Byzantium as THE Roman Empire

You forget the russian emperor and protestants and lutherans and anglicans,thing is us orthodox Catholics dont care about the pope,he can go drown himself and I wouldn't care. now I care about our spiritual fathers but not him he is a schematic that broke the communion of the church

Orthodoxy v Catholicism is a matter of politics as much as it is dogma. The Pope hated the Patriarch, the Patriarch hated the Pope, they excommunicated one another. Etc. But that's neither here nor there and not the topic of this thread.
 
You forget the russian emperor and protestants and lutherans and anglicans,thing is us orthodox Catholics dont care about the pope,he can go drown himself and I wouldn't care. now I care about our spiritual fathers but not him he is a schematic that broke the communion of the church
Exactly. The pope is not an emperor, their power is held very differently - its a lot of soft power perceived as hard power.
 
In an empire, you dont have dozens of heridtary rulers with absoulte authority over their own domains, who can and will war against each other and you, who can and will disobey you, who can and will refuse to assist youin removing one of their number.
What where the civil wars if not precisely this? And the kings did not yet, if ever, have absolute power in their realms.
You forget the russian emperor and protestants and lutherans and anglicans,thing is us orthodox Catholics dont care about the pope,he can go drown himself and I wouldn't care. now I care about our spiritual fathers but not him he is a schematic that broke the communion of the church
You're projecting later developments onto the past.
 
The lingua franca of the Classical Roman Empire was... Greek. So this disassociation of Rome with Greek is disingenuous.

The Pope and the Papal State is based out of Rome, does that not by definition make them Roman?

The Roman Empire in the east was the direct successor state to the Roman Empire, does that not, by definition, make them Roman? Their territories comprised the territories of old Rome, their bureaucracy mimicked that of their forebear, their emperor was as 'elected' as the old imperators... etc.
On your points
Agreed
No more so than Italy is the new roman empire
agreed
 
You're projecting later developments onto the past
Yet he didnt have power over orthodox Catholic rulers did he?I would say that even in spiritual matters the pope is inferior to the patriarchs
He claims descent from peter. orthodoxy claims descent from all the disciples of jesus,now lets talk about how the see of antioch should have the same rights as rome as a descendant of peter or am I wrong and rome is somehow special
 
Yet he didnt have power over orthodox Catholic rulers did he?I would say that even in spiritual matters the pope is inferior to the patriarchs
He claims descent from peter. orthodoxy claims descent from all the disciples of jesus,now lets how the see of antioch should have the same rights as rome as a descendant of peter or am I wrong and rome is somehow special

On paper it was a union of equals between the Pentarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. In practice in the East the Patriarchate of Constantinople was Better, in the West, there was only the Pope while Alexandria's Pope was ignored, and Antioch and Jerusalem even more so.
 
Were provincial governors hereditary? No. Did they have a legal obligation to do as the emperor said? yes.
Pretending that some or another king that could depose you in five minutes if he felt that way is merely some or another official and totally your subject ruling his land by your grace is only couple centuries younger than the Roman Empire itself
 
There is a difference between the spiritual power of the Papacy and Imperium. If a provincial governor disobeyed an emperor they didnt get forbidden from religious observance, they got three legions smashing the place up and an appointment with a gladius.

So, in your opinion, law matters not single bit in the measuring of what extent states are? In your opinion, the only point that matters, is the ability for one to slash others with swords, how crude, if I might say. It would also require you to reevaluate history, namely I would like for you to begin to regard a large assortment of states in the past, defined by legal definitions and subtle legal ploys as illegitimate as they did not resort consistently to waging war upon each other.

You however misunderstand the nature of society in those times. Namely, feudalism and the legal complexity of realms permitted the notion of distribution of ruling to others. The Papacy did not say spiritually one is separated from the mass and henceforth this pressures them to submit. Nay, the Papacy had the legal supremacy over all of the lords of Europe to declare any ruler within the realms that were in theory, vassals to the Papacy, as outlaws, renegades and permitted the destruction of any person regardless of their power. This is the same power that feudal lords of Europe exerted upon their vassals, namely that they had the authority to declare their vassals renegades and if the land was not allodial, could revoke lands, titles and assurances from them. So too, did the Papacy have said authority over them in a federated empire with legal binding.

That power to declare rogue and outlaw the lords of Europe was enforced numerous times in Europe with success wherein the Papacy did 'smash' said ruler with their own subjects or with a army of crusaders. In fact, Papal crusades were launched internally among vassals of the Emperor, Castilian king or the English crown for the removal of rulers under interdict. In the case of Innocent III:

1. He had the legal and accepted authority to decide between a split election in the election of a German king.
2. had the authority to declare one king as a renegade and eventually had him fettered and dismantled.
3. had the legal authority to permit one the empire and split titles into two, namely removing Sicily from the Empire.
4. Assert his temporal authority by defeating the Welf in the field of battle, before calling France to crusade against the Empire
5. Placed England under interdiction and caused mass revolt, dismantling the powers held by John Lackland
6. Dismantled the Welf with crusades and the declaration of his renegade status.
7. Proceeded to appoint, without German election the Emperor.

These precedents were all accepted at the time, only with a minor reform in 1308 (the Imperial legal proclamation called juri civi) and eventually in later times at 1414, was this status quo of Papal authority ended.

Another example, the Kingdom of Castile ruled by Peter Anascarid was placed under the interdiction and the Papacy had the authority to define and choose the new king, a bastard Henry of Trastamara and sent him with a crusader army to Castile. Once the army arrived, the nobles and peasants of the realm rebelled and slowly broke Peter, who was overtaken by his bastard brother.

In the case of William the Bastard, the Papacy appointed him to be the king of England and gave him leave to invade lands allodial to another dynasty. Note, William the Bastard, a vassal of the Frankish Capet lords of Paris, requested permission to invade and acquire a title not from his royal liege, but from the liege of England, the Papacy and the liege of his liege, the Papacy once more. Had the Papacy no power to define and revoke titles, then William would have simply done as he pleased.

Likewise, the Papacy commanded entire realms to peace. For example, when the Papacy wished, they were permitted by law to cease all wars within a particular realm, most often utilized in France, Italy and Sardinia, inf act this power was even used during the Byzantine rule in Italy. Papal authority over realm peace was enshrined in legal precedence across Europe, in all realms of the former Frankish states and in England. This is similar to the rights that the Zhou dynasty had in regards to enforcing peace between its hegemons or turning hegemon against each other by legal edict. It is also likewise similar to the authority that feudal lords in Europe had over their vassals, feudal lords could enforce peace upon a particular two vassals at war.


Regarding the legal powers: In feudal law, there was generally two types of law, excluding a third. There was a law that was called civil law, which translates more roughly imo to, royal law. There were laws and customs on royal lands and a law that interpreted how laws and reactions were to be made across less important realms, such as that of counts, dukes and so forth. However, beneath the royal law, which was interstate between different nobles ranks and upon royal fiefs, was a custom law that was different by county. These laws that differed by county were such that they had different coins, weights, legal prescriptions and renderings. In a realm such as France, there may be large areas under royal direct law, with the majority having direction under custom law and likewise all objected to a royal law of commerce between the two.

However, there is a third law above these sorts in medieval understanding. Namely, canoncial law, which in my opinion and the opinion of most scholars, represents a law above royal law and in turn constitutes what royal law is to custom , but between royal-imperial laws. In other words, as royal law was independent and superior to custom law of the lands, so too was Papal law superior to and independent of royal law. This is the ultimate reason why the Papal holdings which comprised 1/3 of Europe in 1200, paid no dues or taxes upon the monarch. In fact; Innocent III ruled with the consensus of Europe in 1214, that:

'The ruler has the ability to request a tax or other resources, but no taxation or appropriation might be done without consent'

Yet, at the same moment, the secular lords paid constant and annual taxes and dues to the Papacy, whilst the Papacy received no dues to pay toward the lords of Europe. My contention, and the contention of most medievalists whom i am familiar with, is that this was not a statement as is the modern revisionist claims it to be, simply a wish to not tax the church; but a symbol of the legal and feudal reality of Europe. The Papacy did not pay taxes to the king of France for the same reason the French king did not pay a tax to the Count of Toulouse. As Girogio Falco noted, this would become the fundamental war of identity in Europe, between the overarching Empire of federated vassals of the Papacy or a revised notion of Europe that we see increasingly develop into the Renaissance era.

Mind you, the Papal power to legally restrict lords is attested not simply in the Latin realms, but in the Byzantine empire during the reign of Justinian I, so there was some minor understanding of Papal power even in this period.

Regarding coins, coins do not matter. In the Saljuq empire, the Saljuqs minted coins in the name of the Abbasid caliph, as did the Delhi sultanate, despite the Abbasids having rule only in Baghdad and the region surrounding. Do you aim to say that the Abbasids were rulers of the entirety of the Islamic world in 1100, due to the majority of the Sunni realms minting coins in their names?

In your reply to @piratedude The Papacy legally could appoint any that they pleased for a particular title if the prior title holder was declared a renegade via interdiction. This was practiced numerous times to great effect. However, the Papacy was also an entity that respected custom, they would prefer to give titles to other nobles than peasants.

@Bloodmage

Do you deny the authority that the Papacy held over the Empire entirely? Do remember, that Justinian I appointed a Monophysite as a patriarch of Constantinople and Pope Agapetus II arrived and dethroned this patriarch and excommunicated Justinian I and appointed his own bishop. The Papacy at the time, prior to Constantinople II said that they granted the Byzantine emperor abilities to appoint bishops as a sign of friendship and love. However, when the Emperor turned to absolutism, the Papacy and other pentarchy members, rejected said authority. The saint and theologian, John of Damascus said for instance, that any who speaks different than the Church (in context, the Papacy) is to be shut out and deprived of their powers, even an Emperor and curiously even an angel.

Go and have dispute with theologians and saints from that era regarding the topic, not myself.

Your response to @piratedude is refuted by the powers the Papacy explicitly held over Byzantine emperors before Justinian I, during his reign and afterward. We talk of deep matters, not the surface level discussion you are engaging in.
 
The thing is though that greek is Roman just as much as latin, and had been so for so long that it was only in the 19th century that they stopped identifying as rhomanoi because previously being 'Hellenes' was equated with being pagan

Absolutely, however in the Roman army only Latin was allowed, and all senators were expected to speak Latin correctly, Claudius even ousted some Greek senators because they couldn’t speak Latin, Hadrianus was mocked by some as a “Graeculus” and Septimius Severus was frowned upon for his foreign accent. In the Byzantine Empire, nobody expected you to know Latin, and making Greek the official language of the empire was huge change that truly demarcated a different age. It’d be like if the USA made Spanish their official language, even if there’s already a huge percentage speaking it, it would drastically change the character of the USA if Spanish were to replace English.
 
Ok so the language of the average roman of the XI century was Greek not Latin, but so was at the time of Trajan for those who happened to live East of the Adriatic (more or less). some of them were already roman citizens, others would acquire their citizenship a century later.

Rome was no longer the official seat of the emperor, but so it was at the time of Diocletian, Galerius, Theodosius and Honorius. Weren’t they roman emperors?

The eastern empire had a completely different military structure compared to the days of Augustus but the same difference can be found between the pre and post Komnenian empire. Was the empire less Roman after Alexios Komnenos just because the army operated in a different way compared to a mere one century earlier.

Post Heraclius empire ruled only a fraction of Trajan’s empire but no province (not even Italy) was at that time essential to define what a true Roman was. Previous emperor had already proved that their seat could move around the empire without undermining their legitimacy as emperor and that Italy was no longer that special.

I could accept the point where the Palaiologian empire could be considered a different entity compared to the empire before 1204, I don’t agree with this point but I recognize that it has more merits than say the Romans “suddenly” forgetting Latin or the Romans “suddenly” losing wars and lands and therefore losing their Romanitas. I don’t see any point of rupture between the first and the last Konstantinos. They evolved but so did the world around them, therefore they adapted.
 
Do you deny the authority that the Papacy held over the Empire entirely?
I do not deny that in the early church the patriarch of the west held authority
I accept that the patriarchs of the west held a primacy(not supremacy)(I.e. primu inter pare)
But that authority disappeared once the east-west schism happened
I do not deny that some ecumenical patriarchs held heretical views(after all they are only human like us)but popes as well have been heretics
But about the doctrine of church and theology the universal church holds power not the patriarchs of the west and it is thus settled in ecumenical councils
 
So, in your opinion, law matters not single bit in the measuring of what extent states are? In your opinion, the only point that matters, is the ability for one to slash others with swords, how crude, if I might say. It would also require you to reevaluate history, namely I would like for you to begin to regard a large assortment of states in the past, defined by legal definitions and subtle legal ploys as illegitimate as they did not resort consistently to waging war upon each other.

You however misunderstand the nature of society in those times. Namely, feudalism and the legal complexity of realms permitted the notion of distribution of ruling to others. The Papacy did not say spiritually one is separated from the mass and henceforth this pressures them to submit. Nay, the Papacy had the legal supremacy over all of the lords of Europe to declare any ruler within the realms that were in theory, vassals to the Papacy, as outlaws, renegades and permitted the destruction of any person regardless of their power. This is the same power that feudal lords of Europe exerted upon their vassals, namely that they had the authority to declare their vassals renegades and if the land was not allodial, could revoke lands, titles and assurances from them. So too, did the Papacy have said authority over them in a federated empire with legal binding.

That power to declare rogue and outlaw the lords of Europe was enforced numerous times in Europe with success wherein the Papacy did 'smash' said ruler with their own subjects or with a army of crusaders. In fact, Papal crusades were launched internally among vassals of the Emperor, Castilian king or the English crown for the removal of rulers under interdict. In the case of Innocent III:

1. He had the legal and accepted authority to decide between a split election in the election of a German king.
2. had the authority to declare one king as a renegade and eventually had him fettered and dismantled.
3. had the legal authority to permit one the empire and split titles into two, namely removing Sicily from the Empire.
4. Assert his temporal authority by defeating the Welf in the field of battle, before calling France to crusade against the Empire
5. Placed England under interdiction and caused mass revolt, dismantling the powers held by John Lackland
6. Dismantled the Welf with crusades and the declaration of his renegade status.
7. Proceeded to appoint, without German election the Emperor.

These precedents were all accepted at the time, only with a minor reform in 1308 (the Imperial legal proclamation called juri civi) and eventually in later times at 1414, was this status quo of Papal authority ended.

Another example, the Kingdom of Castile ruled by Peter Anascarid was placed under the interdiction and the Papacy had the authority to define and choose the new king, a bastard Henry of Trastamara and sent him with a crusader army to Castile. Once the army arrived, the nobles and peasants of the realm rebelled and slowly broke Peter, who was overtaken by his bastard brother.

In the case of William the Bastard, the Papacy appointed him to be the king of England and gave him leave to invade lands allodial to another dynasty. Note, William the Bastard, a vassal of the Frankish Capet lords of Paris, requested permission to invade and acquire a title not from his royal liege, but from the liege of England, the Papacy and the liege of his liege, the Papacy once more. Had the Papacy no power to define and revoke titles, then William would have simply done as he pleased.

Likewise, the Papacy commanded entire realms to peace. For example, when the Papacy wished, they were permitted by law to cease all wars within a particular realm, most often utilized in France, Italy and Sardinia, inf act this power was even used during the Byzantine rule in Italy. Papal authority over realm peace was enshrined in legal precedence across Europe, in all realms of the former Frankish states and in England. This is similar to the rights that the Zhou dynasty had in regards to enforcing peace between its hegemons or turning hegemon against each other by legal edict. It is also likewise similar to the authority that feudal lords in Europe had over their vassals, feudal lords could enforce peace upon a particular two vassals at war.


Regarding the legal powers: In feudal law, there was generally two types of law, excluding a third. There was a law that was called civil law, which translates more roughly imo to, royal law. There were laws and customs on royal lands and a law that interpreted how laws and reactions were to be made across less important realms, such as that of counts, dukes and so forth. However, beneath the royal law, which was interstate between different nobles ranks and upon royal fiefs, was a custom law that was different by county. These laws that differed by county were such that they had different coins, weights, legal prescriptions and renderings. In a realm such as France, there may be large areas under royal direct law, with the majority having direction under custom law and likewise all objected to a royal law of commerce between the two.

However, there is a third law above these sorts in medieval understanding. Namely, canoncial law, which in my opinion and the opinion of most scholars, represents a law above royal law and in turn constitutes what royal law is to custom , but between royal-imperial laws. In other words, as royal law was independent and superior to custom law of the lands, so too was Papal law superior to and independent of royal law. This is the ultimate reason why the Papal holdings which comprised 1/3 of Europe in 1200, paid no dues or taxes upon the monarch. In fact; Innocent III ruled with the consensus of Europe in 1214, that:

'The ruler has the ability to request a tax or other resources, but no taxation or appropriation might be done without consent'

Yet, at the same moment, the secular lords paid constant and annual taxes and dues to the Papacy, whilst the Papacy received no dues to pay toward the lords of Europe. My contention, and the contention of most medievalists whom i am familiar with, is that this was not a statement as is the modern revisionist claims it to be, simply a wish to not tax the church; but a symbol of the legal and feudal reality of Europe. The Papacy did not pay taxes to the king of France for the same reason the French king did not pay a tax to the Count of Toulouse. As Girogio Falco noted, this would become the fundamental war of identity in Europe, between the overarching Empire of federated vassals of the Papacy or a revised notion of Europe that we see increasingly develop into the Renaissance era.

Mind you, the Papal power to legally restrict lords is attested not simply in the Latin realms, but in the Byzantine empire during the reign of Justinian I, so there was some minor understanding of Papal power even in this period.

Regarding coins, coins do not matter. In the Saljuq empire, the Saljuqs minted coins in the name of the Abbasid caliph, as did the Delhi sultanate, despite the Abbasids having rule only in Baghdad and the region surrounding. Do you aim to say that the Abbasids were rulers of the entirety of the Islamic world in 1100, due to the majority of the Sunni realms minting coins in their names?

In your reply to @piratedude The Papacy legally could appoint any that they pleased for a particular title if the prior title holder was declared a renegade via interdiction. This was practiced numerous times to great effect. However, the Papacy was also an entity that respected custom, they would prefer to give titles to other nobles than peasants.

@Bloodmage

Do you deny the authority that the Papacy held over the Empire entirely? Do remember, that Justinian I appointed a Monophysite as a patriarch of Constantinople and Pope Agapetus II arrived and dethroned this patriarch and excommunicated Justinian I and appointed his own bishop. The Papacy at the time, prior to Constantinople II said that they granted the Byzantine emperor abilities to appoint bishops as a sign of friendship and love. However, when the Emperor turned to absolutism, the Papacy and other pentarchy members, rejected said authority. The saint and theologian, John of Damascus said for instance, that any who speaks different than the Church (in context, the Papacy) is to be shut out and deprived of their powers, even an Emperor and curiously even an angel.

Go and have dispute with theologians and saints from that era regarding the topic, not myself.

Your response to @piratedude is refuted by the powers the Papacy explicitly held over Byzantine emperors before Justinian I, during his reign and afterward. We talk of deep matters, not the surface level discussion you are engaging in.
Hardly. Law matters, and the law in European states was made by and enforced by the local king. Your last comment is very patronising. The pope did not outrank the Roman emperor nor did they outrank a medieval king in secular matters.
 
Ok so the language of the average roman of the XI century was Greek not Latin, but so was at the time of Trajan for those who happened to live East of the Adriatic (more or less). some of them were already roman citizens, others would acquire their citizenship a century later.

Rome was no longer the official seat of the emperor, but so it was at the time of Diocletian, Galerius, Theodosius and Honorius. Weren’t they roman emperors?

The eastern empire had a completely different military structure compared to the days of Augustus but the same difference can be found between the pre and post Komnenian empire. Was the empire less Roman after Alexios Komnenos just because the army operated in a different way compared to a mere one century earlier.

Post Heraclius empire ruled only a fraction of Trajan’s empire but no province (not even Italy) was at that time essential to define what a true Roman was. Previous emperor had already proved that their seat could move around the empire without undermining their legitimacy as emperor and that Italy was no longer that special.

I could accept the point where the Palaiologian empire could be considered a different entity compared to the empire before 1204, I don’t agree with this point but I recognize that it has more merits than say the Romans “suddenly” forgetting Latin or the Romans “suddenly” losing wars and lands and therefore losing their Romanitas. I don’t see any point of rupture between the first and the last Konstantinos. They evolved but so did the world around them, therefore they adapted.
All of this. The eastern empire was Roman. It had legitimacy from its foundation through its institutions laws and recognition. Language means basically nothing. Modern English is unintelligible to English William I would have heard but it's the same entity.
 
Absolutely, however in the Roman army only Latin was allowed, and all senators were expected to speak Latin correctly, Claudius even ousted some Greek senators because they couldn’t speak Latin, Hadrianus was mocked by some as a “Graeculus” and Septimius Severus was frowned upon for his foreign accent. In the Byzantine Empire, nobody expected you to know Latin, and making Greek the official language of the empire was huge change that truly demarcated a different age. It’d be like if the USA made Spanish their official language, even if there’s already a huge percentage speaking it, it would drastically change the character of the USA if Spanish were to replace English.
But it'd still be the USA.
 
I do not deny that in the early church the patriarch of the west held authority
I accept that the patriarchs of the west held a primacy(not supremacy)(I.e. primu inter pare)
But that authority disappeared once the east-west schism happened
I do not deny that some ecumenical patriarchs held heretical views(after all they are only human like us)but popes as well have been heretics
But about the doctrine of church and theology the universal church holds power not the patriarchs of the west and it is thus settled in ecumenical councils

Well I am not going to argue theology with you. My point is to refute the notion that the original status of the Byzantine empire was one of imperial absolutism over the Church. This is a wholly incorrect model and developed specifically by Justinian I after his humiliation by the Papacy.

Primacy of Rome, is a discussion of abstractions and reality. I would not argue necessarily that in abstractions the Roman pontiff was above the other pentarchs. However, in reality, the Papacy seems to have had the power to appoint other pentarch members long before 1054 or the supposed apostasy of the Latins purported by the Greek narrative of the situation. Even Muslim intellectuals and scholars noted this situation and sought to rectify it by obfuscating the ability of the Papacy to hold authority as was custom, over the Egyptian or Syrian churches. Muslim scholars in general are the best places to go often, to understand Papal power as they were far less interested in obfuscating the legal situation at the time.
 
Top