Why the BYZ love?

[Basileios I]

Not so large a gap. Half of Italy (incl. Rome itself) was under "Roman rule" throughout most of it.

It was under the Exarch of Ravenna who was a subject of the legitimate Emperor in Constantinople.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

It was under the Exarch of Ravenna who was a subject of the legitimate Emperor in Constantinople.

So there was no break in the west then. HRE is the Roman Empire. Good that we got that solved.

 

[SorelusImperion]

The 'Byzantine Empire' was the 'Eastern Roman Empire' wich was "reunited" with the western part after Romolus Augustulus was deposed by Odoacer and the latter recognized Emperor Zeno as legal souvereign. It underwent an evolution resulting in the state wich existed up to 1204 and than splitted into several successor states. In this context the 'Byzantine Empire' was just another stage in the Roman Empire's evolution wich evolved from an pagan italo-latin city-state to a continent spanning, semi-monarchical (with considerable shifts of power between senate, army and the Augustus/Princeps) semi-dynastical, multi-religious and multi-cultural Empire to an semi-feudal orthodox christian euro-asiatic Empire with a culture wich essentialy can be described as fusion of greece and romano-latin elements.

In this context one may also mention the Chinese nation/Empire.
China is an cultural and political entity wich also underwent an quite drastical evolution (cultural, geographical and constitutional). While the People's Republic of China is not exactly the same state as formed by Quin Shi Huang Di it is still considered the legal successor whith (long) periods disunity between it's various dynastys and incarnations. This continuity is neither a question of language (the different 'dialect' wich are used by the several ethnicitys are as different from each other as are Spanish and Russian) nor geography (the territory shifts are as extreme as in Rome's case) but identity and self-perception wich in China's case originates prominently from the common history, written language, as well as political and moral values but more importantly from the ancient destinction of Chinese=civilized versus non-Chinese=Barbarian.

Wether the post 1204 Empire wich reconquered Constantinopolis/Nova Roma can be considered as the 'Roman Empire' is much more difficult.

The split of Germany during the late 1940's and it's reunion under the Federal Republic of Germany would also be an adequate comparison to the relation of pre<->post 1204 'Byzantium' presenting the same problems.


Edit: The HRE's claim to be the successor even of the Western Roman Empire was about as legal a fictional claim of Poland to be the successor of DDR (Eastern Germany, 'Deutsche Demokratische Republic') with the minor difference that the patriarch of Rome (who had no legal rights to appoint a Roman Emperor) supported it (most of the time).

 

[Basileios I]

So there was no break in the west then. HRE is the Roman Empire. Good that we got that solved.

There certainly was a break. Parts of the West were later reconquered, but the Empire wasn't divided again into two parts.


And why should the HRE suddenly be the Roman Empire? Just because the Pope and some Frankish King say so?

 

[unmerged(7537)]

But that's exactly what empire means, isn't it?

No, not really. Empire has a connotation that is completely beyond what the term in Roman terms meant. Just look at all the discussions about why America isn't an Empire to get an idea what that connotation is.

Like the German word "Reich", Empire is associated with monarchic, territorial rule, both phenomena that at some point correlated, but never were identical with the Roman Imperium.

"Imperium Romanum" is not the extent of Roman rule, it is Roman rule.

You are right, I mixed that up.

However, when Otto I had himself crowned emperor of the Romans, he also revived the concept of "imperium romanum" in another meaning of the word - he wanted to reestablish imperium Romanum, but in this context the correct translation for "imperium Romanum" is Roman rule. He wanted to be not just a German king, and exercise German rule, but also Roman rule (over his German subjects *and* about the Roman subjects). He was not trying to reestablish all the customs of the old Roman empire and reestablish the state that we refer to as the Roman empire.

Exactly. In that sense, Otto I was very similar to the Eastern Basileios Herakleios.

 

[Basileios I]

Exactly. In that sense, Otto I was very similar to the Eastern Basileios Herakleios.

How is that similar? Herakleios never was anything else but Roman Emperor.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Edit: The HRE's claim to be the successor even of the Western Roman Empire was about as legal a fictional claim of Poland to be the successor of DDR (Eastern Germany, 'Deutsche Demokratische Republic') with the minor difference that the patriarch of Rome (who had no legal rights to appoint a Roman Emperor) supported it (most of the time).

Sure he had the legal right. He was the head of the Senate and People of Rome (SPQR), the entity from which the legal power of the emperor is supposedly derived.

(And there was a Senate in Rome - manned by the same senatorial families that composed the senate before even the time of the Caesars.)

HRE was as much a successor of the Roman Empire as Henry Tudor was of Alfred the Great. Nay, more so.

 

[motiv-8]

How is that similar? Herakleios never was anything else but Roman Emperor.

Not true... For a short time he discarded the Roman title for the Persian "king of kings"

 

[Basileios I]

Not true... For a short time he discarded the Roman title for the Persian "king of kings"

The full title was Basileios Rhomaion. Roman Emperor.

 

[Basileios I]

Sure he had the legal right. He was the head of the Senate and People of Rome (SPQR), the entity from which the legal power of the emperor is supposedly derived.

But it didn't since about the time of Augustus. The Senate simply acknowledged the new emperor and was almost powerless at the time of the Dominate.


And by the way, there was also a Roman Senate in Constantinople. Emperor Constantine created this institution. It existed until 1204.

The Byzantine Senate was the nominal continuation of the Roman Senate, established in the 4th century by Constantine I. It survived for centuries but was increasingly irrelevant until its eventual disappearance in the 13th century.

The Senate of the Byzantine Empire originally consisted of Roman senators who happened to live in the east, or those who wanted to move to Constantinople, and a few other bureaucrats who were appointed to the Senate. Constantine offered free land and grain to any Roman senators who were willing to move to the east. This 300-member Senate had essentially the same powers as the Roman Senate - that is, only honorary powers. Constantine's son Constantius II increased the number of senators to 2,000 by including his friends, courtiers, and various provincial officials.

The Senate served mostly as a prestigious social club for the wealthy, although the senatorial families in Constantinople tended to be less affluent and less distinguished than those in the west (where the size of the Senate had also been increased to 2,000 in the 4th century). The Senate occasionally met for purely ceremonial reasons, but most aristocrats attempted to become senators purely to avoid certain taxes and duties imposed on them by some emperors, such as Diocletian (reigned 284-305 CE); It is important to note there was no Byzantine Senate at this time. Diocletian forced them into public service as decurions, and while Valens allowed decurions to join the Senate, Theodosius I realized that they were only trying to escape their duties and decreed that they must complete their public service even if they became senators.

The Senate sometimes attempted to assert some authority: in 457 they offered to make the Alan Aspar emperor, apparently with the belief that they had the power to carry this out. In 532 some of the senators gave their support to the Nika rioters against Justinian I, who did not like or trust the wealthy Senate. To Justinian the Senate was little more than a source of taxes. He took away their duties as public servants, making public building projects, distribution of food, etc., an imperial concern. After 541 the Senate lost many of its members due to a plague pandemic and the accompanying economic turmoil, and Justinian confiscated the wealth of many of the remaining senators. The Senate was one of the last vestiges of the Latin-speaking empire in a now mostly Greek east, and it declined along with the usage of the Latin language and literature. While Rome placed much importance on hereditary family titles, the Greeks did not, and holding a position in the Greek-speaking Senate did not include the same sense of geneaological prestige.

Yet the Senate survived, at least in name. In the 7th century the "Senate" referred to the wealthiest aristocrats, who met only to recognize a new emperor, if they ever met at all. It still existed into the 12th century, when completely meaningless honorary titles could be bought by wealthy men of any class. After the Fourth Crusade, however, the rank of senator seems to have disappeared.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

But it didn't since about the time of Augustus. The Senate simply acknowledged the new emperor and was almost powerless at the time of the Dominate.

Be that as it may, SPQR is still the legal basis of the Roman state. Pope was within his legal right, HRE is as much (if not more) the Roman Empire as that basilicate on the Bosphorus.

And by the way, there was also a Roman Senate in Constantinople. Emperor Constantine created this institution. It existed until 1204.

It better have been. Otherwise it would have been just another Greek monarchy.

 

[Basileios I]

Be that as it may, SPQR is still the legal basis of the Roman state. Pope was within his legal right, HRE is as much (if not more) the Roman Empire as that basilicate on the Bosphorus.

Nope. The Emperor in Constantinople should have the last say since he was the head of the Roman Empire (we should not forget that the imperial reglia was sent to Constantinople after 476) and had his own Senate which could acknowledge him whenever he wanted.

The Pope had actually nothing to say in this ... his claims were based on some forgery.

 

[SorelusImperion]

Sure he had the legal right. He was the head of the Senate and People of Rome (SPQR), the entity from which the legal power of the emperor is supposedly derived.

(And there was a Senate in Rome - manned by the same senatorial families that composed the senate before even the time of the Caesars.)

HRE was as much a successor of the Roman Empire as Henry Tudor was of Alfred the Great. Nay, more so.

Ist The Pope was at no point head of the senate. There were at times serious struggles between them. The foundation of Papal power over the city of Rome as well as the territorys wich would become the Papal State and the right to crown/select the Emperor is the so called 'Donation of Constantine' wich was nothing but an spectacular hoax.

IInd The Senate at no point had the power to select the Emperor plus the Senate responsible for the Empire at whole was re-located to Constantinopolis leaving the rum senate in Rome itself almost no influence. To be honest at Diocletian's time the senate was already powerless wich was impressively proved by the way Diocletian changed the whole constitution nominating the Co-Emperors and creating the short lived Tetrarchy even.

IIIrd While the English state was not dissolved by the Normans the Western Roman Empire was. Odoacer Magister Militum of the Western Empire deposed Romulus Augustulus and recognized Emperor Zeno of the Eastern Roman Empire also as Emperor of the West and the other claimant on the Western Roman Empire Julius Nepos died without leaving an heir or claimant exept Emperor Zeno of Byzantium/Eastern Rome and nobody refused to aknoledge Zeno's claim HE Emperor Zeno of Eastern Rome/Byzantium was again Emperor of the whole Empire East AND West.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Nope. The Emperor in Constantinople should have the last say since he was the head of the Roman Empire (we should not forget that the imperial reglia was sent to Constantinople after 476) and had his own Senate which could acknowledge him whenever he wanted.

Anastasius sent the regalia back to Rome in 497.

A new council of yes-men in Constantinople can hardly be deemed the successor of the SPQR, when the Senate and People of Rome itself never ceased to exist and has perfect continuity to the pre-imperial age.

If you insist on calling the Basileos as the successor to Roman emperors, then I go one better and call the Roman papal state the successor of the original Roman Republic - institutionally, politically, geographically, ethnically, culturally, etc. Thus they had the legal basis to appoint a Roman Emperor. Ergo, HRE was the Roman Empire.

The Pope had actually nothing to say in this ... his claims were based on some forgery.

In claiming the imperial dignity for himself perhaps. But he was right on every other point.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Ist The Pope was at no point head of the senate.

Yes he was. Who do you think elected him?

There were at times serious struggles between them.

Yes, later on.

The foundation of Papal power over the city of Rome as well as the territorys wich would become the Papal State and the right to crown/select the Emperor is the so called 'Donation of Constantine' wich was nothing but an spectacular hoax.

The donation of Constantine was the basis for asserting Papal power as despot and an attempt to exclude the laity from SPQR, not for asserting the power of the SPQR qua SPQR.

IInd The Senate at no point had the power to select the Emperor plus the Senate responsible for the Empire at whole was re-located to Constantinopolis leaving the rum senate in Rome itself almost no influence. To be honest at Diocletian's time the senate was already powerless wich was impressively proved by the way Diocletian changed the whole constitution nominating the Co-Emperors and creating the short lived Tetrarchy even.

In the 7th & 8th C. the Papal-led Senate in Rome was not powerless. Indeed, it was more powerful than the colleciton of Exarchs, dukes and magister militi the Basileos tried to send.

If only the Senate in Constantinople had such power.

IIIrd While the English state was not dissolved by the Normans the Western Roman Empire was.

No it wasn't. As you said yourself, two crowns were joined on one head for a while, that is all.

The Western Roman Empire did not cease under Odoacer or under the Ostrogoths. Only the Lombards came in as "foreign" conquerers and played the role (see the Edict of Rothari, 643). But the Lombards only took half of Italy, the rest remained Roman until the end of the HRE.

 

[Basileios I]

The Western Roman Empire did not cease under Odoacer or under the Ostrogoths. Only the Lombards came in as "foreign" conquerers and played the role (see the Edict of Rothari, 643). But the Lombards only took half of Italy, the rest remained Roman until the end of the HRE.

The Ostrogoths ruled Italy in the name of the Eastern Emperor.


Anyway, I'd like to point everyone's attention to this article, which describes the situation in the late Roman world rather nicely.

 

[unmerged(19063)]

From reading this thread, the conclusion is obvious.

Charles and Irene should've gotten it on.

 

[Basileios I]

Ehh, Abdul, according to this site (and some others) the Roman Senate ceased to function after 603. After that there was only some city council in place.

Not that it matters though. The Roman Emperor resided in Constantinople.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

What does the Empire of Augustus have in common with the Empire of 395 AD?

The official capital, for one.

The full title was Basileios Rhomaion. Roman Emperor.

Yes. Note the difference to Imperator Caesar Augustus.

Besides, wasn't Ottos full title something along those lines as well? I'm not sure whether he called himself Rex Romanorum or Imperator.

 

[unmerged(19063)]

The official capital, for one.

The capital in 395 was Constantinople. When the Empire was divided after Theodosius' death, the capitals were Milan and Constantinople.