Kralle18 said:
Hellenes was a term used for a non-christian living inside the Roman Empire at the time the Constantine founded Nova Roma.
Ok did a little checking back in the 4th & 5th C.
Constantine didn't found "Nova Roma". That name wasn't used then. It was called "Byzantion" and its inhabitants "Byzantines", and that was the name commonly used by its contemporaries. Constantine never used the term "New Rome". At best, he might refer to it off-hand as "Altera Roma" (an alternate, not new or even equal), "Alma Roma" or "Byzantion Roma". But never, ever "Nova Roma".
The official name, given already in 324 (not 330) was "Constantinopolis", in line with the frequent Roman habit of renaming great cities for sitting emperors. That was not the vulgar term, but the official term, found on coins and official documents of the time. (And Byzantium not the only town officially renamed that: Salamis, in Cyprus, was also renamed Constantinopolis, as was an Isaurian burgh. Arles was renamed Constantinion)
The appellation "Nova Roma" popped up only a half-century later in a very
different context: namely, as part of a concerted campaign by the archbishop to secure a higher place in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The first use of the term "Nova Roma" appears in the ecclesiastical Council of Constantinople in 381 (or rather, inserted later into the copies of the canons of the Council, probably 382).
Moreover, even in the canons, "New Rome" is a description, not the name ("Constantinople is the New Rome, thus give our bishop high rank please"). Because the campaign to elevate the bishop in the ecclesiastical hierarchy continued for another few centuries, the archbishop insisted on using the "New Rome" title officially for himself, and only then did it started slipping into other official documents.
[A little background: At the time, the archbishop of Constantinople had decided to try to persuade the Pope to raise him up in the ecclesiastical hierarchy above Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem (Constantinople was below them all). Given that he wasn't even a patriarch yet (that would only come in 451), his bid was thoroughly dismissed at the time.
The campaign of the archbishops of Constantinople had to use the "Roman" angle, because the religious angle was missing - namely, the rank of their first bishops and their role in early Christianity as the centers of the apostolic missions. Rome based its primacy on St. Peter & St. Paul, Antioch on St. Peter and Alexandria on St. Mark the Evangelist. These were the historical centers of conversion of West, East and South respectively. Jerusalem wasn't an apostolic center, but, of course, Jerusalem was Jerusalem and deserved special recognition (they cooked up JC's brother St. James for first bishop).
But Byzantium? All they could come up with Peter's little brother, St. Andrew, who wasn't even a bishop there, but just happened to consecrate the bishop who went there.
So there was no way Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem were going to give ecclesiastical superiority to this uppity new bishop on the Bosphorus. But the bishops of Constantinople figured they could play on the Pope's vanity, reminding him he was not merely the successor of St. Peter, but also the bishop of Rome, the eternal capital of the Roman polity. And so, by that logic, "since you're eternal Rome and thus number one, then since we're 'new Rome', we should be number two, right?" (or, in some Eastern readings of the canons, "just as equal" in the ecclesiastical hierarchy).
Of course, it didn't fly at the time. Although Easterners now say it did, since the Pope recognized the Council of 381 as ecumenical. But Westerners say this particular canon wasn't part of 381, but only inserted later (in 382 at the earliest), and so wasn't part of what the Pope accepted. But whatever they may argue post facto, it is a fact that the bishop of Constantinople was
not recognized by anyone as second in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Regardless, the argument, relentlessly repeated, did end up allowing the archbishop of Constantinople to climb up the greasy pole to be given the rank of Patriarch at Chalcedon (451), albeit still below Alexandria and Antioch. And that is how it would remain for the next six hundred years or so.
The 11th C. schism allowed him to call himself what he wanted, but it was only in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 (when he was a Latin-rite bishop) that Constantinople finally got bumped up by the Pope.
Finally a little personality note: the introduction of "Nova Roma" argument at the 381/2 councils was not the outcome of a long struggle with the Pope, but a surprise. The reasons may very well have been more personal to do with politics within the Council.
The Council of Constantinople of 381 started off being presided over by the Patriarch of Antioch, but when he died suddenly in the opening weeks, the archbishop of Constantinople tried to take over. But his credentials were challenged by other bishops and he was forced to resign on the spot, not only from the presidency of the council, but also as archbishop.
The guy appointed to replace him mid-council, the new Archbishop Nectarianus of Constantinople, was a complete shock and surprise to the sitting bishops of the eastern empire. Nectarianus was a complete unknown, he wasn't even an ordained priest, just a lowly praetor. Nor was he some sort of imperial favorite; the Emperor didn't know him at all either, he just suggested his name whimsically on the basis of a second-hand personal character recommendation (suggested to him by a local bishop who happened to have bumped into this humble praetor in a country inn while traveling, and found his conversation enjoyable).
Given how the Council, chock full of high and mighty bishops and great theologians (this was at the height of the Cappadocian fathers, after all), had kicked his predecessor around (who was no small beer, but a Cappadocian father himself), what chance did lowly Nectarianus have to maintain his authority over the council or even just hold on to his seat? The bishops made no secret of their disdain and their intention to complain to the Pope about his odd appointment. The precarious little Nectarianus had to assert his importance somehow. Ergo, he cooked up the "Nova Roma" argument then and there, and led the campaign for the next 20 years. (The Pope did question the appointment, but didn't act upon it.)]
end of aside]
So that's where Nova Roma comes from.
And oh, by the way, I also got further confirmation that the term "Byzantines" is not a western invention. It turns out a great part of the Byzantine chroniclers of the early middle ages used it extensively and precisely in that sense. Many used Byzantion exclusively (instead of Constantinople) and massively used "Byzantinos" to refer not only the residents of the city but also all the subjects of the eastern empire (not surprising, since it was plenty common to name countries & their inhabitants after the ruling cities, viz. Portugal, Tripoli, and, of course, Rome itself.)
So, again, with this little foray, I feel confirmed that this whole insistence on Basileos Rhomaoi and Romania stuff is all latter-day revivalism. [A reminder: I don't say they didn't call themselves Romans before, but I reject the contention that they
only called themselves Romans, and that "Greeks" and "Byzantines" was somehow a Western insult. It isn't. They used those terms
themselves, and aplenty, officially and unofficially. They only got fidgety in the 11th C. and started being insistent upon it afterwards.]
) You'll see Constantinopolis in official documents, Nova Roma restricted largely to ecclesiastical papers.
