Where does the Byzantine Empire begin?

That would have been absurd.

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.

Yes, there were discontinuities. But there were also continuities. Among the latter was the name the people gave to their country - The Roman Empire - which was in continuous use from 27 BC to AD 1453.

Its interesting that you brought up China. A better comparison is that between the transition from Diocletian (r 284-305) to the Heraclian dynasty (r 610-711) in the Roman Empire, and the transition from the Han dynasty (r 206 BC-AD 220) to the Tang dynasty (r 618-907) in the Chinese Empire. After all, post-Sui China was nowhere refered to as "the Luoyang Empire". It remained China.

However, I do agree with an earlier post, that one can refer to the Byzantine phase, or Byzantine Period (c 610-1453), of the Eastern Roman Empire (395-1453), though this must be understood as an artificial division, and simply for the practical purpose of dividing-up the otherwise massive history of the Roman Empire (27 BC-AD 1453), and even bigger history of the Roman state in all its incarnations (753 BC-AD 1453).

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.

You just answered your own question, i.e. there was no turning point, but a continuation of the Roman Empire right up to 1453.

I am surprised no one mentioned religion. Religion has to be at least as significant as language when it comes to defining culture. After Constantine Paganism was officially suppressed. Wasn't it 394 AD when the Sacred Flame of Vesta was put out and the Temples were looted?

For a slightly different approach, why not say that the Byzantine Empire begins in 1557, when it was first given that name by the German Hieronymous Wolf.

We seem to be searching for the genesis of the "Byzantine" in the Empire's internal history, but maybe the name is more important for what it tells us about the West and its needs, perceptions, and biases.

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 is Roman? From a philosophical point of view that's an interesting question, but ultimately whether something is 'Roman' depends on preconception and education - Rome is in the eyes of the observer. Historians will of course immediately disagree, but beware, because human beings do love to categorise and file information into convenient sections. It's part of our nature apparently. The need to store information that could help our prehistoric ancestors hunt and forage means that we draw associations, meanings, and categories all too easily.

In assigning names to periods of history we do exactly that. It's widely accepted that Rome ended in 476, yet if you look at events it's only the western part of Rome that loses the caesars finally and forever. One wonders how things were perceived at the time. Given the state of the empire and the loss of a class of leader for the first time in nearly five hundred years, it's probable that many Romans themselves saw that as the end, though in fairness I haven't seen any such contemporary mention in classical sources.

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...

By the end of the 5th century Rome was a divided world. Strictly speaking, the division was only a political necessity to maintain adequate stability, and both east and west saw themselves as inherently Roman, both part of the same empire if ruled seperately. After Theodosius the empire was never again ruled by one man. Was that seen at the time as significant? Probably not, because the Romans didn't have the benefit of hindsight and in any case, leadership was always up for grabs and had changed format more than once in the past.

In other words, the idea that the Byzantines were Roman came very naturally to them - because they were Roman - culturally at least. The Byzantine Empire didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere - it already existed in a fledgling state for a century or two, developing independence politically and culturally. To argue that it was a child of the west is a difficult analogy for me to accept. After all, the emergence of eastern power was at the expense of the west - quite literally - and represents a change of focus and power base. Constantine wanted to take Roman power from the eternal city and take to a new capital, Constantinople, and that was eventually the case.

Not a child then. More like a heart transplant, in which the donor gradually bled to death.

Among the latter was the name the people gave to their country - The Roman Empire - which was in continuous use from 27 BC to AD 1453.

Am I not right in thinking that the denizens of the Holy Roman Empire also referred to their bit of the world as 'The Roman Empire' up until a decree following the 1512 Diet of Cologne. (After that, it was officially 'Imperium Romanum Sacrum Nationis Germanic

I'm reminded of the famous quote that "The Holy Roman Empire wasn't holy, wasn't Roman, and wasn't an empire".

The west after 476 might have claimed Roman inheritance but the Holy Roman Empire was a later invention, a realm that based its credibility on association with roman ideals. Charlemagne for instance was crowned Emperor of the Romans not because he was, but because none else was and the title suited his reputation.

IMHO the "Byzantine Empire" began after the reign of Justinian. My rationale is that his was the all-out attempt to salvage the WRE and it succeeded in the short-term and failed in the long term. All hope of reunification died with Justinian, hence after his reign the "Byzantine Empire" begins.

Hero of Canton

First to say "Byzantine empire" never existed. It was still Roman Empire. Byzantine Empire is a modern term, which had marked the transformation of antic empire into medieval empire. I think era which began with emperor Heraclius reign could be marked as Byzantine empire because empire was losing definetely its roman character. Heraclius introduced greek language as official language instead of latin. Romans definetely ended wars against Persians, but had to face islam expansion from south which changed political situation in many parts of empire.