06-03-2012, 06:45 PM
Well I wouldn't say it was that common place: you're essentially mixing up two different phenomena there. 1) the foundation of cities by Macedonian aristocrats, predominantly royals and 2) an example of the Greek usage of eponymous heroes, a complex and multi-tiered process often done retroactively as the work of Kowalzig, Calame, Dougherty, Hall etc all variously attest to.
I'd say Constantine's handling of Byzantion is more analogous to the former, due to a) direct interaction and b) the massive effect of the Macedonian model of monarchy on how Roman emperors would often comport themselves around this time c) the precedent in the East.
Normally I'd say that the question is, is there any evidence that it was officially titled as the new Rome? I mean...it was quite obvious that it functioned as such, Roma propria had already began losing utility in comparision to places like Mediolanum and Ravenna in the West and the economic, socio-political, and cultural focus of the empire was already firmly in the south-east. Did Nea Rwma had to be an actual proper name or would a sort of...honorific title suffice as explanation?
Yet Macedon is saying that there are several official examples of usage, as such we ought to take it seriously. Either way that "article" doesn't deserve the name.
It's an interesting question, we know that Constantinople functioned as a capital, I wouldn't be surprised if this was reflected in official nomenclature.
I'd say Constantine's handling of Byzantion is more analogous to the former, due to a) direct interaction and b) the massive effect of the Macedonian model of monarchy on how Roman emperors would often comport themselves around this time c) the precedent in the East.
Normally I'd say that the question is, is there any evidence that it was officially titled as the new Rome? I mean...it was quite obvious that it functioned as such, Roma propria had already began losing utility in comparision to places like Mediolanum and Ravenna in the West and the economic, socio-political, and cultural focus of the empire was already firmly in the south-east. Did Nea Rwma had to be an actual proper name or would a sort of...honorific title suffice as explanation?
Yet Macedon is saying that there are several official examples of usage, as such we ought to take it seriously. Either way that "article" doesn't deserve the name.
It's an interesting question, we know that Constantinople functioned as a capital, I wouldn't be surprised if this was reflected in official nomenclature.
Jass
