Where does the Byzantine Empire begin?

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

Were these kings from Eastern Europe/ the Balkans? This is not off topic, as it implies that even in the middle ages there was some currency in the idea that the barbarian successor kings were - at least in the ceremonial sense - governors of Roman provinces in their own eyes.

I believe that Western European kings got their authority from the Pope.

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

Were these kings from Eastern Europe/ the Balkans? This is not off topic, as it implies that even in the middle ages there was some currency in the idea that the barbarian successor kings were - at least in the ceremonial sense - governors of Roman provinces in their own eyes.

 

I believe that Western European kings got their authority from the Pope.

I really can't remember, but I think that it was all of continental Europe at one time.

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"

True, but many great European states with pretensions to imperial grandeur called themselves "Roman" - the Medieval confederation of Germanic princes, Tsarist Russia, even the Third Reich.

As to the larger question, I think you have to look at a big picture. What we call Ancient Greek civilization is usually divided into phases: Minoan-Myceaenean, Dark Ages, Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine. There is some continuity between the phases: you can look at the religion of classical Greece and see some of its genesis in Minoan civilization, but there is also a great deal of change. Likewise, that which we call today call Byzantium is ultimately descended from the Roman Dominate - but when the Byzantine rulers declared themselves unabashed monarchs and replaced Latin with Greek as the government language, I think the break was made.

The Eastern Empire might not have survived as long as it did (or at least in the form it survived), had it not been for the "romanization" of the eastern peoples which had already occurred. Although it was more a Greek Empire by the middle ages, it was still rooted in roman ideals, traditions, legal systems, etc..

The Eastern Empire might not have survived as long as it did (or at least in the form it survived), had it not been for the "romanization" of the eastern peoples which had already occurred. Although it was more a Greek Empire by the middle ages, it was still rooted in roman ideals, traditions, legal systems, etc..

I have just finished reading 'Constantinople' by Roger Crowley, about the seige and fall of Constantinople in 1453. There is reference to a senate even in this late period.

The Eastern Empire might not have survived as long as it did (or at least in the form it survived), had it not been for the "romanization" of the eastern peoples which had already occurred. Although it was more a Greek Empire by the middle ages, it was still rooted in roman ideals, traditions, legal systems, etc..

Exactly what I wanted to say; while it is true that early medieval kings received their power from the Pope, it is also true that a multitude of mosaics depict them wearing the clothes of a byzantine emperor; Otto I, the norman Roger II of Sicily and also William II of Sicily, in addition to the previously mentioned doge in Venice. I think it's more about institutions than culture itself. Actually most of the works of ancient Roman classic literature and science survived to present day thanks to the manuscripts produced in the byzantine scriptoria.

Perhaps, if the question were posed as when was the East independent of the West, the answer might be when the edicts of the West were no longer Law in the East, and vice-versa. I don't know when this occurred.

From a military perspective, the Byzantines really gradually became their own empire by developing their own types of soldiers, an idea I believe about all civilizations/empires. The Byzantine Empire still had the Roman influence, but it evolved to have completely different types of soldiers fighting in its armies. I still view the Byzantine Empire as Roman in 300-500 A.D.

Antiochus III

I have been having a re-think about this. perhaps we should regard it as beginning in 395 with Theodosius' death, but stop calling it ' The Byzantine Empire' at varying arbitrary dates in the 6th/7th centuries. Call it the 'Eastern Roman Empire' throughout, like its people did, and regard 610 - 1204 as the 'Byzantine' phase. To actually call it something its people didnt has always seemed to me to be strange. The period after the 1260's would perhaps require a different name for the cultural phase up to 1453, but the Empire itself still retains its name.

The Eastern Empire might not have survived as long as it did (or at least in the form it survived), had it not been for the "romanization" of the eastern peoples which had already occurred. Although it was more a Greek Empire by the middle ages, it was still rooted in roman ideals, traditions, legal systems, etc..

I have just finished reading 'Constantinople' by Roger Crowley, about the seige and fall of Constantinople in 1453. There is reference to a senate even in this late period.

Here is computer generated (CAD) reconstruction of the Senate of Constantinople in the Forum of Constantine:

http://www.byzantium1200.com/senate2.html

Here is a similarly reconstruction of another Senate House in Constantinople:

http://www.byzantium1200.com/senato.html

Personally, I just refer to the Byzantine Empire as the Roman Empire and try not to worry too much about the actual "turning point," so to speak. The whole debate is really an endless ideological argument (at least in my humble opinion).

I have been having a re-think about this. perhaps we should regard it as beginning in 395 with Theodosius' death, but stop calling it ' The Byzantine Empire' at varying arbitrary dates in the 6th/7th centuries. Call it the 'Eastern Roman Empire' throughout...

This is basically my view as well, in 395 when the Roman Empire became two separate entities but still formed one and the same Empire.

Two independent governments, two separate states but still one Empire.

Was it Stilicho that would mockingly refer to the Eastern Roman Emperor as a 'Greek' and them in general as 'Greeks'? Though I think this would have been more tongue-in-cheek than anything else and not quite serious.

And even Valens, he could hardly speak Greek and apparently this was quite a nuisance for him when he went over to Constantinople.

What about their imperial courts? Would a Western Roman have still felt at home in Constantinople as he would in Ravenna, Milan or Rome? And what about fashion and other customs?

So in these areas I think they were just going different paths according to local influences.

Great question: Have always considered the reign of Justinian the transition between Roman and Byzantine history. In theory much of the western empire was ruled by barbarian kings with the blessing of the emperor. Romulus Agustulus was a usurper in all reality while Julius Nepos was the legitimate ruler. Zeno said so much by instructing Odovacer to accept him as such. With no real means to enforce this Odovacer was left to his own devices and the remnants of the empire in western Europe fell to other barbarian kings if they hadn't already.

The Reconquest was an ambitious undertaking by Justinian but even so the emperor retook the Italian peninsula when Amalasuintha requested his help. In theory Justinian was intervening on behalf of a client who was ruling in his name. Even North Africa was reconqured under much the same pretext: the Vandal rulers were mercelessly persecuting their Roman chatholic subjects. While the Vandal kingdom fell quickly the Italian campagn dragged on for decades and drained the treasury and ultimately doomed Justinian's attempt to reestablish the empire in the west. Perhaps if Justinian had allowed Belisarius to rule the west as the co-Emperor, Ostrogothic support could have been harnessed and directed at recovering other parts of the empire.

Justinian's reign marks the last gasps of the Roman Empire in many respects: the last appointed consuls, the last triumphs and the last games in the Roman Colosseum all occured during Justinian's reign. Justinian's reign also marks the start of the split between the Roman chatholic and Greek orthodox faiths.

to be honest i would say that it was when the capital moved to constantinople, that it became byzantium becuase byzantion (in roman byzantium) was the real name of constantinople. but i think that people outside called the empire byzantine after 610, when it went 100% greek. im not 100% sure though its a very good question.

Hadn't the language of the eastern half of the Roman Empire always ben Greek to an extent? But it wasn't made officially Greek until the seventh century though.

By the way those Byzantium 1200 links were brilliant. Thank you Ludovicus.