+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? (/showthread.php?tid=17840)
Pages:
1
2
Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - LvpvsRomanvs - 11-13-2010
Recently I've been reading more into the Late Roman Empire, and have found references to 'Romans' fighting as late as 1453. Here they are obviously referring to the Byzantines. I know that the Eastern Empire sort of 'survived', but isn't it a bit too far referring to them as if they are actually Roman.
Should they be considered Romans, and if so, why?
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - Robert Vermaat - 11-13-2010
Hi Lorenzo,
It's not a new discussion on this board, by no means.
Recently we discussed the same thing.
My view on this is that the 'term' Byzantine is an outside lable, and a late one at that.
The language was always mainly Greek, so that was nothing new. The so-called Byzantine empire was the same as the Roman empire, which saw itself as Roman and was viewed as such by outsiders. Only in Western Europe this view changed, and the focus beghan to be put on the 'Greekness' of the empire. But since nothing changed in the East when the West fell, there is no real reason to disqualify them as 'Roman' empire-continued.
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 11-13-2010
Personally i only adhere to the historical division in eastern and western half of the Roman empire.
Byzantine has no meaning to me, unless it is used in an art-historical manner.
The Roman empire for me ended when Theodosius outlawed the pagan polytheïstic mother religion of Rome and the Christians took over.
M.VIB.M.
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - M. Demetrius - 11-13-2010
But you'll allow others to have a different opinion, of course. Right?
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - Justin of the New Yorkii - 11-13-2010
Well they called themselves "Rhomaoi," so I'm comfortable using the term. If you really want to get technical about it, the Roman realm ceased being "Roman" even before the First Punic War, once Italy had been subjugated and people from outside of the Eternal City became integrated into the state. Trajan and Septimius Severus were as Roman as anyone, even though Trajan was a Spaniard and Severus was African.
Rome was more of a political institution than a geographical or ethnic distinction. In my mind, "Rome" refers to a continuous line of Greco-Roman civilization that began with Romulus & Remus and ended with Constantine XI, with many major changes along the way.
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 11-13-2010
Oh yes Demetrius i do !
Everyone who wants to see or name the Eastern Romans as Byzantines of the Byzantine empire is more than free to do so !
Just like everyone is allowed and entitled their own opinion, religion, sexual preference (apart from the really bizarre and sick), nationality, identity and what have you in the declaration of the rights of man.
That the people from the east themselves considered themselves Roman or Rhomaoi is also a fact ! :mrgreen:
However, they were Graeculi... :twisted:
I think Justin's idea is not that far fetched, it is a historical line, and Rome was more of a political than a national idea, a common denominator probably.
M.VIB.M.
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - Epictetus - 11-14-2010
I feel more comfortable using the term "Romans" for reasons others have mentioned. Sometimes I use "Byzantines" simply because it is widely used.
The difficulty with the concept of "Roman" is nothing new, and the Romans themselves struggled with it. The Roman state was inclusive, sometimes forcibly so, during long periods throughout its history. The ties between citizenship and ethnicity were often elastic or missing altogether. As far as I know, language had absolutely nothing to do with citizenship as far as the Romans themselves were concerned. This puts the Romans in a different category from other ancient nation-states that guarded citizenship jealously.
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - Macedon - 11-14-2010
"Roman" was a political and national term. The people considered themselves Roman, but they also used narrower national descriptors. They could be Roman Cappadocians or Armenians, much more like a modern Briton can be Irish or Scot. Of course the Byzantines knew that nationally they were not Romans from Rome but Romans of the Roman State, as most Americans know they are not really Americans but nationals of the U.S. Of course they were also not all Greek! If we want to be fair we will acknowledge that they themselves called their state "Roman" and themselves "Romans", but we will also accept the fact that this term has nothing to do with ancient Roman nationality and that, as expected, their state changed so much during time as to have very few things in common with the older "Roman" empire. I myself use the term "Byzantine", but often intermixed with "Roman" I do not think that this should be a case for disagreement, since both terms are widely and academically used and so they are both correct, no matter our personal preferences.
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - Phaichtos - 11-14-2010
I get in arguments with people about this all the time! I consider the Roman Empire as a political entity to have existed from roughly 27 BCE to 1453 CE. Others in this thread have provided perfectly good lines of reasoning which I agree with; the Byzantines called themselves "Romaioi" in Greek, and so thought of themselves as being "Roman," and if you want to get technical, if "Roman" has to do with geography, than the vast majority of "Romans" at any given time during the empire weren't "Roman", since they were born and lived outside of Rome itself.. including many emperors! I believe that the only reason "Byzantine" has come into common use is entirely due to the "romantic" notion that Rome ended in 476 CE... when we all know that this was simply the case in the west, while the east continued thriving.
Of course on the same token, it is important to point out that believing themselves to be Roman didn't really mean they were. Let's not forget the "Holy Roman Empire" which rose from the ashes of the actual empire in the west. Of course it was neither holy, nor an empire, nor even intrinsically Roman... but what I think set it apart from eastern Rome (i.e. Byzantium) is that in the east the government remained mostly intact through the years (yes, this is an arguable point for sure), whereas in the west there were many recognizable stops and start-overs; Charlemagne wasn't actually a Roman despot who kept things going in the Roman tradition, he was an outsider who forged a new form of government and tried to claim it was a continuation of the Roman tradition.
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - LvpvsRomanvs - 11-15-2010
Quote: Let's not forget the "Holy Roman Empire" which rose from the ashes of the actual empire in the west. Of course it was neither holy, nor an empire, nor even intrinsically Roman...
Which reminds me of a brilliant phrase used by an Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire that always makes me smile.
"I am the King of Rome, and above Grammar!"
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - Crispvs - 11-15-2010
The Eastern Empire was known as Roman by its neighbours as well. When the Arabs of the Abassid Khalifate conquered Anatolia in the eleventh century, they saw it as conquered Roman territory and accordingly referred to it as the 'Sultanate of Rum' (it only became 'Turkey' after the Seljuk Turkish slaves revolted and took over).
Crispvs
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - M. Demetrius - 11-15-2010
Quote:known as Roman by its neighboursAlthough that's enough for my opinion to rest with the "they were Romans" camp, evidently that doesn't always apply, or doesn't seem to be enough for many other people. Ref the long argument over Gauls being Celts (ei qui ipsorum Celtae...appellunt) even though Caesar said they called themselves that.
Please don't let that sidetrack this worthwhile conversation.
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - Nicholas Gaukroger - 11-15-2010
Quote:The Eastern Empire was known as Roman by its neighbours as well. When the Arabs of the Abassid Khalifate conquered Anatolia in the eleventh century, they saw it as conquered Roman territory and accordingly referred to it as the 'Sultanate of Rum' (it only became 'Turkey' after the Seljuk Turkish slaves revolted and took over).
Crispvs
The Sultanate of Rum was a Seljuq state, before conquest the Arabs and Turks just referred to Rum - i.e. the Roman empire.
Romania, of course, also gets its name from ...
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - mcopple - 11-16-2010
Quote:Crispvs:127h0f9l Wrote:The Eastern Empire was known as Roman by its neighbours as well. When the Arabs of the Abassid Khalifate conquered Anatolia in the eleventh century, they saw it as conquered Roman territory and accordingly referred to it as the 'Sultanate of Rum' (it only became 'Turkey' after the Seljuk Turkish slaves revolted and took over).
Crispvs
The Sultanate of Rum was a Seljuq state, before conquest the Arabs and Turks just referred to Rum - i.e. the Roman empire.
Romania, of course, also gets its name from ...
As I recall, the Ottoman Sultan continued to consider himself as the only legitimate heir to the Roman Empire right up to the abdication. So I suppose one could say it lasted until 1922. :mrgreen:
Re: Should the Byzantines be considered Romans? - mcopple - 11-16-2010
Quote:The Eastern Empire was known as Roman by its neighbours as well. When the Arabs of the Abassid Khalifate conquered Anatolia in the eleventh century, they saw it as conquered Roman territory and accordingly referred to it as the 'Sultanate of Rum' (it only became 'Turkey' after the Seljuk Turkish slaves revolted and took over).
Crispvs
I've been told that the term "Byzantine" was an insult that was first used long after the fall of Constantinople, coined by western European historians who did not want to admit that the East had any claim on Roman greatness. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Matthew Copple