Roman, Eastern Roman and Trebizond empire

[lenkiri]

Ok, dear Paradox. Lets tell about what is Roman Empire. At first we should consider 395 AD. What is happening? Roman Empire is spliting for two Empires? No! In that year, no one couldn't have imagined that the state was split into two states. On the contrary, the separation was a purely legal way, by the will of the deceased emperor. Both parts are legally single, but actually divided the state continued to be aware of themselves as a single whole. There no Western Roman and Eastern Roman Empires. There were only Western and Eastern Parts of Empire.
And the authorities are parallel. And the Institute of consuls was divided between them: one consul in the West, the other in the East. It was too hard for one authority to rule.

Then the western part of the empire was absorbed by the barbarians. However, the Roman Empire continued to exist in another territory - in the East. Empire lost territrories in the west, NOT MORE happened. It is normal for any countries to lost territory. But in some reason u started call the Roman Empire as something else. It is only now we have come up with the terms - "Eastern Roman Empire", "The Byzantine Empire". In those days, did someone said so? Of course not. And the name of this state with its capital in Constantinople? "Roman" or later in the Greek pronunciation of "Romania". Until 600 year primary language was Latin. And everything about the government remained as Roman. After all, the state itself arose around Constantinople, the capital city of the Roman state.

Yes, social change began to occur. After all, the Greeks were the dominant people here. But the state remains the same. Direct continuity of Rome and Constantinople confirmed by law. The Empire was divided in 395. After 34 years, Eastern government organized a commission to collect and publish all the major laws adopted since 312, when Constantine the Great became August. The Commission has worked for 9 years. The result of her work was the Code of Theodosius, promulgated on February 15 East 438 years, and in the West (!) December 23 of the same year. As you can see, the Eastern Roman jurists gathered legislative practice throughout the empire, and brought it back in order. Then set up a code of laws has become common in the East, and on a completely independent (for 43 years) from him politically in the West. Such examples can be show in a large number. But it is not required. Too obvious inheritance statehood.

The Roman Empire. Is it a continuation of the Roman state in its republican form of government? Of course. Even considering that the evolution of the state bodies did not take place peacefully in an evolutionary way, but after the revolution, expressed in a series of bloody civil wars.
The Byzantine Empire (with all the controversy of the term) generally calm and peacefully evolved from the old Rome. But with fragments of "Byzantium", formed in 1204, is more difficult. There are Despotate of Epirus, Trebizond Empire and Empire of Nicaea. They are all separated parts of a single state body. After all, they appeared on the territory of the old empire. They created by people, which had a direct relation to the elite circles of the "Byzantine" population. Their socio-political struture absolutely copied from "Byzantine". No one will argue that Empire of Nicaea - it's the same "Byzantium". A Trebizond not - only because he did not subsequently took Constantinople? Or for some other reason? About Trebizond: I want to say that Trebizond MUST be the empire too in game. And you cant give me any arguments against this.
Little about Trebizond Empire. Trebizond was able to save themselves during 200 years. But how this small empire could? The Trebizond Emperors gave their daughters for marriages with many Turkish clans and states. And on 1444-1461 their defenders were Aq-qoyunlu. But Osmans threatened to attack them if Aq-qoyunlu start to defend Trebizond. So there must be also alliance between aq-qoyunlu and Trebizond.

So, you must rename "Byzantine" to Roman Empire and delete new decision to form Roman Empire from Byz.
Statehood is not assigned by out and from future. And cant call this Empire as Byzantium.

Your possible questions.

1) Q:But Roman("Byzantine") Empire not same like he was in 5th century.

A:Yes! And thats normal for any country. Passed 1000 year. Roman Empire also not same as republic. I explained before.

2)Q:Byzantine Empire is Byzantine Empire, you fool.
A:in which year there appeared "non-Roman" Byzantine Empire? In which year there are new controls that are not heirs Roman authorities? Representatives and successors of which state by they were created?

3)Q: In any case this is not Roman Empire, you fool.
A:The term "Roman" Empire has a primarily institutional character, and not ethnic. If we take the era of escalating the republic into an empire, we see the spread of Roman citizenship to virtually in all of Italy. There were many tribes in Italy. In 212 the Edict of Caracalla turned into a "Roman" all the free inhabitants of the empire, regardless of whether they were Italians, Greeks or Egyptians. So Greeks is Also Romans. After 2 years when they changed primary language - It was the evolution of the state. And not the replacement of one State by another. And same with will changes. Legally he fully became a Roman when Roman Western part destroyed. And he never legally stopped to be Roman Empire. NEVER.

4) Q:But what with Empire of Charlmagne and HRE? Maybe they had more rights to be the Roman Empire.
A:So worth it Charlemagne to declare himself emperor of Rome (with conquering this city), and he immediately became heir of the ancient emperors? And Frankish state had already existed for several centuries and had its own history.
Calling himself as someone else doesn't mean to be him. You understand. Frankish state has not allocated from the Roman, as was the case with the "Byzantine". HRE is heir of Frankish empire, so same. They only conquered Rome, and not more at all. After, HRE even didnt have a Rome.

 

[Evan05]

1) Q:But Roman("Byzantine") Empire not same like he was in 5th century.

A:Yes! And thats normal for any country. Passed 1000 year. Roman Empire also not same as republic. I explained before.

The Roman Empire was still easily culturally, linguistically, and religiously (up to Constantine the Great) similar (if not completely identical) to the Roman Republic.

Byzantium on the other hand was culturally different, spoke Greek instead of Latin, and were religiously different (west is catholic, east was orthodox). Especially in EU4 terms, the Byzantines are distinct enough to be a separate tag from the Romans.

 

[Karlingid]

The Roman Empire was still easily culturally, linguistically, and religiously (up to Constantine the Great) similar (if not completely identical) to the Roman Republic.

Byzantium on the other hand was culturally different, spoke Greek instead of Latin, and were religiously different (west is catholic, east was orthodox). Especially in EU4 terms, the Byzantines are distinct enough to be a separate tag from the Romans.

The Byzantines used Latin for administration for a couple of centuries after the fall of the West, and thus it is not a valid linguistic argument to say they spoke Greek. This, also, despite the fact that Roman nobility often spoke Greek to each other, as Latin wasn't seen as the upper-class language until the Western Roman Empire was gone. It is even said that Caesar's last words might've been in Greek.

Culturally, the Byzantines were more Roman than the West. The West changed its capital out of Rome to Mediolanum, modern Milan. This put it in closer proximity with barbarians, and more than a few barbarian habits were adopted. The Western Roman Empire relied heavily on German mercenaries, so much so that Roman generals even started to dress like Germans. With the generals adopting German dressing habits, the consuls and other leaders started to do the same. The West hardly resembled the original Roman Empire any more than the Byzantines did, although the Byzantines continued Roman habits of dress until their empire's death, as well as continuing the practice of triumphs and other Roman celebrations. They continued with Roman architecture in a more pure state than the Gothic architecture of the Middle Ages in the West (which, although derived from Romantic architecture, had greatly shifted). What also needs to be remembered is that the capital of the Roman Empire was, before the split, Constantinople.

And religiously, there's a few issues there. Christianity was a single, undivided religion until about 1054, although it was functionally different with the differing influences of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Rome, with the Alexandrian Patriarch making the Copts a thing too. However, by the time the Western Roman Empire fell, these differences were not nearly as pronounced. The Roman Empire was never Catholic. It was Nicene/Chalcedonian/Christian before the schism, and by the time the West fell, there was still very little difference between their respective churches.

Does Byzantium deserve a separate tag? Yes, yes it does. However, I cannot agree that it was pushed away from legitimacy by language, culture, and religion when all three factors were a non-issue when it became the only Roman authority left.

 

[RforRush]

They call it Byzantine because it's common historiographical term and it is how historians used to call this state. For example, Muscovy is in reality called Grand Principality of Moscow.
Also we can use "Byzantine even didnt have a Rome" argument (or loss of Rome for 6 centuries still makes them Romans?).

 

[Mafiabrett]

I have to disagree about Epirus and Trebizond being 'Empires'. Once Nicaea retook lands from the Latin's and reestablished themselves in Constantinople. They made deals with Epirus (after a few wars) and Trebizond rulers to be independent Despots, which nullified any claim to the throne/empire and meant they were lower ranks than the Emperor (they were basically Kingdoms). In return they would remain pretty much independent from Constantinople, make their own laws, etc.

 

[VladPrus]

Yes, that is true. Roman Empire truely felt in 1456 ( or 1203). I agree with all of it. The "byzantium" (I hate this term, I prefer using Greek-Roman Empire, Basileon, Rhomania or something what tells this is greek-dominated Rome) changing tag and became Rome is weird. It should be decision to "rebuild old glory" or something like that. Formable Roman Empire is just stupid.

 

[theBoheme]

The Byzantines used Latin for administration for a couple of centuries after the fall of the West, and thus it is not a valid linguistic argument to say they spoke Greek. This, also, despite the fact that Roman nobility often spoke Greek to each other, as Latin wasn't seen as the upper-class language until the Western Roman Empire was gone. It is even said that Caesar's last words might've been in Greek.

Culturally, the Byzantines were more Roman than the West. The West changed its capital out of Rome to Mediolanum, modern Milan. This put it in closer proximity with barbarians, and more than a few barbarian habits were adopted. The Western Roman Empire relied heavily on German mercenaries, so much so that Roman generals even started to dress like Germans. With the generals adopting German dressing habits, the consuls and other leaders started to do the same. The West hardly resembled the original Roman Empire any more than the Byzantines did, although the Byzantines continued Roman habits of dress until their empire's death, as well as continuing the practice of triumphs and other Roman celebrations. They continued with Roman architecture in a more pure state than the Gothic architecture of the Middle Ages in the West (which, although derived from Romantic architecture, had greatly shifted). What also needs to be remembered is that the capital of the Roman Empire was, before the split, Constantinople.

And religiously, there's a few issues there. Christianity was a single, undivided religion until about 1054, although it was functionally different with the differing influences of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Rome, with the Alexandrian Patriarch making the Copts a thing too. However, by the time the Western Roman Empire fell, these differences were not nearly as pronounced. The Roman Empire was never Catholic. It was Nicene/Chalcedonian/Christian before the schism, and by the time the West fell, there was still very little difference between their respective churches.

Does Byzantium deserve a separate tag? Yes, yes it does. However, I cannot agree that it was pushed away from legitimacy by language, culture, and religion when all three factors were a non-issue when it became the only Roman authority left.

The Western Roman Empire fell officially in 476 AD, so by the time 1444 rolls around Latin was pretty much gone in the administration of Byzantium. As for culturally, again, although you have a good point about when the Western and Eastern were around circa 350, in the timeframe of EU4 they were officially Greek. Religiously, by 1444 it was very distinct. Greek Orthodox and such. Your arguments are valid for a few centuries after the fall of the West, however in EU4's timeframe Byzantium was entire distinct. It still was considered the most legitimate successor state to the Romans, but it fell and they all died and no one fully claimed the mantle of the Third Rome.

 

[CrabHelmet]

The Western Roman Empire fell officially in 476 AD, so by the time 1444 rolls around Latin was pretty much gone in the administration of Byzantium. As for culturally, again, although you have a good point about when the Western and Eastern were around circa 350, in the timeframe of EU4 they were officially Greek. Religiously, by 1444 it was very distinct. Greek Orthodox and such. Your arguments are valid for a few centuries after the fall of the West, however in EU4's timeframe Byzantium was entire distinct. It still was considered the most legitimate successor state to the Romans, but it fell and they all died and no one fully claimed the mantle of the Third Rome.

Yes, but the Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire weren't independent states, they were co-equal administrative divisions that shared particular laws and institutions between them, like the praetorships and so on. The fact that one of those administrative divisions was conquered doesn't mean that a continuous polity "ended"; it continued in the other, unconquered division, up until 1453. Byzantium is not distinct from the Roman Empire, they were the same polity, and "Byzantium" is different to "the Roman Empire circa 350" only insofar as I metaphorically differ from myself aged 15 compared to now.

 

[Haccoude]

Yes, but the Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire weren't independent states, they were co-equal administrative divisions that shared particular laws and institutions between them, like the praetorships and so on. The fact that one of those administrative divisions was conquered doesn't mean that a continuous polity "ended"; it continued in the other, unconquered division, up until 1453. Byzantium is not distinct from the Roman Empire, they were the same polity, and "Byzantium" is different to "the Roman Empire circa 350" only insofar as I metaphorically differ from myself aged 15 compared to now.

Basically, view it as if someone declared war on the USA and conquered the entire Eastern seaboard (and thefore the original 13 colonies). At which point after the conquest does/would the remaining US stop being the USA?

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Basically, view it as if someone declared war on the USA and conquered the entire Eastern seaboard (and thefore the original 13 colonies). At which point after the conquest does/would the remaining US stop being the USA?

And more to the point, if both have lost Washington DC, and each have (say) 20 of the former states each, which is the true heir if both claim to be the US?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Basically, view it as if someone declared war on the USA and conquered the entire Eastern seaboard (and thefore the original 13 colonies).

Speaking as a West Coaster, god, please do.

 

[CrabHelmet]

And more to the point, if both have lost Washington DC, and each have (say) 20 of the former states each, which is the true heir if both claim to be the US?

If you lop off my arm and glue it to your forehead, that doesn't give you a claim to be me. Identity is founded in continuity, and particularly for polities the continuity of an administrative structure, laws and institutions. Only the Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, now known to us the Byzantine Empire, was the continuation of the Imperium Romanum of e.g. the 3rd century. The Imperium Romanum / Romisches Reich, later Sacrum Imperium Romanum / Heiliges Romisches Reich has no continuity with Rome, and is simply an association for the purposes of prestige and legitimacy.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

If you lop off my arm and glue it to your forehead, that doesn't give you a claim to be me. Identity is founded in continuity, and particularly for polities the continuity of an administrative structure, laws and institutions. Only the Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, now known to us the Byzantine Empire, was the continuation of the Imperium Romanum of e.g. the 3rd century. The Imperium Romanum / Romisches Reich, later Sacrum Imperium Romanum / Heiliges Romisches Reich has no continuity with Rome, and is simply an association for the purposes of prestige and legitimacy.

Does the Papacy maintaining continuity in Rome count for anything? Seeing as how they were (nominally) part of the HRE, and crowned the Emperor, that would make them at least theoretically *a* valid successor. Since the rulers of the HRE (as a whole) were also descended from, and successors to, the last conquerors of Rome, that also lends legitimacy to being the heirs to (Western) Rome.

 

[Tacticus101]

If you lop off my arm and glue it to your forehead, that doesn't give you a claim to be me.

No, but if someone took your Head/Brain/Soul then they probably could, certainly your dead body wouldn't be able to claim to be you any more.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Does the Papacy maintaining continuity in Rome count for anything? Seeing as how they were (nominally) part of the HRE, and crowned the Emperor, that would make them at least theoretically *a* valid successor. Since the rulers of the HRE (as a whole) were also descended from, and successors to, the last conquerors of Rome, that also lends legitimacy to being the heirs to (Western) Rome.

No. The Pope crowning Karl der Gross as Imperator would make this a continuation to the Roman Empire only if the Pope crowning the Imperator/Basileus was a critical component of the legitimate succession as leader of that polity and an integral part of the continuity of that polity. This was not the case. In fact, the reverse was true - becoming the Bishop of Rome required imperial approval from the Roman Emperor/Basileus Rhomaion as late as Pope Zachary.

 

[Retrograde]

Hey, you know what deserves 20x the love Byzantium gets in game and gets 1/20th of the attention? China

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

No. The Pope crowning Karl der Gross as Imperator would make this a continuation to the Roman Empire only if the Pope crowning the Imperator/Basileus was a critical component of the legitimate succession as leader of that polity and an integral part of the continuity of that polity. This was not the case. In fact, the reverse was true - becoming the Bishop of Rome required imperial approval from the Roman Emperor/Basileus Rhomaion as late as Pope Zachary.

So who exactly crowns a Roman Emperor? Is it not the Patriarch?

And who is "Patriarch of Rome"?

 

[oblio-]

So who exactly crowns a Roman Emperor? Is it not the Patriarch?

And who is "Patriarch of Rome"?

Why does it matter who crowns the Emperor? When the Emperor meant something (i.e. not HRE), it was just a technicality.
The patriarch would just crown the next emperor, whoever he was.

The relation was: Emperor > patriarch.

In the West patriarch > Emperor only because the Emperor basically disappeared and (barbarian) pretenders wanted to legitimize their ascension from king to Emperor.

In the East there was no such confusion as there were always Emperors.

 

[Chlodio]

They call it Byzantine because it's common historiographical term and it is how historians used to call this state. For example, Muscovy is in reality called Grand Principality of Moscow.
Also we can use "Byzantine even didnt have a Rome" argument (or loss of Rome for 6 centuries still makes them Romans?).

This game begins when such historians haven't even been born, thus with all that's good and holy is it really unreasonable call them what they themselves called themselves or something that people during their existence used to call them, the Empire of the Greeks?

It should probably be changed to Moscow, Muscovy is unnecessary English translation.

Eponym is the weakest argument there is... They could have called themselves anything really. Fate of their eponym couldn't be more irrelevant be their own, as many nations had legendary eponyms.

 

[CrabHelmet]

So who exactly crowns a Roman Emperor? Is it not the Patriarch?

And who is "Patriarch of Rome"?

The Roman Emperor's coronation wasn't formalized until relatively late. Originally, there was no grand ceremony per se because the 'emperor' was still in theory only invested with the imperium by the Senate, so the event by which one became emperor was simply a public vote by the Senate and an acclamation by the army (representing the People, hence SPQR) whereby they raised you on a shield. Diocletian is the first emperor to wear a crown/diadem, but it was simply part of the regalia and not used in any formal ceremony. Julian is the first emperor for which we have a definite coronation procedure recorded (as in, a ceremony involving a crown as marking the accession to office), which is in 361 AD, but given that Julian the Apostate was, well, an Apostate (and the last non-Christian emperor), it certainly wasn't any Pope responsible.

The Patriarch of Constantinople is first recorded as present at a coronation for the Emperor of the East for Leo I in 457, but firstly he didn't place the crown on Leo's head but was merely present, and secondly there still wasn't any equivalent in the West. Libius Severus, the next Emperor of the West to be crowned after Leo I, still abided by the older tradition of a public vote by the Senate (he was a senator by origin), and had no coronation ceremony at all. Anthemius, his successor, was proclaimed by his army outside of Rome and also had no coronation ceremony, and Olybrius and Gylcerius had no formal recognition and were arguably not legitimate emperors. Nepos is the last legitimate Emperor of the West and did have a coronation ceremony... at Ravenna, with no record of attendance from any Patriarch. The first Patriarch to be recorded in ceremony as actually placing the crown on the head of an emperor or playing a direct role in the ceremony is Felix III during the coronation of Anastasios I, which is in 491.

So at no point did the Bishop of Rome / Pope / Patriarch of Rome / whatever you want to use ever crown a Roman Emperor. The Patriarchs of Constantinople did... eventually... but you weren't not-an-Emperor if they didn't, it was ceremonial in content. The Emperor asserted their right to the Basileia as the elect of God Almighty, and they must have been elected by God Almighty or they wouldn't have been in such a position in the first place - a Patriarch was not necessary to interpret God Almighty's choice.

So, no, there was never any truth to the concept that the Bishop of Rome (or indeed, any churchly figure) had the right to determine an emperor.

Sources: Imperial Coronation Ceremonies of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, A. E. R. Boak
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Herbert Thurston
Universal Empire: A Comparative Approach to Imperial Culture, ed. Peter Fibiger Bang, Dariusz Kolodziejczyk