Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 7th, 2017, 11:47 PM   #21

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,791

Quote:
Originally Posted by At Each Kilometer View Post
@Maki Ivan Asen II reigned after the fall of the City in 1204. Crusader emperors who claimed of coarse direct heritage from the fallen Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire ruled from Constantinople their Imperiim Romanae. For most of historumites, as you can see from the link i posted in my initial post, 1204 is the year of the end of ERE. Some accept the reign of Heracleus, allegedly when Romaioi abandoned roman titles/latin language and introduced greek as the empire's official language as the borderline between ERE & Byzantium. These are mostly occidental pov of coarse, from the perspective of its inhabitants it was roman till the end and even after that - Rum millet /yo-ho-ho and the bottle of rum/. One historumite from greek diaspora in Australia, sadly banned for a while, told me that he considers himself roman.Amazing, isnt it?

Regarding Charlemagne, he was crowned emperor by the pope in 800. Irene ruled as empress in the east at the time. Being a woman ergo unfit to be emperor, according to Franks and the Pope, the position was vacant, aside from purely religious differences between west and east. The relations between Popes and ERE Autokrators worsened gradually centuries before 1054.
I merely used Ivan Asen II as an example that even in Bulgaria the name Greek was used for Byzantium. Simeon is an interesting example, he was the Emperor of Bulgarians and Romans, though it is probably because Simeon had ambitions of actually taking Constantinople so had to Byzantify (yeah, a bad word) his title, much like Dušan's title in Greek was the emperor of Serbs and Romans, while in Serbian it was emperor of Serbs and Greeks. OTOH, Ivan Asen II seemed to have plans to take Constantinople by becoming regent of Latin Emperor Baldwin II so he didn't need to appeal to the Byzantines.
Maki is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 8th, 2017, 12:34 AM   #22
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 3,214

@Maki In all inscriptions of the pagan bulgarian khans from Krum to Presian from IX century, before Christianisation of Bulgaria, St.Cyril and Methodius and OCS, greek alphabet has been used. FYI.
At Each Kilometer is offline  
Old December 8th, 2017, 03:51 AM   #23

SufiMystic's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: On a magic carpet
Posts: 692

I propose :

1. Eastern Roman Empire up to 1204.
2. Empire of Nicaea up to 1261.
3. Byzantine Empire after 1261.
SufiMystic is offline  
Old December 8th, 2017, 05:05 AM   #24

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,791

I don't see why 1204 should be a breaking point in labeling the Byzantines as Romans. Yes, it is without a doubt one of the most important and tragic years in Byzantine history, but the Empire didn't suddenly de-Romanize itself. The revival of the Greek identity was already underway, the Empire had already lost most of its non-Greek inhabited territories under the Angeloi, and the empire of Nicaea still called itself the Roman Empire therefore the Empire they restored was Roman as well.
Maki is offline  
Old December 8th, 2017, 06:11 AM   #25

SufiMystic's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: On a magic carpet
Posts: 692

Nicaea calling itself the Roman Empire seems mildly ridiculous. It wasn't even as big as the ancient kingdom of Pergamon.
SufiMystic is offline  
Old December 8th, 2017, 06:27 AM   #26

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,791

Quote:
Originally Posted by SufiMystic View Post
Nicaea calling itself the Roman Empire seems mildly ridiculous. It wasn't even as big as the ancient kingdom of Pergamon.
So what? The fact that the country was small doesn't mean that they should change their name. The Byzantines officially called themselves Romans when they were a city-state consisting of only Constantinople and its environs. If a state loses territory, it doesn't cease to be the same state.
Maki is offline  
Old December 8th, 2017, 09:37 AM   #27

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by SufiMystic View Post
Nicaea calling itself the Roman Empire seems mildly ridiculous. It wasn't even as big as the ancient kingdom of Pergamon.
Mystic-I think any state has the right to call itself whatever it wants. If Burma wants to be called Myanmar, etc., that's its right.

In the Americas, Paraguay lost about 40% of its prewar territory in the War of the Triple Alliance in the late 19th Century, but it's still called Paraguay.
David Vagamundo is offline  
Old December 8th, 2017, 10:35 AM   #28
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,022

Quote:
Originally Posted by SufiMystic View Post
Nicaea calling itself the Roman Empire seems mildly ridiculous. It wasn't even as big as the ancient kingdom of Pergamon.
Well yeah since we interpreted empire to mean state that dominates a large area of territory but empire could just as easily mean area ruled by an emperor which Nicaea still was. Sure these two things usually are common traits of an empire but they are not mutually exclusive as much as we treat them as such, I guess it just would seem stupid for the Duke of some little state to call himself an Emperor when that word originated from someone who ruled the entire Mediterranean and has almost been exclusively used by rulers who controlled large amounts of territory but doesn't mean they wouldn't have the right to do so.

For example the Roman Kingdom and early Republic were pretty tiny, yet are they any less Roman than the late Roman Republic and the Roman Empire? That being said I don't think anyone would disagree it sounds ridicolous but if the Roman Empire shrinks to Niceea and a little part of Asia Minor and they've seen themselves as Romans their entire life and their parents had and etc, why would they stop calling themselves Romans from their perspective? I think identity hear is the main thing and while we might find it funny that the late Byzantine's saw themselves as the Roman Empire these people were born as Romans and knowing that identity, they weren't going to go like "we control almost no territory let's abandon this once great identity". I actually think countries that aren't doing well tend to find a misplaced identity of past glory quite appealing(which has led to the rise of an infamous political ideology in the 20th century).

Last edited by Emperor of Wurttemburg 43; December 8th, 2017 at 12:27 PM.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old December 8th, 2017, 10:38 AM   #29
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,022

Quote:
Originally Posted by SufiMystic View Post
I propose :

1. Eastern Roman Empire up to 1204.
2. Empire of Nicaea up to 1261.
3. Byzantine Empire after 1261.
An improvement over what we have today no doubt about that. Still what makes the empire Roman until 1204 as it seems you're naming the empire by it's biggest city for 2 and 3 but not doing this for 1. So what gives 1 the right to call itself Roman for the better part of a millennium after losing Rome but not 2 and 3?
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old December 8th, 2017, 12:21 PM   #30

JeanDukeofAlecon's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Victoria, Canada
Posts: 909

Quote:
Originally Posted by SufiMystic View Post
Nicaea calling itself the Roman Empire seems mildly ridiculous. It wasn't even as big as the ancient kingdom of Pergamon.
The term empire, as others have said, didn't carry any specific connotation of size among the Romans, but I'd also like to point out that the Nicaean empire was actually significantly larger and more populous than Pergamon ever was, even at the date of its creation. The latter had only a tenuous hold on the Ionian cities and never controlled Bythinia or the southern Marmara.
JeanDukeofAlecon is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
byzantines, eastern, incorrect, roman



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Other popular Eastern/non Roman cults in the Roman Empire Space Shark Ancient History 28 May 30th, 2016 10:30 PM
Your Top 5 Byzantine/Eastern Roman Emperors Alcibiades Medieval and Byzantine History 10 September 27th, 2012 02:56 AM
what did the (Western and Eastern) Roman Empire call itself? AndreasK Ancient History 1 December 29th, 2011 09:16 AM
Why so many mercenaries in the Eastern Roman Empire? Salah Medieval and Byzantine History 10 December 27th, 2011 07:44 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.