A Byzantine lost city around the year 400 CE.
back
1 comments
Not singling you out, all the articles do it, but: Strange to call this Byzantine. The coins found are from the reign of Constantius II, who at times ruled the whole empire alone (as did his successor Julian). The idea that the East, even when administered separately, was some foreign/"Byzantine"/not-really-Roman "other" was invented much later.
Well, probably Greek-speaking rather than Latin-speaking, right? And with that, would there also be some cultural differences?
One of the articles mentioned inscriptions in Coptic, Latin, and Greek. The elites would have spoken both Greek and Latin, I think? Greek was commonly known and used. Caesar, a Very Latin Roman, as he was being murdered in Rome, is conjectured to have spoken Greek to Brutus, another Very Latin Roman.
The notion that people are mostly monolingual, and that language is very closely tied to a cultural identity, is a modern projection (and far from universally true nowadays as well).
Broadly Latin was the main language in the western Roman Empire but educated people would also have spoken Greek, and in the eastern Mediterranean it was reversed (almost everything was done in Greek but Latin was used for official purposes and by educated people).
Coptic is the interesting one though because it's actually the latest version of ancient Egyptian
But he never said Byzantium wasnt Roman?
I get that there is controversy about if Byzantium was Roman. But the person you’re replying to doesn’t seem to be making any claims about that.
Again, I'm not criticizing that person specifically. They repeated a word that appears in all the articles.
There are two points I was trying to make:
1. At the relevant time, there were no separate Eastern and Western empires, so this city was just Roman, without qualification.
2. Even later, it could just be called Eastern Roman. Calling it Byzantine instead may be a conscious choice to make the Roman-ness disappear. More likely it's just deeply implanted, based on an education that was based on making the Roman-ness disappear. Again, I'm speaking about the general use of the term in all the articles, not by the OP.
Anyway. Even the person in this thread arguing most vehemently for the use of the term Byzantine says it applies to the "latter eastern Roman empire". So it shouldn't be used for this city, since it's neither form the Eastern empire (which, again, did not exist yet) and especially not from its latter period.
There are a lot of people who only learned about history through memes or online talking points, but this is one of those things that is passed around that way.
Sounds like we watched the same Lex interview on Rome...
Yes, invented much later, but the expression of a different power structure that those types of Romans felt was not present. But to our modern eyes it was. Hell, the mere fact the centre of power was in Constantinople and not Rome is proof enough that they were distinct.
Proof to your modern eyes. Not to the eyes of those who also called Constantinople "New Rome", and who called themselves Romans even 1000 years later.
Many Western polities have sought the title of the Roman Empire and the legitimacy it endows. Constantine split the empire, and Constantius II did not rule over Rome (or many other parts of the empire). Is it even reasonable to assert it was still the Roman Empire after the fracture?
Is it legitimate for the Eastern Roman Empire to claim the legacy? I think so, and I think they have among the best arguments for it. Conversely it is also legitimate to note the major differences between the two and the fact that discontinuities do exist.
"Constantine split the empire" is just incorrect. There were co-emperors with regional responsibilities both before and after him. They were co-emperors of one empire. If you want a firm split, 395 (death of Theodosius) is the more common date AFAIK.
I'm not denying that gradually, over well more than a thousand years, the empire (only surviving in the East) changed character in many ways. I am denying that a unique Eastern character sprang up (and immediately applied to Egypt) the moment that Constantinople was founded.
Also worth noting that Roman tradition was for two Consuls at a time.
You're correct, I'm mistaken that Constantine split the empire. That being said I think there are some semantics as far as "co-emperors with regional responsibilities" being in a single polity or separate polities.
I do agree with you that there was no instantaneous Eastern character that sprang up out of nowhere.
"Capital of the Western World for a Cool Thousand Years" (TM)
Russia calls itself a continuation of Rome.
They actually called themselves Ῥωμαῖοι, not Romani, and not every description needs to be emic. There's nothing wrong with the label "Byzantine" except to Byzaboos.
So I shouldn't call them Romans, since that is an English translation of what they called themselves, and thus foreign to them.
But you can call them Byzantines, an English term invented in the 19th century, because... you say so? Thank you, I have been enlightened.
Separately, your facts are wrong, because it was centuries before that the word Byzantine was first used to describe this era of the latter eastern Roman empire. Oops, might want to read a book instead of looking at memes.
Tell me, do you call people from China Chinese? Japan Japanese? Germany German? If so, you're a hypocrite.
You're also arguing against a strawman. I never said they weren't Roman. I only said there's nothing wrong with Byzantine.
Maybe if you weren't so smugly self-righteous, you'd have better reading comprehension.
> Byzaboos
Hey that's fresh. Do they have Hittitomori too?
I'd love to see that! I can't take credit for the term. There are some people who are extreme fans of the Byzantine empire and defend it at every turn. I can kind of get recent history, but being a fanatic about an ancient polity strikes this trained historian as utterly bizarre.
But Wikipedia[0] says Ῥωμαῖοι transliterates to Romaioi, i.e. "Romans".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#Nomenclature
Because I was too brief while at work before, let me be fuller now: if you were to go back a thousand years and ask about the national characteristic of the emperor of Constantinople, they'd look at you crazy because you spoke English. But your question is laden with several assumptions that are completely foreign to their minds. First, Byzantine is an adjective from Byzantium, the original name of Constantinople. First and foremost, when its used in Classical and Late Antique historiography, it's describing an empire, culture, polity, etc. that centers on Constantinople, rather than other cities of the empire. It is not an ethnic marker. The people at the time would have called themselves Greek, Romans, or Syrians. Second, whether "Romaioi" or "Hellenes" is preferred waxes and wanes depending on what's en vogue at the time. Contrary to the meme, the citizens of Athens did not uniformly call themselves "Romans" (Romaioi) from the 320s onward. Some were, some weren't. What language did they speak? What ethnos, genos were they of? What does Romaioi even really mean? That will yield better answers, but again, it differs based on fashion. Lastly, the very idea of a defined "empire" would be very confusing for the ancients. What is that word? It looks like imperium, but that means domain of rule. It's not limited to those at the helm, who might call themselves imperatores, but also Augusti. It's not like a kingdom encompassing other kingdoms. It's just a modern term given to an ancient reality, with no difference at all to names like Byzantine or even Roman.
See e.g. Lintott on the problems of this terminology:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/greece-and-rome/arti...
This whole "debate" is a charade provided by people who once complained they had to take a humanities class and thereafter were clueless about what real modern historians and philologists were discussing about this period.
You've missed the point.
Is the United States become a different entity when it moved its capital between Philadelphia and Washington DC?
Philadelphia and DC is basically the same place though. Similar to how Babylon, Ctesiphon, etc liked moving around in lower Mesopotamia in the same geography
I always liked to think of empires as being defined by the people of a specific geography, bound by cultural and ideological tenets, making a development which allowed them to extract wealth from elsewhere.
The Northwestern US coast is the seat of the US empire, and is effectively defined by leveraging inward European culture, tech , and populations, to conquer a continent worth of free resources under manifest destiny, which has then scaled to the world.
If the capital moved to New York, the US empire would still be the same; based on the same history, culture, and geographical roots.
If it moved to California or Texas, however, I would consider it a new power entirely. The reasons underpinning the change would inherently make it an empire fuelled by a different history, geography, context in the world, etc, no matter how often people would claim to be a continuation of America.
It would be like if the US moved the capital to DC, replaced Christianity with Islam, switched English to French, no longer contained NY, Boston, Pennsylvania, and foreign powers stopped calling it the United States.
Its more complicated than you are making it seem. I dont even have a strong opinion on the conclusion but it’s certainly not how you’ve framed it.
It really isn't more complicated. These are mostly the excuses that 19th century Western European scholars used to deny the Eastern Romans their Romanness, because they wanted to place themselves as the inheritors of Rome.
First, The Roman Empire was always bilingual. Greek always held sway over the eastern half and Latin over the western half. Once the west is gone, of course you'll switch to primarily using the language that most use. The Irish didn't stop being Irish because they primarily speak English now, for example.
Second, the only states that refused to recognize the Eastern Roman Empire as the Roman Empire were the states that were descended from the German invaders and that was because they wanted to claim the Roman mantle for themselves. All of Islam called the East Romans, Rum. As did all of the rest of the world when they had contact with them.
Third, the switch to Christianity had already happened by the time of the split in 395.
Fourth, Rome hadn't been the seat of power for many Emperors since before the Third Century Crisis.
Fifth, states lose and gain territory all the time.
Read The New Roman Empire by Anthony Kaldellis. If you want to read more about this.
>the only states that refused to recognize the Eastern Roman Empire as the Roman Empire were the states that were descended from the German invaders and that was because they wanted to claim the Roman mantle for themselves.
Ironically these guys called themselves Holy Roman Empire, it's neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire. They're hallucinating hundred of years before AI/LLM.
> All of Islam called the East Romans, Rum
Fun fact there's entire Chapter on Rome in the Quran namely Surah Ar-Rum [1]. In the New Testament Bible there's a section or book called Epistle to the Romans, or the letter of Paul to Roman originally written in Koine Greek [2]. But there's letter of Paul not the word of God or Jesus hence called espistle.
There's also an authentic direct letter from the Prophet Muhammad to the Roman Emperor at the time of Hercules inviting him and his subjects to Islam [3]. Please note that Muhammad cannot read or write hence the letter was written for him as dictated by him [4].
[1] Ar-Rum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar-Rum
[2] Epistle to the Romans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans
[3] The Holy Prophet’s letter to Heraclius:
https://www.alhakam.org/holy-prophets-letter-to-heraclius
[4] Diplomatic career of Muhammad: