East Roman empire and byzantium: chronological borders

[eugene]

Many persons apply the terms East Roman empire and Byzantium
to the same period. But when begins the Byzantine history and ends the
history of the East Roman empire?

[Jona Lendering]

There is no rule. Personally, I think that the real turning point is the rise of Islam; the once polyglot and pluriform Christian Empire lost two patriarchates and its Syriac and Coptic parts. What was left, was religiously and linguistically uniform. For this reason, I use "Byzantine" after 650.

I use "Roman" up to 363. After that, the two halves of the Empire remained separated (except for those months when Theodosius was sole ruler). For the three centuries between 363 and 650, I use both expressions. Others will make different choices.

[Epictetus]

I almost feel guilty for using the term "Byzantine Empire." It has such negative connotations, and of course they never called themselves Byzantines.

[Robert Vermaat]

'Byzantine' is of course anachronistic, but if you really want to use it besides 'Roman', I think the best would be to use it after 476, when there is no more 'Rome' in a Roman empire, but then there is Justinian's reconquest...

I use "Roman" up to 363. After that, the two halves of the Empire remained separated (except for those months when Theodosius was sole ruler).

Gratian rules alone august 378-january 379
Theodosius de facto rules alone 383-389, although the West is ruled (parts of) by usurpers, guardians and generals.
There is no emperor in the West between the death of Libius Severus (August 15 or November 14), 365 and April 12, 367, when Anthemius claims the throne.
As I stated above, the eastern emperors claimed the West after 476, and Justinian ruled large parts of the former western empire.

Maybe thhe death of Maurice would be a good point?

[D B Campbell]

For A.H.M. Jones, the turning point was the execution of Maurice in 602; hence, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602.

[Theodosius the Great]

I almost feel guilty for using the term "Byzantine Empire." It has such negative connotations, and of course they never called themselves Byzantines.

I've heard worse. One time it was refered to as the "Greek Empire" on a documentary about the First Crusade on the History Channel. :evil:

For A.H.M. Jones, the turning point was the execution of Maurice in 602

Ah, Maurice. The sole emperor produced by the Greeks with a shred of competence, only to end up being horribly murdered with his entire family. This is another reason the term Byzantine isn't appropriate. The Greek east could seldom, if ever, produce a single decent emperor. Their best ones were Latin westerners like Constantine I, Theodosius I, and Justinian I, etc.. Or if not Westerners then others whose roots stemmed from marginal areas like Isauria and Armenia.

Anyway, Rome was still nominally under the emperors long after Maurice.

~Theo

[Maximinus243]

Ah, Maurice. The sole emperor produced by the Greeks with a shred of competence, only to end up being horribly murdered with his entire family. This is another reason the term Byzantine isn't appropriate. The Greek east could seldom, if ever, produce a single decent emperor. Their best ones were Latin westerners like Constantine I, Theodosius I, and Justinian I, etc.. Or if not Westerners then others whose roots stemmed from marginal areas like Isauria and Armenia.
~Theo

What about Heraclius and Basil II?

[Theodosius the Great]

What about Heraclius and Basil II?

Great emperors. Both were of Armenian descent.

~Theo

[Sean Manning]

I almost feel guilty for using the term "Byzantine Empire." It has such negative connotations, and of course they never called themselves Byzantines.

I've heard worse. One time it was refered to as the "Greek Empire" on a documentary about the First Crusade on the History Channel. :evil:

Why is that bad? After the year 800, there are two empires (ie. acknowledged successors to the Roman Empire) in Europe. One rules mostly Romance and Germanic speakers, and is linked to the Latin church; one rules mostly Greek speakers and is linked to the Greek church. Calling one the Latin or German empire and one the Greek empire seems at least as good as the anachronistic "Holy Roman Empire" and the imposed-by-outsiders "Byzantine empire"!

[Theodosius the Great]

There's a fairly recent book on Rome under the Eastern emperors that I downloaded onto my Kindle, actually just the sample (I plan to buy the physical book).
It's called "Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590-752".
I disagree with the author's use of the term "Greek" to describe the Popes and the Eastern Romans because they were not ethnic Greeks. Whereas many, if not most, of the Popes in the 1st and 2nd centuries were real Greeks. Anyway, the book is facinating as it describes the relationship between the reconquered Italians and the imperial government both in Ravenna and Constantinople.

After the year 800, there are two empires (ie. acknowledged successors to the Roman Empire) in Europe. One rules mostly Romance and Germanic speakers, and is linked to the Latin church; one rules mostly Greek speakers and is linked to the Greek church. Calling one the Latin or German empire and one the Greek empire seems at least as good as the anachronistic "Holy Roman Empire" and the imposed-by-outsiders "Byzantine empire"!

I agree the terms "Holy Roman Empire" and "Greek" are abominations when referring to these two empires. But I feel 'Greek' is more inaccurate because it's an ethnic term. The term "Romans" from very early on was highly inclusive due to their generous (by ancient standards) extension of citizenship to their conquered subjects. But the Greeks were always chauvinistic and would cling to their identity as an Athenian, Theban, or whichever city-state they were born in.

The Eastern Roman Empire owed nothing to classical Greece in terms of administrative system, military organization, or legal system. The only thing Greek about it was the language and some of the architecture.

~Theo

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Personally i only adhere to the historical division in eastern and western half of the Roman empire.

Byzantine has no meaning to me, unless it is used in an art-historical manner.

The Roman empire for me ended when Theodosius outlawed the pagan polytheïstic mother religion of Rome and the Christians took over.

M.VIB.M.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Personally i only adhere to the historical division in eastern and western half of the Roman empire.

Byzantine has no meaning to me, unless it is used in an art-historical manner.

The Roman empire for me ended when Theodosius outlawed the pagan polytheïstic mother religion of Rome and the Christians took over.

M.VIB.M.

I think your find that the old Roman religions had been outlawed a number of decades before Theodosius I came to the purple. Constantine I started the ball rolling, his son Constantius II almost bankrupted the messenger service with the amount of Christian religious meetings he called and enthusiastically carried on his fathers work in Christianising the Roman Empire. Valentinian I and Valens effectively put the coffin lid on, whilst Theodosius nailed it down.

Interestingly, authors such as Libanius and Ammianus are treated as the epitome of Romans, when in fact they considered themselves Greek!

But I agree, the term Byzantine has no meaning when those right at its very end were still calling themselves 'Roman'.

[Theodosius the Great]

The Roman empire for me ended when Theodosius outlawed the pagan polytheïstic mother religion of Rome and the Christians took over

The first part is nonsense. Government toleration was still the norm under him. All he did was ban some of the more garish public festivals, symbols, and rituals of paganism. Bloody gladitorial fights continued unabated. Some other pagan rituals could still be practiced openly, especially in places away from the cities.

As for the second part, Theodosius made Christianity the state religion which just means he changed its long held de facto status to de jure. No doubt the religion's new status was accompanied by expanded Church building and promulgation of Christian laws. But that's the extent of his religious policy regarding Christianity's external relations.

From a more secular point of view I suppose the end of his reign would mark a good turning point from classical to late antiquity since Theodosius's empire still retained its classical borders - Britain, the Rhine frontier, etc...

I think your find that the old Roman religions had been outlawed a number of decades before Theodosius I came to the purple. Constantine I started the ball rolling, his son Constantius II almost bankrupted the messenger service with the amount of Christian religious meetings he called and enthusiastically carried on his fathers work in Christianising the Roman Empire. Valentinian I and Valens effectively put the coffin lid on, whilst Theodosius nailed it down.

I don't think this is entirely right either. Yes, Constantine started the ball rolling and his sucessors gradually brought his policies to their logical conclusion. But I don't read about entire religions being banned until the reign of Justinian. Under him it was illegal to practice paganism even in private. Of course by then there were very few pagans still around. Constantine and his sucessors, IIRC, just banned pagan practices (e.g. public sacrifices, divination, etc..) and closed state-owned temples. It's another modern myth that paganism was persecuted out of existence. It just couldn't survive without government support to keep propping it up.

~Theo