Byzantium as THE Roman Empire

[Gokbay]

At what point did people in Western Rome stop identifying as Romans? The Senate even continued to exist into the 7th Century AD.


I don’t think that I’ve ever seen a French person called a Frank. I’ve seen them called Gallic or Latin though.

1. Not exactly sure when but outside of the people of the city of Rome (or more charitably Lazio) probably pretty soon after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Within the city? basically never or at least until the birth of nationalism.

3. For much of the middle ages basically all Catholic Europeans were called "Franks" (or Frenk in my language) by Muslims.

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

You think this, but others do not. Do not purport your position to be the clear cut truth of matters. At least have the nuance to recognize that in the year 760, there were different opinions on the matter and choose a preferred position. Rather than labeling things as ‘bullshit.’

Should I have boldened the part of “I personally think” for better reading comprehension? I thought had made myself perfectly clear. Personally, I also think that reproducing a political discourse born in the Low Middle Ages and further elaborated on and perpetuated by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment as an indisputable historical fact representing the exact state of affairs of the time to be bullshit also. Perhaps bullshit is too strong a word. I’ll settle on “erroneous” instead.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Should I have boldened the part of “I personally think” for better reading comprehension? I thought had made myself perfectly clear. Personally, I also think that reproducing a political discourse born in the Low Middle Ages and further elaborated on and perpetuated by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment as an indisputable historical fact representing the exact state of affairs of the time to be bullshit also. Perhaps bullshit is too strong a word. I’ll settle on “erroneous” instead.

It is easy to say this and more difficult to prove.... The opinions you advocate and speak of are the common public position for those outside of academia, it should be easy for you to refute my points, though it seems to elude many.

It is also odd, I am not exactly sure which political discourse developed in the Renaissance and Enlightenment that I use.

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

It is easy to say this and more difficult to prove.... The opinions you advocate and speak of are the common public position for those outside of academia, it should be easy for you to refute my points, though it seems to elude many.

This is going to sound harsh, but it’s true: why on Earth should I care about the opinions of the common public position in an academic discussion? History is a science, not a popularity contest. Academia has a duty to engage with the rest of civil society as a means to promote the spread of knowledge and the like, but academia is an independent body and our research, research methodologies and conclusions are not to be placed under the scrutiny of the non-scientific community, otherwise academia loses its independence. So, no, I do not accept the reasoning of “it’s the common public position” as a valid argument in an academic discussion, because it ultimately is a coercive argument.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

This is going to sound harsh, but it’s true: why on Earth should I care about the opinions of the common public position in an academic discussion? History is a science, not a popularity contest. Academia has a duty to engage with the rest of civil society as a means to promote the spread of knowledge and the like, but academia is an independent body and our research, research methodologies and conclusions are not to be placed under the scrutiny of the non-scientific community, otherwise academia loses its independence. So, no, I do not accept the reasoning of “it’s the common public position” as a valid argument in an academic discussion, because it ultimately is a coercive argument.

I am saying that your opinions are what is common in the public today. This does not mean that they carry more weight by that virtue, simply that due to these having a more popularity, grants you greater access to arguments and counter-points. Obviously, I do not care for the general public position on the matter (at least in composing my own opinion on the matter), or else I would have your opinion; mine is the more rare in terms of public discourse in the Western historical rendering at least.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Not exactly Frank (franc) but français is very clearly a derivative term.

France comes from the Franks of course. I’ve never seen anyone call them Franks is all that I’m saying. It’s just a holdover from when the Franks ruled that region.

So? What’s got language to do with anything in a pre-modern setting?

Who said that the people living in Rome weren’t Romans? As far as I understand, the matter in dispute is whether Charlemagne and his successors are to he considered Roman emperors and whether the Papacy inherited the imperial authority of the Western Empire. I personally think that both are bullshit, but Rome Romans didn’t just disappear from Rome and neither did they stop being Romans, at least until the final defeat of the Rome Commune.

1) The only way that language wouldn’t matter, is if you’re denying that their was a cultural identity to being a Roman in its earlier years.

2) I didn’t say Rome. I said Western Rome from Italy and Libya to Britannia and Morocco.

They most certainly do and are called Franks both historically and today. Gallic notions were post-nationalistic understandings, they are political in nature and in some ways, a cope for the failure of France to truly fulfill its destiny as Lords of Europe as Pierre Dubois once spoke of in 1298. In other words, it is an acceptance of an insular relation to its other historic partners, namely Germany, Italy, Middle Francia, etc...

The Frankish identity was inherently a universal rendering by the Middle Ages surely. Even as a byword in other lands, it referred to a united Europe, such in the Arab world or some of the sensational Papal praising of the Empire and Crown of France.

Latin too, is more or less co-equal to Frankish at least on the continent. Through the medieval era, the Papacy never once distinguished between the crown that Clovis I wore in 509 and that of the kings of Paris. Nor did they understand the French tongue as a new tongue different from Frankish (same goes for the forms of German then common). This seems odd, but it is due to most western audiences being unfamiliar with the idea of true cultural intermingling and fusion. What occurred in post Western Imperial France and Germany, was a German to Latin version of what occurred in ancient Mesopotamia between Akkadian, Sumerian and lower Hurrian. They absorbed together and became indistinguishable to the folk at the time.

The difference, the break of the Papal universal rule over Europe, the decline of universal entities within Europe (the Empire, Angevin Realms and traditional French/West Francian kingdom) and its repudiation, led to new cultural movements, that instead of affirming older notions of cultural fusion and universality, embraced cultural and societal localism and a thin veneer of commonality. Such cultural assertions never existed in ancient iraq, hence if one looks to the records, one finds legitimately no difference or point to break Akkadian from Sumerian or vice versa except in strict and meaningless linguistic categories.

@funnyhat this goes for you as well regarding your recent posts on the topic.

Interesting stuff.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

1. Not exactly sure when but outside of the people of the city of Rome (or more charitably Lazio) probably pretty soon after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

No, the non-Germanic subjects of the Lombard Kingdom were pretty readily described as Romans. When Charlemagne conquered them he gained a vast number of Roman subjects.

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

I am saying that your opinions are what is common in the public today. This does not mean that they carry more weight by that virtue, simply that due to these having a more popularity, grants you greater access to arguments and counter-points. Obviously, I do not care for the general public position on the matter (at least in composing my own opinion on the matter), or else I would have your opinion; mine is the more rare in terms of public discourse in the Western historical rendering at least.

I am fairly certain that the common people don’t even know what Byzantium is, much less that they were Romans. Where are you coming from?

1) The only way that language wouldn’t matter, is if you’re denying that their was a cultural identity to being a Roman in its earlier years.

Language-as-nationality is a 19th century construct. It literally doesn’t matter.

 

[Marc]

Let's keep in mind when debating what people called themselves, we are really talking about society's elite.
I rather doubt that the humiliores had any identification that mattered to them outside of family, faith, village, perhaps tribe; in large part based on observing how people actually live and interact in that part of the world.
Widespread identifying by the populace with a large state is a fairly modern attitude.

Now, when we do discuss history it does tend to be mostly from the elite's side of things, it's understandable: a lot more fun to play general than private. And we have considerable information about the ruling class - although we do know much more about the lower 99% than is generally discussed thanks to rise of modern social historians. The best approach is a holistic one, looking at history from bottom up as well as top down.
(Freely prejudiced in that regard, as someone who cut his wisdom teeth on the Annales school)

 

[Lee-Sensei]

I am fairly certain that the common people don’t even know what Byzantium is, much less that they were Romans. Where are you coming from?
Language-as-nationality is a 19th century construct. It literally doesn’t matter.

Tell that to Cato the Elder, Marius and Tiberius among many other prominent Romans. All of them recognized Latin as part of the Roman cultural identity.

 

[piratedude]

Tell that to Cato the Elder, Marius and Tiberius among many other prominent Romans. All of them recognized Latin as part of the Roman cultural identity.

They also only existed at particular points in history, you cant take them out of their contexts.
Their conceptions of romanitas where particular to their time and station, but its clear that the popularly held notions of it evolved and changed with the empire, and even outlived it.
As i and others have pointed out, greeks living under ottoman rule even as late as the 19th century called themselves rhomanoi because greekness and romaness had been intertwined tightly for literal millennia

 

[Lee-Sensei]

They also only existed at particular points in history, you cant take them out of their contexts.
Their conceptions of romanitas where particular to their time and station, but its clear that the popularly held notions of it evolved and changed with the empire, and even outlived it.
As i and others have pointed out, greeks living under ottoman rule even as late as the 19th century called themselves rhomanoi because greekness and romaness had been intertwined tightly for literal millennia

People have different perspectives. In Western Europe, they Byzantine Empire was often called Imperium Graecorum, to emphasize that it was more of a Hellenic nation than a Latin one.

 

[Socrates]

It's like India and other colonies of the UK continuing to call themselves as British Empire, with maybe having the (Southern) Ireland as well. Without ruling any of the UK or white dominions.

Perhaps if the British government had moved its capital to Delhi as part of one continuous state.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Perhaps if the British government had moved its capital to Delhi as part of one continuous state.

well actually the capital of the Roman Empire wasn't "moved" to the East. Nicomedia and Mediolanum were established as two parallel capitals. Delhi actually was a vice-regal capital so this particular point is a non-issue.

A better point to raise would be that the Raj wasn't part of the British metropol, where as (at least after the Edict of Caracalla) Greece was part of the Roman metropol.

edit: another good point would be the institutions in the capital, Constantinople had its own Senate, where as the Raj only gained a parliament equivalent in 1920, and even then the Raj was still mostly governed by appointed officials.

 

[Mister Mister]

I don't think there is a single point where "Rome" ends and "Byzantium" begins. Certainly there are no breaks in continuity at least until 1204. I generally call it "Rome" until the Arab Conquests and "Byzantium" after, but that is just to prevent confusion. It is not a statement of the legitimacy of the Roman state or anything like that.

I guess if you look for a singular date, you're just not going to find one. The Roman Empire evolved very gradually and were its territory to still encompass Rome I'm sure there would be no reason not to call it Rome. A lot of the traditions and trappings of the Roman Empire survived all the way to 1453.

Agreed.