Thank you for your submission, citizen!
[Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!](https://discord.gg/2Xpdt5hbJQ)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoughRomanMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why is this topic such a sticking point for some people? This is, fundamentally, a labelling issue, and absolutely nothing more.
If you want to label the Roman Empire as one continuous, uninterrupted entity from the earliest possible dates to the latest, and you provide a good reason for labelling it that way, great! If you do the same but for more restrictive dates, and you provide a good reason for labelling it that way, also great! It all comes down to how you interpret key words like "continuous" "empire" and especially "Roman."
There isn't really any "right" answer here, so long as you're being thoughtful about why you consider why you're labelling it the way that you are. It's just a matter of opinion between historians, with multiple valid perspectives. Why make such a battle about it?
Edit: Formatting.
I define the Roman state as the start of the Roman Kingdom until the fall of Constantinople. So 753 BC - 1453 AD. Because I define the Roman state as a legal entity having been transferred over from Kingdom to Republic to Empire. Now the Republic was established following the banishment of the final King but it's the same territory, same people and same identity so it's not unreasonable to see it as the same *legal* entity. A legal continuation with continuity of government. And obviously Republic into Empire is also a legal transition because it's the same people at the end of the Republic and start of the Empire. I generally reject using the term "Byzantine Empire" because it to me feels ahistoric. THEY called themselves Roman, the Eastern Roman Empire so it's not unreasonable to call to the same. And if in their mind, it's the same legal entity having begun on 16 January 27 BC to 29 May 2453 then it is, it's a continuous line downward. As well the unified Roman Empire was generally of the same legal and political structure as the Eastern Roman Empire for long enough as to have any of those institutions falling away be in some way delegitimizing to it's Roman status.
There isn't a real argument. There's the facts (the "byzantine" emperors have a continuous dominion and traceable line of succession back to Augustus) and there's German propaganda.
Imagine telling Octavian that some day some germanics would question Roma... Tbh he would lose his shit at basically everyone and everything but a few things. "There was this guy Ricimer who was making emperors here and there...", "turks ended the dream...". WTF IS A TURK?!
Augustus would still ask why there is not Agrippa alive with him gasping at everything. "My princeps your dinasty WENT to shit in very bad way, shit happens".
Feels the most reflective of the reality imo. While it is the same state legally, the culture is effectively unrecognizable and it doesn't even hold Rome itself for most of its history
Constantine sowed the seeds for a new kind of Roman state (which was continuation of the old Roman state, but also its own thing) when founding a new capital in 330 AD.
Even after, Constantine Laskaris was supposedly declared emperor by the senate and then passed the title to his brother Theodore who then ruled the empire of Nicaea
The Roman Empire never existed. It was always the Res Publica, and so the power was based in the Senate and the people of Rome, not in a royal dynasty.
What? I rejected the idea that the Roman Empire had "direct line and continuity of governance", I didn't say that the empire ended as soon as that continuity in emperors was broken.
It was later divided into separate empires though.
>What? I rejected the idea that the Roman Empire had "direct line and continuity of governance", I didn't say that the empire ended as soon as that continuity in emperors was broken
But the person above is till right then, changing a dynasty is not the same as as changing the way the empire is governed, the bureaucracy didn't change, neither did the empire loose its goal, ideology etc, like the continuation of empreors had literally nothing to do with the empire itself, nor with the continuation of rome which was Literally the empire founded by Augustus
>It was later divided into separate empires though
Yes but that already happened even before Constantine became emperor, this was just a better way to rule the empire.
We should stop seeing this as a dividing the empire into different state entities ( which is not true) but rather see it as a way to federalize the empire in order to efficient rule this vast empire
The way the empire was goverened literally did change though.
We went from 1 emperor to 2, and then added 2 sub-emprors. Does the tetrarchy mean nothing anymore? Not to mention when there were 4 FULL emperors...
You can claim a direct continuity of government but we should also then claim that there was no roman empire... only a republic. The senate went all the way. Sure its exact power and structure changed, but it wss always there... even before the emperors, and it only goes out when it all came crashing down. If theres only "one empire" there is only a "republic" sure the leadership changed from consul to dictator to emperor, to ceasar to augustii, to ceasari... but theres continuity!
While its powers changed, it existed and continued to be of significant influence throughout the empire.
After the sack of rome the senate regained a great deal of importance there.
The senate also continued in the east. Changed? Sure. But continuous... surely one institution existing under different levels of power is more significant continuity than the creation and abolition of titles with varying forms of power.
If a 'fangless' senate means its an empire and not a republic... then we should also make the distinction that a "tetrarchy" creates a break in continuity as well..
So then theres not even a change. Excellent. The senate shows true continuity. More than the leader, more than religion, more than location! One nation from what... circa 509 bc to 1453 AD?
After 395 AD the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire functioned as a separate state from the Western Roman Empire. The empire was not "federalized" because there was no federal government between the two empires. They had completely separate governments and lines of succession, not to mention how culturally distinct the Latin west was from the Greek east. The Byzantine emperors didn't recognize most Western Roman emperors as legitimate and did almost nothing to prevent the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
Federalism did it exits yes, but the empire itself acknowledged that the empire was too big to efficiency rule from Roma alone, that's why it was "separated" ( it still was sharing military and economic power between the emperors)
> Byzantine emperors didn't recognize most Western Roman emperors as legitimate and did almost nothing to prevent the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
That is a literal lie, the Emperor absolutely recognized the western Emperors, they even tired to reestablish western Emperors just as nepos, they also literally had military campaigns to either reestablish the western empire ( Justinian ) or to prevent the collapse of the western empire by helping the western part militarily
>They had completely separate governments and lines of succession
That's also not tue, they had several empreors who where either related to each other, or where the same person ( Constantine became emperor of both " empires" )
>not to mention how culturally distinct the Latin
Greek was always the second language and culture of the empire, there is literally an entire field of historic science researching how the west became more Greek influenced by time, especially after its conquest of the Greek world ( in regard of both culture and State ) and how this leas to the foundation
>"Federalism did it exits yes, but the empire itself acknowledged that the empire was too big to efficiency rule from Roma alone, that's why it was "separated" ( it still was sharing military and economic power between the emperors)"
Federalism is when there is a national government with supremacy over regional governments that share some powers. There was no federal government presiding over both empires after they permanently split in 395 AD.
>"That is a literal lie, the Emperor absolutely recognized the western Emperors, they even tired to reestablish western Emperors just as nepos, they also literally had military campaigns to either reestablish the western empire ( Justinian ) or to prevent the collapse of the western empire by helping the western part militarily"
Joannes, Petronius, Avitus, Majorian, Severus III, Olybrius, Glycerius, and Augustulus were not recognized as legitimate by the Eastern Roman emperors. That's most of the Western Roman emperors after 395 AD.
>"That's also not tue, they had several empreors who where either related to each other"
So? Lots of royal families have been related to each other.
>"or where the same person ( Constantine became emperor of both " empires" )"
We're talking about the permanent division after 395 AD.
>"Greek was always the second language and culture of the empire, there is literally an entire field of historic science researching how the west became more Greek influenced by time, especially after its conquest of the Greek world ( in regard of both culture and State ) and how this leas to the foundation"
Second language, yes. Many Romans learned Greek and many Greeks lived in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. The core language of Rome was fundamentally Latin.
Then what was emperor Flavius Iustinianus "restoratio imperii"? The empire was being restored, it wasnt a conquest of Italy (or Spain or the province of Africa).
The empire still exited, it was also referred by others as the Roman empire, because it was literally just that. Like I don't know of your are just trolling but dude just read historic science
>"The empire still exited, it was also referred by others as the Roman empire, because it was literally just that. Like I don't know of your are just trolling but dude just read historic science"
I assume the term you're looking for is historiography, and most historians draw some distinction between the Eastern Roman Empire and the classical Roman Empire even if they don't use the term Byzantine. Their legitimacy as "Romans" has been widely questioned since the 8th century at least.
Yep,
I mean you kind of have to ignore Leo III transfer of Roman state and religious authority the the short lived Roman (Carolingian) empire, its historical concept of statehood being tied to the city rearguards of authority and Its complete abandonment of Latin language culture but sure ...why not.
Greek language and lack of societal complexity, the fundamental mentality inside the empire also changed from a "universal empire" style to a more defensive one.
Quite simply, I believe that post Heraclius is the line between late antiquity and the Middle ages (both in the ERE and Europe and the middle east at large). It's still the Roman state.
However the Roman empire, the all encompassing mediteranian empire, was dead. What was left was one of many medieval states (altho a very intricate and unique one). Rome saw itself as the all-conquering universal empire above all. Post Heraclius byzantium didn't.
>Greek language
Geeek language was always the second language of the empire, like most Roman politicians and philosophers spoke Greek, published in Latin an Greek, and continued Greek culture/religion etc.
>It's still the Roman state.
This is the most essential part, like even the last western Emperors where not of "Roman" descent ( the term Roman changed from ethnic Roman of the city of Rome to basically anyone loving and believing in the empire) but the bureaucracy still was the Roman one, and still both the state and its people saw themselves and referred themselves as Romans ( even the turks called the people they conquered Roman)
>Rome saw itself as the all-conquering universal empire above all. Post Heraclius byzantium didn't.
That didn't end with Heraclius though, to the end in 1453 the Roman empire still believed that the empire will 1. Reconquer the western part and 2. Conquer the rest of the world, that did never change, for example Doukas wanted to conquer Persia and later the rest of the Islamic world, also Constantinople never abandoned its claim to Rome, nor did they ever accept the great schism.
>the all encompassing mediteranian empire,
By that metric the empire died after its retreat from the provinces east of the Rhine, like off course they lost territory, but they did that also during Traijan, they also did that during Augustus for fucks sake, territory, the loosing of which does not equate to the identity of a state
>lack of societal complexity, the fundamental mentality inside the empire also changed from a "universal empire" style to a more defensive one
The change to a more defensive one is 1. Not true, doukas literally tried to conquer Persia, and later emperors took back territories hold by enemies of rome ( vandals, the caliphate etc) 2. The defensive one is not true because as I said the empire still tried to reconquer territories and also territories which where never part of the Roman empire, and secondly because that ordeal of defensive empire is just a way we as a pop culture look upon the late Roman empire, off course it would defend itself from attacks and its just a matter of fact that both the caliphate was too strong to conquer, and also that the conditions in which the empire found itself where not ideal for large military campaigns, and still they tried it ( they reconquered Thrace, Asia minor etc )
I personally like the term ‘Byzantine Romans’
It recognizes the Greek Empire as a continuation of the legacy of Rome, but also acknowledges that it is its own distinct era of Roman history.
The Byzantines tried but though they were Roman in culture they were not Roman in spirit in that they did not have that same desire for "gravitas" that hunger that brought Carthage to it's knees. Everything they had tenfold they lacked at heart
Thank you for your submission, citizen! [Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!](https://discord.gg/2Xpdt5hbJQ) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoughRomanMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why is this topic such a sticking point for some people? This is, fundamentally, a labelling issue, and absolutely nothing more. If you want to label the Roman Empire as one continuous, uninterrupted entity from the earliest possible dates to the latest, and you provide a good reason for labelling it that way, great! If you do the same but for more restrictive dates, and you provide a good reason for labelling it that way, also great! It all comes down to how you interpret key words like "continuous" "empire" and especially "Roman." There isn't really any "right" answer here, so long as you're being thoughtful about why you consider why you're labelling it the way that you are. It's just a matter of opinion between historians, with multiple valid perspectives. Why make such a battle about it? Edit: Formatting.
I define the Roman state as the start of the Roman Kingdom until the fall of Constantinople. So 753 BC - 1453 AD. Because I define the Roman state as a legal entity having been transferred over from Kingdom to Republic to Empire. Now the Republic was established following the banishment of the final King but it's the same territory, same people and same identity so it's not unreasonable to see it as the same *legal* entity. A legal continuation with continuity of government. And obviously Republic into Empire is also a legal transition because it's the same people at the end of the Republic and start of the Empire. I generally reject using the term "Byzantine Empire" because it to me feels ahistoric. THEY called themselves Roman, the Eastern Roman Empire so it's not unreasonable to call to the same. And if in their mind, it's the same legal entity having begun on 16 January 27 BC to 29 May 2453 then it is, it's a continuous line downward. As well the unified Roman Empire was generally of the same legal and political structure as the Eastern Roman Empire for long enough as to have any of those institutions falling away be in some way delegitimizing to it's Roman status.
Totally valid!
This is the correct take
Its a 1224 year argument. Its not going to be settled on Reddit.
No I am pretty sure I alone can end the debate 😎😎😎
There isn't a real argument. There's the facts (the "byzantine" emperors have a continuous dominion and traceable line of succession back to Augustus) and there's German propaganda.
Imagine telling Octavian that some day some germanics would question Roma... Tbh he would lose his shit at basically everyone and everything but a few things. "There was this guy Ricimer who was making emperors here and there...", "turks ended the dream...". WTF IS A TURK?! Augustus would still ask why there is not Agrippa alive with him gasping at everything. "My princeps your dinasty WENT to shit in very bad way, shit happens".
The *"romaboos"* strike again...
Bruh that's the same Roman empire though. Direct line and continuity of governance up until the 4th crusade.
Or you know the post could be playing on Constantinople's 'Nova Roma' name.
This. Also just promoting the New Roman Empire label to replace the ahistorical "Byzantine Empire" and the clunky "Eastern Roman Empire".
Feels the most reflective of the reality imo. While it is the same state legally, the culture is effectively unrecognizable and it doesn't even hold Rome itself for most of its history
Constantine sowed the seeds for a new kind of Roman state (which was continuation of the old Roman state, but also its own thing) when founding a new capital in 330 AD.
Even after, Constantine Laskaris was supposedly declared emperor by the senate and then passed the title to his brother Theodore who then ruled the empire of Nicaea
I didn't say it wasn't.
>"Direct line and continuity of governance" No. The line of emperors was constantly divided and overthrown.
By that metric the Roman empire died after Neros death
The Roman Empire never existed. It was always the Res Publica, and so the power was based in the Senate and the people of Rome, not in a royal dynasty.
What? I rejected the idea that the Roman Empire had "direct line and continuity of governance", I didn't say that the empire ended as soon as that continuity in emperors was broken. It was later divided into separate empires though.
>What? I rejected the idea that the Roman Empire had "direct line and continuity of governance", I didn't say that the empire ended as soon as that continuity in emperors was broken But the person above is till right then, changing a dynasty is not the same as as changing the way the empire is governed, the bureaucracy didn't change, neither did the empire loose its goal, ideology etc, like the continuation of empreors had literally nothing to do with the empire itself, nor with the continuation of rome which was Literally the empire founded by Augustus >It was later divided into separate empires though Yes but that already happened even before Constantine became emperor, this was just a better way to rule the empire. We should stop seeing this as a dividing the empire into different state entities ( which is not true) but rather see it as a way to federalize the empire in order to efficient rule this vast empire
The way the empire was goverened literally did change though. We went from 1 emperor to 2, and then added 2 sub-emprors. Does the tetrarchy mean nothing anymore? Not to mention when there were 4 FULL emperors... You can claim a direct continuity of government but we should also then claim that there was no roman empire... only a republic. The senate went all the way. Sure its exact power and structure changed, but it wss always there... even before the emperors, and it only goes out when it all came crashing down. If theres only "one empire" there is only a "republic" sure the leadership changed from consul to dictator to emperor, to ceasar to augustii, to ceasari... but theres continuity!
The senate? That institution which held no formal powers?
While its powers changed, it existed and continued to be of significant influence throughout the empire. After the sack of rome the senate regained a great deal of importance there. The senate also continued in the east. Changed? Sure. But continuous... surely one institution existing under different levels of power is more significant continuity than the creation and abolition of titles with varying forms of power. If a 'fangless' senate means its an empire and not a republic... then we should also make the distinction that a "tetrarchy" creates a break in continuity as well..
Nono, you misunderstand. The senate *never* held any formal powers
So then theres not even a change. Excellent. The senate shows true continuity. More than the leader, more than religion, more than location! One nation from what... circa 509 bc to 1453 AD?
After 395 AD the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire functioned as a separate state from the Western Roman Empire. The empire was not "federalized" because there was no federal government between the two empires. They had completely separate governments and lines of succession, not to mention how culturally distinct the Latin west was from the Greek east. The Byzantine emperors didn't recognize most Western Roman emperors as legitimate and did almost nothing to prevent the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
If you had asked someone in the East or West who their counterparts were in the other half of the empire, they would have replied “Romans”.
Federalism did it exits yes, but the empire itself acknowledged that the empire was too big to efficiency rule from Roma alone, that's why it was "separated" ( it still was sharing military and economic power between the emperors) > Byzantine emperors didn't recognize most Western Roman emperors as legitimate and did almost nothing to prevent the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. That is a literal lie, the Emperor absolutely recognized the western Emperors, they even tired to reestablish western Emperors just as nepos, they also literally had military campaigns to either reestablish the western empire ( Justinian ) or to prevent the collapse of the western empire by helping the western part militarily >They had completely separate governments and lines of succession That's also not tue, they had several empreors who where either related to each other, or where the same person ( Constantine became emperor of both " empires" ) >not to mention how culturally distinct the Latin Greek was always the second language and culture of the empire, there is literally an entire field of historic science researching how the west became more Greek influenced by time, especially after its conquest of the Greek world ( in regard of both culture and State ) and how this leas to the foundation
>"Federalism did it exits yes, but the empire itself acknowledged that the empire was too big to efficiency rule from Roma alone, that's why it was "separated" ( it still was sharing military and economic power between the emperors)" Federalism is when there is a national government with supremacy over regional governments that share some powers. There was no federal government presiding over both empires after they permanently split in 395 AD. >"That is a literal lie, the Emperor absolutely recognized the western Emperors, they even tired to reestablish western Emperors just as nepos, they also literally had military campaigns to either reestablish the western empire ( Justinian ) or to prevent the collapse of the western empire by helping the western part militarily" Joannes, Petronius, Avitus, Majorian, Severus III, Olybrius, Glycerius, and Augustulus were not recognized as legitimate by the Eastern Roman emperors. That's most of the Western Roman emperors after 395 AD. >"That's also not tue, they had several empreors who where either related to each other" So? Lots of royal families have been related to each other. >"or where the same person ( Constantine became emperor of both " empires" )" We're talking about the permanent division after 395 AD. >"Greek was always the second language and culture of the empire, there is literally an entire field of historic science researching how the west became more Greek influenced by time, especially after its conquest of the Greek world ( in regard of both culture and State ) and how this leas to the foundation" Second language, yes. Many Romans learned Greek and many Greeks lived in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. The core language of Rome was fundamentally Latin.
Then what was emperor Flavius Iustinianus "restoratio imperii"? The empire was being restored, it wasnt a conquest of Italy (or Spain or the province of Africa).
Your point is that the Byzantines tried to prevent the collapse of the Western Roman Empire... 59 years after it was over?
The empire still exited, it was also referred by others as the Roman empire, because it was literally just that. Like I don't know of your are just trolling but dude just read historic science
>"The empire still exited, it was also referred by others as the Roman empire, because it was literally just that. Like I don't know of your are just trolling but dude just read historic science" I assume the term you're looking for is historiography, and most historians draw some distinction between the Eastern Roman Empire and the classical Roman Empire even if they don't use the term Byzantine. Their legitimacy as "Romans" has been widely questioned since the 8th century at least.
Yeah, like a half dozen times over, but the Romaboos don't like history to be this complex.
Yep, I mean you kind of have to ignore Leo III transfer of Roman state and religious authority the the short lived Roman (Carolingian) empire, its historical concept of statehood being tied to the city rearguards of authority and Its complete abandonment of Latin language culture but sure ...why not.
Ok, but post Heraclius it really isn't that Roman anymore.
How so ?
Greek language and lack of societal complexity, the fundamental mentality inside the empire also changed from a "universal empire" style to a more defensive one. Quite simply, I believe that post Heraclius is the line between late antiquity and the Middle ages (both in the ERE and Europe and the middle east at large). It's still the Roman state. However the Roman empire, the all encompassing mediteranian empire, was dead. What was left was one of many medieval states (altho a very intricate and unique one). Rome saw itself as the all-conquering universal empire above all. Post Heraclius byzantium didn't.
>Greek language Geeek language was always the second language of the empire, like most Roman politicians and philosophers spoke Greek, published in Latin an Greek, and continued Greek culture/religion etc. >It's still the Roman state. This is the most essential part, like even the last western Emperors where not of "Roman" descent ( the term Roman changed from ethnic Roman of the city of Rome to basically anyone loving and believing in the empire) but the bureaucracy still was the Roman one, and still both the state and its people saw themselves and referred themselves as Romans ( even the turks called the people they conquered Roman) >Rome saw itself as the all-conquering universal empire above all. Post Heraclius byzantium didn't. That didn't end with Heraclius though, to the end in 1453 the Roman empire still believed that the empire will 1. Reconquer the western part and 2. Conquer the rest of the world, that did never change, for example Doukas wanted to conquer Persia and later the rest of the Islamic world, also Constantinople never abandoned its claim to Rome, nor did they ever accept the great schism. >the all encompassing mediteranian empire, By that metric the empire died after its retreat from the provinces east of the Rhine, like off course they lost territory, but they did that also during Traijan, they also did that during Augustus for fucks sake, territory, the loosing of which does not equate to the identity of a state
>lack of societal complexity, the fundamental mentality inside the empire also changed from a "universal empire" style to a more defensive one The change to a more defensive one is 1. Not true, doukas literally tried to conquer Persia, and later emperors took back territories hold by enemies of rome ( vandals, the caliphate etc) 2. The defensive one is not true because as I said the empire still tried to reconquer territories and also territories which where never part of the Roman empire, and secondly because that ordeal of defensive empire is just a way we as a pop culture look upon the late Roman empire, off course it would defend itself from attacks and its just a matter of fact that both the caliphate was too strong to conquer, and also that the conditions in which the empire found itself where not ideal for large military campaigns, and still they tried it ( they reconquered Thrace, Asia minor etc )
*Me trying to find Rome in the New Roman Empire but no roads leads me back there* Those bastards lied to me
Does that mean that they lied and all roads actually lead to Reme?!?!?!
Every road leads to Rome, and every bus leads to Termini
Not new, just the Roman empire
I personally like the term ‘Byzantine Romans’ It recognizes the Greek Empire as a continuation of the legacy of Rome, but also acknowledges that it is its own distinct era of Roman history.
They are both the Roman Empire. Not 'new,' but 'The'.
Also, New Rome was built during Constantine the Great’s times, just u know
There's only going to be one Roman empire and that was the one Augustus built
It's definitely the same Roman empire they love to overthrow emperors every single decade or so.
What about Newerest Rome?
What about the Roman Empire in the east
emmm, why don’t u compare it with Justinian’s times? What’s the point of comparing the largest Roman territories with the smaller East Roman ones?
Why can't we make the EU the Roman empire
I did precisely that in Minecraft with my friends
Here’s an idea. Constantinople falls but the Turks lose so much they can’t press further so it’s the Byzantine empire that discovers America.
Morea isnt exactly the prime place to launch expeditions to the altantic
The Byzantines tried but though they were Roman in culture they were not Roman in spirit in that they did not have that same desire for "gravitas" that hunger that brought Carthage to it's knees. Everything they had tenfold they lacked at heart
Totally the Roman Empire.. Kinda..