When did the Roman Empire stop being the Roman Empire

[wulfgar60]

Hi Martin and Bill

Does either of you know other sources (literary, coins, whatever) that show the Byzantines (of any period) referring to themselves as Romans? Obviously, I'm looking too, but at the pace of one tired old bloke.


Cheers

Howard?Spurius

I believe that the term "Byzantine" is an historians convention. It would be correct to call the Imperial leadership "Byzantines" because that was the original Greek name for the city they generally resided in. But as far as I know, they called themselves Romans.
Certainly a type of dispute arose when Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope as Roman Emperor. With another Roman Emperor in the East.
Western History referred to the "Fall of the Roman Empire in the West". So that was the one in the schoolbooks.

Ended being a brand name tossed about. Is it still "Coke" if it tastes like "Fanta"?

[Epictetus]

I think this article is quite good:

What, if anything, is a Byzantine?

It details what people of different regions and different times considered themselves.

Unfortunately it doesn't list sources, but it seems to answer the problem.

Edit:



Howard, I don't read Greek but supposedly these inscriptions state:

Romanos, emperor of the Romaioi
Eudokia, empress of the Romaioi

This is the so-called Romanos Ivory, or Christ Crowns Romanos and Eudokia. "Romaioi" is Greek for "Roman" so here is some proof that the "Byzantines" considered themselves "Roman."

The ivory is dated to either 945 - 949 or 1068 - 1079 and I got the information from Byzantine Empresses by Lynda Garland. The page about the ivory is available on Google Books.

[Urselius]

Virtually any of the literary/historical works produced in the Byzantine Empire would be awash with references to "we Romans."

To my certain knowledge the following do:

Psellus - Chronographia (in Penguin classics as "Fourteen Byzantine Rulers")
Anna Comnena - Alexiad (also in Penguin classics)
John Cinnamus - Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus
Niketas Choniates - translated as "O City of Byzantium"

The worst insult Frederick Barbarossa, as "Holy Roman Emperor," could think to call the Byzantine emperor, or in his and his peoples' estimation "the one true Emperor of the Romans," Manuel I was "King of the Greeks."

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, I would agree there. Although they were by all intents and purposes, probably Greek, they very much considered themselves as Emperors of the Roman world.

[Sean Manning]

"Holy Roman Emperor" is a post-medieval term too! So unfortunately, if we go back to the terms of the day, we still have two "Roman emperors" (although few of Barbarossa's subjects would have called themselves Romans).

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think the salient point of his comment is the way in which the Eastern Roman/Greeks considered them selves....and and would take umbrage at the inference of being only a Greek kingdom?

[Marcus_Ulpius_Trajanus]

1806? :lol:

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.... :lol:

[Marcus_Ulpius_Trajanus]

I think this article is quite good:

What, if anything, is a Byzantine?

It details what people of different regions and different times considered themselves.

Unfortunately it doesn't list sources, but it seems to answer the problem.

Edit:



Howard, I don't read Greek but supposedly these inscriptions state:

Romanos, emperor of the Romaioi
Eudokia, empress of the Romaioi

This is the so-called Romanos Ivory, or Christ Crowns Romanos and Eudokia. "Romaioi" is Greek for "Roman" so here is some proof that the "Byzantines" considered themselves "Roman."

The ivory is dated to either 945 - 949 or 1068 - 1079 and I got the information from Byzantine Empresses by Lynda Garland. The page about the ivory is available on Google Books.

A very long time ago, a fellow told me that he and his villagers in the back country in Greece were still referring to themselves as "Romans" as late at the 1940's. I don't know what village or what part of Greece, and I've forgotten the man's name, but that tale has stuck with me for quite a while now. I have no idea if that was the case. Maybe some of the Greeks around here might be able to chime in.

[wulfgar60]

There's "Romania" too. In fact the Romanian language derives from Latin. An amazing degree of Latinisation for a region the Romans only controlled for 150 years.
Must have plenty of colonii in that one!

They call themselves "Romans" and their language is derived from Latin. What more could you ask for?

[sonic]

There's "Romania" too. In fact the Romanian language derives from Latin. An amazing degree of Latinisation for a region the Romans only controlled for 150 years.
Must have plenty of colonii in that one!

They call themselves "Romans" and their language is derived from Latin. What more could you ask for?

The only difficulty with these concepts is that they rely on people's perceptions of themselves. What people perceive as being true isn't necessarily fact.

After all, I am Napoleon Bonapart, so the First Republic isn't over, so why is there a Second and a Third Republic??

[wulfgar60]

There's "Romania" too. In fact the Romanian language derives from Latin. An amazing degree of Latinisation for a region the Romans only controlled for 150 years.
Must have plenty of colonii in that one!

They call themselves "Romans" and their language is derived from Latin. What more could you ask for?

The only difficulty with these concepts is that they rely on people's perceptions of themselves. What people perceive as being true isn't necessarily fact.

After all, I am Napoleon Bonapart, so the First Republic isn't over, so why is there a Second and a Third Republic??

Well that's the case Ian. Philosophers have spent time arguing what exactly constitutes an identity. In the in the middle ages it was the hot topic for the scholastics.

For Western Europe the "Roman Empire" ended in the late 5th century. I say that, even though Justinian made something of a comeback later. Although the Greek perspective on this might be different. What is true, is after that, things were different for Western Europe.

[Ron Andrea]

Personally, I think the Roman Empire ended when Rome fell. That's kind of early, but it's a clear date.

That thing in the east was an empire--and occasionally a very good empire, though often a pitiful one--but less and less Roman.

That many empires, kingdoms, churches, and cultures are heirs of the glory that was Rome can not be disputed, but none of them are really Rome. After the eternal city was humiliated, it was just so many dogs fighting over the scarps.

[Robert Vermaat]

That thing in the east was an empire--and occasionally a very good empire, though often a pitiful one--but less and less Roman.

That's again defined by a personal opinion of what you consider to be 'Roman' and what not.

When Rome fell it had not been the capital for one-and-a-half centuries. That's quite some time.
As to religion, was Christianity 'Roman'? Initially it wasn't, but when Rome fell (I trust you refer to 410? Rome was sacked three times during the 5th c.) it had been for the same period.
As to culture and language, nothing changed much in the Eastern Roman Empire. Only after a long time was Latin dropped as the language of the government and the military. But Arrian and Polybios (and a good number of other authors) published their works in Greek, which meant the 'Romans' (including the emperors) could read it.

Etc. etc. etc.

As a linchpin of history, the Gothic sack of Rome is as good a point as any, as is the foundation of Constantinople, accepting Christianity, the Last Western Emperor, the Fall of Byzantium, or Napoleon.

[Ron Andrea]

Robert's points are all too true. One could also use the A.D. 406 barbarian invasion as the beginning of the end in the West. Within a few short years, the ailing western empire was swept away.

But this was about opinions, and in my mind the Roman Empire starts with Augustus and ends with the fall of Rome. Constantine et al. certainly saw themselves as the Roman Empire, but at some point it morphed into something very different. Loss of the original--eponymous--capital seems as good a point as any.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

......., but when Rome fell (I trust you refer to 4110? Rome was sacked three times .........

........he Fall of Byzantium, or Napoleon.

So we're still good for a while then? P P

Sorry couldn't let that go.... :lol: