High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army

[Frank]

After the reign of Herakleios and the loss of Syria, Egypt and Africa, I would even not call the East a Roman Empire anymore. Now after the reorganisation based on Themata things became even more different anyways. A fuly new era started. But thats just my personal view.

And how would you call it then?The "Byzantine empire"?Personally I can't agree.
Romans in different eras always evolved significantly.But they don't stop to be roman state,just because they were different from the time of Emperor Trajan.

I do not disagree with you! I underlined the term Empire in my post above with a reason. I don't say, that the Rhomanoi were no romans anymore. I say, it was no Empire anymore! Let's call it Kingdom of Anatolia or whatever you want. Fact is, I don't care about "roman" history after Herakleios, because the Empire was gone and every theoretical chance to get the ancient mediterrenean culture back, too.

When I first read Pirennes book about the Fall of Rome 30 years ago, where he argues, that the Roman Empire did not fall in the 5th century but in the 7th century (if at all), I was first doubtfully astonished, too. In the meantime, I still do not agree with most parts of Pirennes theory, but the 7th century as a major break in european and roman history makes a lot of sense to me.