Where does the Byzantine Empire begin?

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.

You're welcome. Every so often they add more illustrations and maps. I can see that they added four updates in May. One of my favorites is the reconstruction of the Golden Milestone (Milion). You can feel that cold marble.

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

Salve, Amici

There is no discontinuity from Augustus to Constantine XI; the empire was always called Rhōmania (Ῥωμανία). Even the Sultan Mehmet II claimed for him the title of "Caesar of Rome" (Kayser-i R

There is no discontinuity from Augustus to Constantine XI; the empire was always called Rhōmania (Ῥωμανία). Even the Sultan Mehmet II claimed for him the title of "Caesar of Rome" (Kayser-i R

No discontinuity? Come now -- you've provided the very best evidence for discontinuity in your own post, where you allege that the empire was always given a Greek name. You really think that from Augustus to Constantine XI the Roman government gave itself a Greek name? Of course not. Augustus himself used to ridicule Antony for taking on Greek airs, and he would have turned over in his mausoleum to see a city carved out of barbarian wilderness calling itself the seat of the "Roman" empire. In fact, wasn't it Octavian's dad who subjected these barbarians in the first place?

Hmm.. when exactly WAS the discontinuity, that is the question. I would term it as a 'Hiatus' myself, given that there clearly was continuity. The hiatus occurred I would say betwen 625 and 900 (The byzantine 'dark age). Which empire exactly was always given a Greek name? I believe the whole show was called 'Romania' from the time of Marcus Aurelius until 1453 - hence the names Romagna, Rumelia and Rum for various provinces lost from the Empire.

Hmm.. when exactly WAS the discontinuity, that is the question.

Given how many discontinuities were present--linguistic, constitutional, geographic, and demographic--there is no one date at which you can say "Now the Roman Empire ends and the Byzantine begins". However, the date of the greatest number of changes and of largest magnitude is the date of the traditional fall of the West.

Given how many discontinuities were present--linguistic, constitutional, geographic, and demographic--there is no one date at which you can say "Now the Roman Empire ends and the Byzantine begins". However, the date of the greatest number of changes and of largest magnitude is the date of the traditional fall of the West.

The Eastern Roman Empire did indeed become a 'Rump State' at this time. Some commentators set the date earlier than this, at 395, when the division between the two empires became permanent. But, as I said on an earlier post, at the time, the division was not seen as permanent, and the demise of the West officially reunited the empire. My personal view is that the break came in 1204, when the heart was torn out of the Empire. Surviving dynastic remnants may have cobbled the state together again, but the state was a successor, not the same entity.

Interestingly, from the point of view of Chinese observers and modern Chinese historians, the continuity was absolute and without break - the things we see as being differences are actually not, to them. They are minor points. I wonder if our view of their history is similar - maybe what we see as dynastic change in the Chinese Empire was actually a different state / regime from their point of view.

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.

yea, i mean, the place was greek from the start and from what i have read greek was common as well as latin, but yea like you said was not official until 610.

Yes, absolutely.

Here comes Caius Suetonius

No discontinuity? Come now -- you've provided the very best evidence for discontinuity in your own post, where you allege that the empire was always given a Greek name. You really think that from Augustus to Constantine XI the Roman government gave itself a Greek name?

Yes, absolutely. Σεβαστοῦ (Sebastos) was the Greek adaptation (clearly not a literal translation) for Augustus, developed by Octavius himself; just check on Res Gestae Divi Augusti , written both in Greek and in Latin; no less, no more.

The Res Gestae was not written in Greek. It was translated into Greek. It was also translated into English--and probably Kurdish and Urdu at some point. So what? Shall we say there are "no discontinuities" between Augustan Rome and Victorian England? Absurd.

At least from the II Punic War, Rome itself developed some kind of dyglossia, where Greek was the elite language, much in the same way as Latin would be at medieval England. Just check on Roman historians; from their scriptorum antiquissimus Quintus Fabius Pictor on, they wrote their texts in Greek long before they did it in Latin. Livius had to translate his original Roman sources.

Yes, Greek was widely used in the Hellenistic world. So what? Why would Livy have to translate all this Greek, I wonder? Do you think Constantine XI would have had the same problem? Of course not. Why? Because there is a clear discontinuity between the Roman Empire and its successor states--the common language of Roman law, Roman letters, Roman oratory, Roman military, and Roman business was Latin. If at Magnesia you had shouted orders to your soldiers in Greek, you'd have found a pilum sticking out your rear.

Sorry if I sound like I'm channeling Cato the Elder here, but as much as I'm a philhellene, the Byzantine Empire was an ordinary successor state, like the People's Republic of China to the Qing Dynasty. Yes, there are commonalities between empires and successors, but "no discontinuities"? Absurd.

The Res Gestae was not written in Greek. It was translated into Greek. It was also translated into English--and probably Kurdish and Urdu at some point. So what? Shall we say there are "no discontinuities" between Augustan Rome and Victorian England? Absurd.

Somehow I find this comparison tenuous... Victorian England did not claim a direct legacy from the Roman Empire, its capital was not founded by a Roman Emperor, and its Royal Family were not decended from the Theodosian dynasty. It did not have a series of consuls traceable from the earliest days of the republic until 690 AD, and did not have military units traceable to the earliest days of the Principate serving on its Danubian frontier (or indeed a Danubian frontier!) One could also say 'so what' that it had to be translated, as opposed to originally written, in Greek.

Yes, Greek was widely used in the Hellenistic world. So what?

Well, a status quo, rather than a discontinuity, is clearly in evidence here. Maybe at Magnesia a Roman soldier would have been backstabbed for speaking greek (unless he was from Neapolis, Tarentum, Syracusae, Masillia or even Pompeii) but by the time of Strasbourg - when the Empire was still united under one ruler - many units in the Army would have spoken Greek as their first language. I wish not to be argumentative here, but some of this evidence can be taken both ways I feel.

Linguistic digressions aside.

Shall we say there are "no discontinuities" between Augustan Rome and Victorian England?

Salve, Amici