they were all largely kept in Greek. Go ahead and find one academic source that disputes that administrative language was changed. On top of that we also have the emperor in 629 abandoning the use of the title "Caesar" and adopting the title "Basileus". .
No, I only stated that the proclamation of a change is fictional, and it is. Now that you have elaborated to delineate a gradual change we can agree. The more important points are that the change is irrelevant and that Greek was always a language of empire anyway. No civilization stays the same over 2000 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
...and even Koine changed during the 7th century and evolved into what is now called Medieval/Byzantine Greek which is a distinct subfamily of the Greek language. Unless of course you would now like to argue with every linguist as well.
Languages evolve over time. This is not an important point. The important part is that Greek language and more broadly culture were always part of the Roman empire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Like it or not, by the 7th century the culture of the Eastern Roman Empire had changed to such a degree that it was "more different than similar" to classical Roman culture.
As the Kingship was different than the Republic, as the Republic was different than the Empire. We don't have the need to call any of those entities by fake names because political entities evolved. Nor does it have anything to do with what I like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
This time period of the Eastern Roman Empire is now called "Byzantine". It's not that they called themsleves that, it's just a classification.
You have completely deviated from what the original question of the thread is. Always ask yourself if you are addressing what the OP is a asking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
I was not hanging my hat solely on cavalry tactics which were an evolutionary process. Themes and Tagmata would have been foreign concepts to the Roman military organization. Within that we also see the Tagmata as being largely a cavalry force. Of the 22,000 or so troops of the Tagmata, 16,000 of them were cavalrymen that formed the actual "elite" professional core of the emperors army
All very interesting, but not largely relevant. It does not change that fact that this was still the Roman empire. Rome's military tactics altered a lot over 2000 years. I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Ultimately, you want to argue a point of semantics that they weren't "Byzantine" they were "Roman" because that's what they called themselves. Fine, but you can't deny that the Eastern Empire beginning in the 7th century embodied a different culture. I guess you can deny it, but you need to prove it, not just say it.
This is much greater than a semantical issue. The current historical narrative has the Roman empire falling in the fifth centaury when it actually fell in the fifteenth. The OP apparently just stumbled onto this fact, and I am letting him know that he is absolutely correct. And he is.
Last edited by cachibatches; 02-06-2014 at 11:24 PM..
You have completely deviated from what the original question of the thread is. Always ask yourself if you are addressing what the OP is a asking.
This is much greater than a semantical issue. The current historical narrative has the Roman empire falling in the fifth centaury when it actually fell in the fifteenth. The OP apparently just stumbled onto this fact, and I am letting him know that he is absolutely correct. And he is.
I don't think we actually disagree with each other on any of these points. I did answer the OP in my first post in the thread. However, I did basically say that the measurement comes down to the individual historian; what they choose to measure and how they classify things. My argument with you was in your seemingly militant insistence that there is only one right answer. I don't think it as black and white and either do the vast majority of historians. However, you are very much entitled to your take on the matter.
No, this is incorrect. It is a name that was created Ex Post Facto to mark a differentiation that no one in the ancient and medieval worlds recognized or even conceived of. The point of inventing the term was explicitly to mark the differentiation.
16th century is after 1453.
China is merely a derivative of the Qin dynasty. The two are nothing alike. We don't look back and call the eastern half of the empire "Byzantine" during the time when the Western half was still functioning. So the parallel doesn't work on that level either.
Except that even in the Qin dynasty they didn't call it China and by the time Europeans finally came up with the term no one had used anything like Qin to describe it for millenia. If anything China has historically been called Han, Tang, or (Zhonghuo/the middle country at least since the Zhou), as a reference to the general area that is China, it is still called that today in China and (roughly) other parts of Asia such as Japan, thus why the actual name of the People Republic of China is "Zhonghuo Renmin Gongheguo" in fact "China" is derived from a Persian or Sanskrit likely coming from the Qin dynasty which takes its name from the historic state of Qin. In otherwords it is like calling the United States "Virginia". It is an invention that is actually more modern then the term Byzantine and and fairly similar to it when you consider Byzantine is basically derived from the ancient city on which Constantinople was built.
The fact is that it is by and large, Byzantine Empire, like China is more or less an accepted term and folks know what it means so we are basically arguing over semantics.
Either way I answered the OP in my first post that the time frame of the "Roman Empire" depends on how distant a person is willing to go in interpreting what is a successor state and if said successor state is legitimate to call itself "Roman"
As I said you could conceivably say that the Russian Empire was an extention of Rome until 1917 because of its ties with the Imperial Eastern or Byzantine bloodline and its role as the center of the Orthodox church. On the other hand you could argue Rome ended in 476. Either way it is a matter of interpretation.
I don't think we actually disagree with each other on any of these points. I did answer the OP in my first post in the thread. However, I did basically say that the measurement comes down to the individual historian; what they choose to measure and how they classify things. My argument with you was in your seemingly militant insistence that there is only one right answer. I don't think it as black and white and either do the vast majority of historians. However, you are very much entitled to your take on the matter.
Then lets agree that we agree because I actually quite like you and the knowledge that you bring.
I am trying to answer the OPs question as honestly as possible, which is:
Did Rome and its empire really last 2100 years?
The answer is indisputably: Yes.
There is no doubt that the Roman empire continued to evolve, and there is no denial that it is strange that the empire continued without Rome (accept for the brief re-conquests). It is difficult to think of a historical parallel.
But it was the Roman empire none-the-less. Any name a modern historian puts on it for a false differentiation is just for their own gratification, and I certainly do not recognize it.
Except that even in the Qin dynasty they didn't call it China and by the time Europeans finally came up with the term no one had used anything like Qin to describe it for millenia. If anything China has historically been called Han, Tang, or (Zhonghuo/the middle country at least since the Zhou), as a reference to the general area that is China, it is still called that today in China and (roughly) other parts of Asia such as Japan, thus why the actual name of the People Republic of China is "Zhonghuo Renmin Gongheguo" in fact "China" is derived from a Persian or Sanskrit likely coming from the Qin dynasty which takes its name from the historic state of Qin. In otherwords it is like calling the United States "Virginia". It is an invention that is actually more modern then the term Byzantine and and fairly similar to it when you consider Byzantine is basically derived from the ancient city on which Constantinople was built.
The fact is that it is by and large, Byzantine Empire, like China is more or less an accepted term and folks know what it means so we are basically arguing over semantics.
Either way I answered the OP in my first post that the time frame of the "Roman Empire" depends on how distant a person is willing to go in interpreting what is a successor state and if said successor state is legitimate to call itself "Roman"
As I said you could conceivably say that the Russian Empire was an extention of Rome until 1917 because of its ties with the Imperial Eastern or Byzantine bloodline and its role as the center of the Orthodox church. On the other hand you could argue Rome ended in 476. Either way it is a matter of interpretation.
No, what I said is correct. Perhaps I did not say it in the best say, and I can keep trying until it is understood.
"China" is merely a foreign (western) name for a civilization. This is a quite common and standard practice. Lots of contemporary civilizations do this from afar. (Unlike many such attempts, the name indeed tries to incorporate original names, Quin=Chin, but this is largely irrelevant).
No foreign civilization ever called the roman Empire (which is the correct name) the "Byzantines." It is truly, and astonishingly unique.
This name was made up ex-post facto.
We sometimes name civilizations that we have no other good name for (the Olmecs, for example). but if a name is known, either to one side or the other (based on a western perspective) we do not make up a name hundreds of years later for the explicit purpose of splitting them off of another group.
China is a very inappropriate example.
Let us be clear that there is no interpretation at all here: What you are defining as "byzantine" is the literal, indisputable, absolute survival of the Roman empire.
Let us be clear that there is no interpretation at all here: What you are defining as "byzantine" is the literal, indisputable, absolute survival of the Roman empire.
I think its very disputable. Especially, when you consider the historical ideas and traditions that made the Roman Empire Roman. I think many scholars have and do say Rome ended in 476 when the Western, Latin speaking, empire and Rome itself fell permanently.
I think its very disputable. Especially, when you consider the historical ideas and traditions that made the Roman Empire Roman. I think many scholars have and do say Rome ended in 476 when the Western, Latin speaking, empire and Rome itself fell permanently.
We are going to keep going with this- it is the LITERAL survival of the Eastern half of the empire. It is the roman empire without Rome. We are talking about literal meanings here.
Actually let me go back and make a concession here: the question is phrased to be two different questions. Rome survives to this day. The Roman empire lasted a thousand years after it is traditionally said that it fell, but separately.
Still, I am just trying to address the Op as honestly as possible.
My wife and I went vacation to Istanbul a couple years ago, and we were surprised there is not much of old Constantinople left. There is Hagia Sofia, the old walls, and the Chora Church. The Ottomans created a new city for the most part.
Last edited by jobseeker2013; 02-23-2014 at 09:16 AM..
The Roman Republic was founded in 509BC. The Western Empire lasted until 476AD. However the Eastern Empire lasted until 1453. Why do historians give credit for Rome lasting only 1000 years and not 2100 years?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.