Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: What is in a Name? The question of the Eastern Roman Empire (aka Byzantine.)  (Read 956 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Simon

  • Comitia Curiata
  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1134
  • Tetartera Collector
    • Byzantine Tetartera
The Byzantines spoke Greek, did not rule in Rome nor were they Roman Catholic, thus they were not Roman.

That is the basis for all arguments that dismiss the title of the Eastern Roman Empire. In a complex world, its history becomes complex as well.

Constantine the Great created a second capital for the Romans in the 4th century, it was called New Rome and then Constantinople after its creator Constantine. Its creation was because the Empire was too large and to spread out. The location he chooses was excellent for defense and for trade and taxation. At the time of its creation, it had no enemies close by, just conquered lands of the Romans. Originally the population spoke Latin, that changed after the revolt of Heraclius in the early 7th century.

As time passed, the city of Rome fell. The Empire changed and new ones appeared in it place but the Empire of the Romans still stood in Constantinople. In the west it was referred to Res Publica Romana, In the mid-8th century the popes of Rome made a change, in the west, the empire became known as Graeci. That is the earliest test to the empires name and Emperor’s title.

In the 9th century the real push to remove the title from the Eastern Roman Empire, they began to question if the Eastern Emperor had the right to call himself Emperor of the Romans. This came about as the Germans powers were drawing heavily on Roman prestige. They saw the Eastern claim to the title as a major obstacle.

As the title Graeci was used with more frequency, it became known as a name with many negative connotations, treachery, excessive sophistication, love of luxury, verbal trickery and cowardice.

During the time of the Empire, they themselves called it the “Roman Empire” and their enemies called it “bilad al-Rum ( Lands of Rome)

In the West It again changed, Western literature began calling the Emperor, Emperor of the Greeks and Emperor of Constantinople, also less frequently used, The Low Empire, The Late Empire, The Roman Empire. These remained in usage until long after the fall of Constantinople. The 19th Century was the first regular usage of the word Byzantine.

Now the first usage of the word Byzantium came from the title of a commissioned book of translations, the author was a translator Hieronymus Wolf the work was” Corpus Historiae Byzantinae” ( 1557-62) In it he makes his contempt for the Empire known.

“I am surprised, not sorry, that such dregs and bilge water of a iniquitous people so long remained unmolested and were not conquered earlier.”

So the word Byzantine was born after the empire and not as a compliment, just another way to disassociate it from Rome.

At this point the word Byzantine was not in regular usage to describe the Empire, the real time when this word becomes common is in the mid-19th century. No one knows for certain what created the movement of referring to the Romans as Byzantines, it seems to be a buildup of modern politics, racism and theological conflict. Some have surmised it was brought into use after the Modern Greek state in 1820 to deny the Greeks their history and claim to their old territories. In other theories it was to prevent Russia from creating a new Puppet state in the Ottoman territory. This story is more complex, but it again had to do with the Modern Greek state.

 Regardless the results are the same, with the name Byzantine in leaves an empire without a known heritage, it was based on the original long forgotten town the city of Constantinople was built on.

It is interesting that this question is being asked in multiple books, now Byzantium is a name of convenience to represent the time. For Numismatics Byzantine begins at the coin reform of Anastasias, for some it is the change of language after the revolt of Heraclius and for some The Roman Empire ended during the fall of Constantinople in 1453 so Byzantium never existed.

The flip side to this is the question was Byzantium an Imperial Roman state or is it just a continuance of the history of Greece?

 

My primary sources for this write up were two newly published books, both are filled with abundant info, far more detailed than my brief write up.

Romanland Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium by Anthony Kaldellis

The Invention of Byzantium in Early Modern Europe  Edited by Nathanael Aschenbrenner and Jake Ransohoff

 

We have discussed this before, early in the boards beginnings. I thought I would share what I recently read.
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=5633 My main collection of Tetartera. Post reform coinage.

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I long wondered how Constantinople was able to withstand long sieges. Yes, they had amazing walls, but how could the people survive within them? More recently I learned part of the answer. The population had fallen considerably and part of the city within the walls had been returned to farming.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline Sap

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • It's already tomorrow in Australia.
I think "Roman" was never attached to the Byzantine Empire in the Western mindset, simply because, in Western education, "Rome fell in AD 476", and thus, one cannot continue to talk about the Roman Empire continuing to exist after the Roman Empire had fallen. "Rome fell, and never really came back, though there were many claimants to the 'Roman' title", say our histories. If the German "Holy Roman Empire" was a pretentious ambit claim and the Seljuks of Rum was a pretentious ambit claim, then the Greek "Roman Empire" was a pretentious ambit claim, too.

In that sense, although never actually expressly stated as such, the Eastern Roman Empire could be considered a "breakaway state", much like the Romano-Gallic Empire of Postumus to Tetricus.

Imagine an alternate history, where the Roman Empire of Rome itself had fallen, but the empire of Postumus had survived for several centuries. Would modern historians call that Roman remnant "The Roman Empire"? Almost certainly not. Why not? "Well, they never ruled Rome", would be the usual reply. At the same time, they did co-exist at one point, so we can't go around labelling two different, separate, rival countries "The Roman Empire" on the same map - we need some distinguishable name for each one. Just like in the modern world, where we have two Chinas, two Koreas and (within living memory) two Germanys and two Vietnams. We need some way of distinguishing between two countries claiming the same name, to avoid confusion.

We even see this in late Byzantine history, with the Empire of Trebizond. It outlasted the Empire of Constantinople by a decade or so, but we never call them "The Byzantine Empire" - it's always "The Empire of Trebizond".

The Byzantine Empire, the Romano-Gallic Empire, and even the Empire of Trebizond all would have considered themselves "true Romans". But future historians don't care what they thought of themselves, and don't call them "Roman".

Now, we can debate whether or not they deserve to be called something other than "Byzantine". Wayne G. Sayles in his books agrees that "Byzantine" is inappropriate and makes the case for calling them the "Romaion Empire" - thus emphasizing both their continuity of succession with the Romans of Rome and their Greek nature. However, I don't think it'll catch on, partly because Greek-based names for "Roman" empires never seem to catch on. The spelling is also a little bit too close to "Roman", and if you're trying to make a distinction, that additional "io" may not be enough.
I'll have to learn Latin someday.

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
I would prefer to use Romaion but, as you said, it didn't catch on. I have to use what people are more likely enter in search engines.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline Kevin D

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Now the first usage of the word Byzantium came from the title of a commissioned book of translations, the author was a translator Hieronymus Wolf the work was” Corpus Historiae Byzantinae” ( 1557-62) In it he makes his contempt for the Empire known...

So the word Byzantine was born after the empire and not as a compliment, just another way to disassociate it from Rome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantium
"The Greek name Byzantion and its Latinization Byzantium continued to be used as a name of Constantinople sporadically and to varying degrees during the thousand year existence of the Byzantine Empire." References are cited for this statement.

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
This is a very interesting discussion and a topic I have thought a lot about. I use the term Byzantine Empire because, as Joe says, this is how it is usually described. As an aside, I always considered Trebizond part of that same empire, whatever we would call it. Trebizond is one of those very unique places. I have always considered the Byzantine Empire to be the later Roman Empire. Not sure I go for that Romaion term, if only because it sounds too much like Romania and thus very localized.

My point is that every part of the Roman Empire at any time was something else before it became Roman, including everywhere in Italy. Much of the Roman Empire was Greek, including what became the eastern part of the Roman empire. Given the recognition of the two regions, often with separate emperors or rulers, western and eastern empires, the west fell and the east held on for another thousand years. So, I have always considered it the Roman Empire until Constantinople fell. I think this is a much better claim than saying something like the Holy Roman Empire was Roman. The east was always Greek and remained so at least until the Ottoman conquest.

Fascinating topic.

Virgil

Offline Kingston

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Agree with the original post and comments from virgil. There is a good case for not simply calling it the Roman Empire, but there has been so much continuity it would also be misleading to consider it to be a completely different empire.
No matter what the terminology is, and it is probably too late for calling it anything but Byzantine now, it is important to highlight this continuity in history lessons. Unfortunately it is often overlooked when this is covered at school for instance. It was mindblowing for me to realize this when I started reading more about the Byzantine empire. It is one of those things, like the fact that several Roman emperors were born in Africa, which is usually not known by the general public and when you tell them they will fall off their chair.

Offline Obryzum

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 799
Some in the English speaking Orthodox world hate the name Byzantine because it was originally intended to have a pejorative connotation.  I suppose that is still true if you use the word to describe Byzantine rules or regulations, but even then the word only implies as high degree of complexity that requires a high degree of expertise to understand.  These days the term is still used (albeit rarely) to describe a pattern of scheming, especially if it involves betrayal, but I think people far more frequently use the term "Machiavellian" rather than Byzantine.  I think most of the negative connotation has been lost.  To my ears the word has appeal -- who can object to a name with the unusual combination of the letters b-y-z? 

In terms of history, I do not think it matters what you call it. Nobody knows or remembers the Byzantine Empire, or the Eastern Roman Empire, or the Latter Roman Empire, or the Romaion Empire.  I do not remember learning about it in school (though that may be because the way history is taught in school, nobody wants to learn history, and nobody remembers what was covered in the textbook).  I do not remember seeing it depicted in any Hollywood films.  A few people might recognize the name Constantinople, but very few will be able to tell you much about the history of the city.  There are only a few of us who have overcome the conspiracy of silence to venture down this rabbit hole . . .

Offline Kingston

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 38
There may be a day where they will have exhausted all other sources of inspiration and will start developing some high budget TV series or video games set in the byzantine empire and it will be all the rage. Do not despair, byzantium, your time will come!

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
I actually think (and hope) this happens. There is a lot of interest in historical TV, I am watching Barbarians now (it isn't great or particularly historical, but it is entertaining enough to watch). The Last Kingdom is another example, as is Vikings, and so many more. I would love to see a take on the Byzantines!

Virgil

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity