The Romans are here. HRE is called HRE bc people know they have to emphasise all 3 words

This is THE Roman Empire. The Roman Empire didn’t have a gap until around 1250. This isnt a successor state or anything. It is THE Roman Empire.

So yeah, they are the Romans. There is a reason why nobody calls HRE romans but HRE to emphasize all 3 words.

The Byzantine Empire term was only really used several centuries after the Ottomans destroyed the Roman Empire in constantinople.

5 Likes

wait they are banning people for discussing the name?

I also think Roman Empire sells even better for marketing than Byzantine Empire. Eastern Roman Empire or Roman Empire have a much bigger brand.

(edit combined both comments)

1 Like

The Byzantine Empire was Greek. It was founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great in AD 330, and it was centered around the city of Constantinople, which was originally named Byzantium. The Byzantine Empire lasted for over a thousand years and was a continuation of the Roman Empire, but it had a strong Greek cultural influence. The official language of the empire was Greek, and the Byzantine Empire is often referred to as the “Eastern Roman Empire.”

5 Likes

Contemporary it was called by majority of the world as Roman Empire and in some european territories the Greek Empire. Nobody called it the Byzantine Empire until few centuries after Ottomans defeated the Roman Empire in constantinople. So you arent wrong about one part of your comment

the official language was latin. They used greek for a lot of tasks and daily though

1 Like

What!??? Constantine merely shifted the capital from Rome to Byzantium. He was already the Roman Emperor circa 313 AD. How can an emperor form an empire by moving the capital?

There you said it.

So did the Western Roman Empire, or the unified Roman Empire, or the Roman Republic.

Latin till 628.

It’s the opposite. The ERE is referred to as Byzantine Empire in casual terms.

1 Like

Except the fact that Constantine was an emperor of a still united roman empire, so in the 330 he couldn’t have found anything…

Seriously, this is probably the most ridiculous argument yet about an hypothetical discontinuity between the unified roman empires and it eastern medioeval continuation.

After giustinian the greek language become ever more increasing and by the middle ages became the only language. But still, that doesn’t mean that they identified as greeks.

1 Like

constantine didnt found anything. roman empire was already founded millenia ago

i just corrected the official language claim, it was latin

This isn’t exactly true. HRE was called The Roman Empire up until 1200s and it is in many sense the direct continuation of Rome.

People who regard Byzantine Empire (or Eastern Roman Empire) as THE Roman Empire, which I will say there is an argument for, disregard the complex happenstance surrounding Charlemagne being crowned Emperor of the Romans.

First, linguistic: “Holy” was added later on to emphasize the fact that it was sanctified by the papacy.

HRE was “Roman” in a sense how the identity of being a Roman was regarded back then. Church fathers often used “Roman” and “Christian” interchangeably. After all, Christianity became the official religion of Roman Empire. Even after the fall, Spaniards, Greeks, Italians, Southern Germans, Franks, and even Britons still called themselves Romans after the fall of the West. As long as they were situated in the former territory of Roman Empire, people called themselves Roman.

So, to put it in simple terms, the identity of being a “Roman” was tied to 1) being Christian and 2) being in the geographical area of the Empire, former or otherwise.

Secondly, the political:

When Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope, Empress Irene of Athens was in charge. She basically tortured and killed her own son and usurped it. At which point, THE seat of Roman Empire was considered to be vacant. The Church having the de facto coronation right as the official state religion, Pope took the drastic (and controversial) action to crown someone he liked to fill the perceived vacancy.

That is to say, whatever Empress Irene was ruling over was considered illegitimate. It’s really hard to argue that she took the throne legitimately by any measure of Roman law of succession. Sure, Irene being a woman had to do something with it. But it’s not just that she was a woman… she took it by torturing and killing her own son. The Pope, having filled the vacancy by his power as the bishop of Rome, any subsequent succession within the court of Constantinople could be considered illegitimate.

It’s absolutely conclusive that, before Charlemagne was crowned, someone was sitting in the seat of the Emperor illegally. This is a fact that cannot be disputed.

This sense of illegitimacy was further cemented by the Patriarch of Constantinople handing crowning Mehmed, a Muslim as the Emperor of Rome, since, as I have said, the identity of being a Roman was tied to being Christian; Roman Empire had to be Christian and ruled by a professed Christian.

TLDR: There’s pretty good argument as to why HRE is the legitimate and legal successor of Rome, not the Byzantines.

3 Likes

Why do you even discuss about this thing? What’s the big issue? Some people call it ERE (Eastern Roman Empire), some Byzantium.

The proper is ERE but it’s ok.

This should be a day of celebration yet you come here to the forums to fight over nothing.

5 Likes

The entire world called Eastern Roman Empire, the Roman Empire. East of Constantinople all did. In the west many also called them Roman Empire. Only few european states called them Greek Empire.

So it is very eurocentric to believe the small states in europe are the source of truth. Compared to the empires, European states even the Holy Roman Empire was very small with small populations. The other Empires called them Roman Empire

1 Like

It’s also very Eurocentric to suggest that “the whole world” extended from Britain to the far side of Turkey :slight_smile:

Some pretty fun context here anyway (in reddit of all places):

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/shh6bb/what_did_other_european_nations_call_the/

1 Like

The Byzantine Empire,[note 1] also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, was the continuation of the Roman Empire primarily in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople. It survived the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453. During most of its existence, the empire remained the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in the Mediterranean world. Its citizens continued to refer to their empire as the Roman Empire and to themselves as Romans[note 2]—a term which Greeks continued to use for themselves into Ottoman times. Modern historians distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the earlier Roman Empire due to the imperial seat moving from Rome to Byzantium, the empire’s integration of Christianity, and the predominance of Greek instead of Latin.[5]

During the high period of the Roman Empire known as the Pax Romana, the western parts of the empire went through Latinization, while the eastern parts of the empire maintained to a large degree their Hellenistic culture. Several events from the 4th to 6th centuries mark the period of transition during which the Roman Empire’s Greek East and Latin West diverged. Constantine I (r. 324–337) reorganised the empire, made Constantinople the capital, and legalised Christianity. Under Theodosius I (r. 379–395), Christianity became the state religion, and other religious practices were proscribed. In the reign of Heraclius (r. 610–641), the empire’s military and administration were restructured and Greek was gradually adopted for official use in place of Latin.

The borders of the empire fluctuated through several cycles of decline and recovery. During the reign of Justinian I (r. 527–565), the empire reached its greatest extent after the fall of the west, reconquering much of the historically Roman western Mediterranean coast, including Africa, Italy, and Rome, which it held for two more centuries. The Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 exhausted the empire’s resources, and during the early Muslim conquests of the 7th century, it lost its richest provinces—Egypt and Syria—to the Rashidun Caliphate. It then lost Africa to the Umayyads in 698, before the empire was stabilized by the Isaurian dynasty.

During the Macedonian dynasty (9th–11th centuries), the empire expanded again and experienced the two-century-long Macedonian Renaissance, which came to an end with the defeat by the Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. Civil wars and the ensuing Seljuk invasion led to the loss of most of Asia Minor. The empire recovered during the Komnenian restoration, and up until the Fourth Crusade, Constantinople was the largest and wealthiest city in Europe.

The empire was first dissolved during the Fourth Crusade in 1204, when Constantinople was sacked by the Latins and the territories that the empire formerly governed were divided into competing Byzantine Greek and Latin realms. Despite the eventual recovery of Constantinople in 1261, the Byzantine Empire remained a mere regional power for the final two centuries of its existence. Its remaining territories were progressively annexed by the Ottomans in the Byzantine–Ottoman wars over the 14th and 15th centuries.

The fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453 marked the end of the Byzantine Empire. Refugees fleeing the city after its capture would settle in Italy and other parts of Europe, helping to ignite the Renaissance. The Empire of Trebizond was conquered eight years later when its eponymous capital surrendered to Ottoman forces after it was besieged in 1461. The fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottomans is sometimes used to mark the end of the Middle Ages and the start of the early modern period.

Language should be Greek that’s what matters and name correct one is just Roman empire, but for name unlike language who rlly cares we know what it refers to

2 Likes

################## post:10, topic:239193"]
People who regard Byzantine Empire (or Eastern Roman Empire) as THE Roman Empire, which I will say there is an argument for, disregard the complex happenstance surrounding Charlemagne being crowned Emperor of the Romans.
[/quote]

By who? The papacy who had to forge a document in order to have the legitimacy to crown a roman emperor?

Don’t get me wrong, it’s correct to call the HRE the holy roman empire, as it was roman in the sense that the get their legitimacy to reign from God (holy) through the roman catholic church (roman), but it’s not a direct continuation of the roman empire as the “eastern byzantine” empire was.

Just look at the form of government and form where the legitimacy came from.

A western king, Charlemagne included, reigned by divine mandate. The kingdom was the king property, and he could do with it as he wishes, especially especially pass it to its heirs when he die. Also, not everybody could be a king, but you needed to be of royal descented.

In the “byzantine” empire instead everyone could potentially become emperor, and it wouldn’t be scandalous, as the emperor was the first among equals. The crown sure had it’s properties in the empire, but the empire itself, both as a concept and as its territories, weren’t the property of the emperor, as he was only the administrator of it.
We have “byzantines” dynasties mostly because an emperor at some point nominated a co-emperor (often a son) while he was still alive, and yet everyone else could still be elevated to imperial purple by the senate, army or the people.

This form of government was in line with the idea of Augustus and more classical roman emperors. It had changed some aspect of it for sure, in order to adapt with the changing reality, but you can see in it a political and cultural continuity the classical roman empire, that the HRE lack, and that for sure the ottoman or russian empire doesn’t have.

################## post:10, topic:239193"]
HRE was “Roman” in a sense how the identity of being a Roman was regarded back then. Church fathers often used “Roman” and “Christian” interchangeably. After all, Christianity became the official religion of Roman Empire. Even after the fall, Spaniards, Greeks, Italians, Southern Germans, Franks, and even Britons still called themselves Romans after the fall of the West. As long as they were situated in the former territory of Roman Empire, people called themselves Roman.
[/quote]

That’s correct for a period of time, when the germanic kingdoms assumed the roles of administrators of the west for the empire, but that changed after some years, and by the time of Charlemagne you wouldn’t find a inhabitant of the ex-gaul provence calling himself roman.

[q################ post:10, topic:239193"]
First, linguistic: “Holy” was added later on to emphasize the fact that it was sanctified by the papacy.
[/quote]

Holy wasn’t added later on, it was a precise addition by to papacy to remind everyone who detained the real power, or at least that was it’s attempt.

################## post:10, topic:239193"]
When Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope, Empress Irene of Athens was in charge. She basically tortured and killed her own son and usurped it. At which point, THE seat of Roman Empire was considered to be vacant. The Church having the de facto coronation right as the official state religion, Pope took the drastic (and controversial) action to crown someone he liked to fill the perceived vacancy.
[/quote]

That was a clever political maneuver by the pope to gain power in a moment of weakness of the "byzantine" empire. Having female empress taking the lead for a period of time wasn’t something new for the empire at all, they just had the intuition of claiming to govern in the name of their male familiars.

And besides that, nothing ever suggested that the pope had the authority of naming the emperors, there are no precedents about that (maybe saint Ambrogio, but despite the heavy influence over the emperor of its time, he wouldn’t dream of crowing one). In the centuries before, “byzantine” emperors had popes being publicly kidnapped, exiled and killed just to remind who was in charge, and pope lion III was able to do what he did only because at that time the “byzantines” lack the strength to impose their will on the old capital.

################## post:10, topic:239193"]
The Pope, having filled the vacancy by his power as the bishop of Rome, any subsequent succession within the court of Constantinople could be considered illegitimate.
[/quote]

And that’s that’s the point, there was nothing in the roman law that allowed Irene take the seat of power in the roman empire, but there was even less to have the pope gain such authority. If anything, the patriarch of constantinople, as a member of the imperial concistorium should had filled such place.

################## post:10, topic:239193"]
It’s absolutely conclusive that, before Charlemagne was crowned, someone was sitting in the seat of the Emperor illegally. This is a fact that cannot be disputed.
[/quote]

It can, because there was no rule against it, jut the fact that the people of constantinople didn’t want a bloddy woman on a throne, which get me back at the start, the power of the roman emperor didn’t come from lineage or divine mandate, but from the acceptance of the people of the empire.

EDIT: and of course the censor now mess up with the quotes, because why having a working forum… anyway this are my answer against your argument ########## on why the HRE isn’t the continuation of the roman empire while the “byzantine” empire is.

By the way, I have nothing against the name byzantine or HRE, they are both handy to use, but the history that some people put behind such names, that bothers me.

3 Likes

Forge? You have a source for the alleged “forging”? Christian bishops maintained coronation right for as long as coronation was a thing. It’s still a thing (see remaining European monarchs). This is false.

You do. Again, as I’ve said, the identity of being a Roman was religious as well. This hasn’t changed. Catholics in the Roman Rite still call themselves Roman within religious circles. A Roman Cardinal, speaking to his Byzantine counterpart, would call himself a Roman, not “Roman Catholic.” Having to clarify yourself as a Catholic did not really come about until after the Reformation.

It was… “Holy” was added on later. “Holy Roman Empire” became a connation for the Empire in 13th century.

Again, Christianity was the official religion. If a ruler took it by morally untenable means, then it was considered illegitimate. This tradition continues on throughout the middle ages. Poor understanding of Church-State relationship would have you believe that there was no law, but the moral theology were to be abided by Emperors in succeeding de jure. Not only that, the principle of succession applied generally when talking about hereditary rule. Roman property law was very well established. An heir cannot take one’s inheritance through violence. Irene clearly violated that law.

As for the authority of bishop of constantinople, we could let Catholic and Orthodox argue about the hierarchy. But, from the outside, Orthodox have a weaker historical justification the records of early Church fathers in 3rd to 5th century very strongly suggest in the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

“Rome has spoken, the case is closed” would be uttered by Church fathers when there was a theological dispute. Church fathers outside of the traditional Roman Patriarchate would refer the Bishop of Rome having primacy over other patriarchs even when they were within the jurisdiction of other patriarchs like Patriarch of Alexandria. Roman Patriarch, the pope, would regularly intervene outside of his supposed territory to resolve conflicts, perhaps because his authority exceeded the bishopric of Rome. The supremacy the Orthodox nowadays contest really didn’t come about until the emperors tried to control too much of the Church.

TLDR; Being a Christian and following Christian moral law was expected by imperial rulers. Murdering her own son is against that moral law. Coronation right of Roman emperors by Christian Bishops is a tried and true tradition. Bishop of Rome had presumed supremacy over all other patriarchs. In the absence of intervention by Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope had the right to intervene. It was absolutely legal.

And here is the very important dilemma you must face. IF Patriarch of Constantinople had the right of coronation over the Pope in Rome, and that following Christian moral law and being a Christian was not a de facto and de jure requirement of being a Roman emperor, then you MUST conclude taking it by force is legitimate and therefore you MUST conclude that Ottoman Empire is the legitimate and legal successor. After all, Mehmed was crowned by the Patriarch of Constantinople. IF legitimacy of Eastern Romans continued past 800s, then you MUST conclude that Ottomans took it fair and square.

################## post:20, topic:239193"]
Forge? You have a source for the alleged “forging”? Christian bishops maintained coronation right for as long as coronation was a thing. It’s still a thing (see remaining European monarchs). This is false.
[/quote]

I was referring to the donation of Constantine, which didn’t directly state that a pope could crown an emperor, but in general give them temporal power.

Despite that, there is nothing in the period before the iconoclasty that give the power to the pope (or a patriarch, because until that point the pope wasn’t more important than any patriarch) that gave him the power to elevate someone to the imperial crown.

The fact that at some point the church started doing it, doesn’t mean that there is an official continuity.

################## post:20, topic:239193"]
You do. Again, as I’ve said, the identity of being a Roman was religious as well. This hasn’t changed. Catholics in the Roman Rite still call themselves Roman within religious circles. A Roman Cardinal, speaking to his Byzantine counterpart, would call himself a Roman, not “Roman Catholic.” Having to clarify yourself as a Catholic did not really come about until after the Reformation.
[/quote]

By that time, the “roman identification” that you refer to had changed, especially because it wasn’t just the roman citizens that were cristians at the time of the fall of the west, many barbaric tribes were already cristians.

################## post:20, topic:239193"]
Again, Christianity was the official religion. If a ruler took it by morally untenable means, then it was considered illegitimate. This tradition continues on throughout the middle ages. Poor understanding of Church-State relationship would have you believe that there was no law, but the moral theology were to be abided by Emperors in succeeding de jure. Not only that, the principle of succession applied generally when talking about hereditary rule. Roman property law was very well established. An heir cannot take one’s inheritance through violence. Irene clearly violated that law.
[/quote]

Except that the roman state, unlike western kingdoms, wasn’t a property of the emperor.

Anyone potentially could be elevated to imperial purple, but it had to be confirmed by the roman citizens, their elite (senate and church) and army.

Nothing in roman law or culture stated that the vacant power would have been passed to the patriarch of rome, especially because it wouldn’t have been more important than the one in constantinople.

Emperors wouldn’t discuss religious matters, they were still above all of the church, as a supreme leader. In fact only he could call for a council of the cristian church.

[quo############## post:20, topic:239193"]
As for the authority of bishop of constantinople, we could let Catholic and Orthodox argue about the hierarchy. But, from the outside, Orthodox have a weaker historical justification the records of early Church fathers in 3rd to 5th century very strongly suggest in the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
[/quote]

With the exception of a couple of pope, such primacy didn’t exist. A very weak roman state under constant II, after the lost of most of the east to the muslim, was still able to kidnap, maim and exile a pope, with no need for secrecy, that to put in prospective the importance of the pope until the iconoclastsy.

Besides, the patriarch of Alexandria was called pope too.

################## post:20, topic:239193"]
Again, Christianity was the official religion. If a ruler took it by morally untenable means, then it was considered illegitimate.
[/quote]

Such thing didn’t exist in the roman and then byzantine state, as there wasn’t a law of succession, and potentially anyone could become emperor, if he gain enough support. Again, we have emperors kidnap popes and killing masses of innocents, and they kept the power.

################## post:20, topic:239193"]
TLDR; Being a Christian and following Christian moral law was expected by imperial rulers. Murdering her own son is against that moral law.
[/quote]

And giustinian married the equivalent of a ########## of the age, yet nobody comunicate him…

################## post:20, topic:239193"]
And here is the very important dilemma you must face. IF Patriarch of Constantinople had the right of coronation over the Pope in Rome, and that following Christian moral law and being a Christian was not a de facto and de jure requirement of being a Roman emperor, then you MUST conclude taking it by force is legitimate and therefore you MUST conclude that Ottoman Empire is the legitimate and legal successor. After all, Mehmed was crowned by the Patriarch of Constantinople. IF legitimacy of Eastern Romans continued past 800s, then you MUST conclude that Ottomans took it fair and square.
[/quote]

That’s exactly the point, if a patriarch of the church should actually had the power to give the title of emperor to anyone, the patriarch of constantinople should have been the one chosen, but it wasn’t because it was inconceivable for the roman state to have the church above the state, and no religious authority could name a roman emperor.

With the byzantine empire, you can see a continuity in the political, cultural and administration of the state since augustus until the last emperor.

Such continuity lack in both the HRE, the ottoman empire and the russian empire, at that point the name emperor of the romans wasn’t nothing more than an honorific title, which was the case for the actually roman-byzantines emperors.

Should rename the Rus into Romans. Moscow is third Rome afterall.

That title wasn’t given by any Roman emperor. Constantine himself assigned Constantinople as 2nd Rome. The HRE and Rus stole the titles of WRE and 3rd Rome respectively.

The Byzantines are Romans. Period.

Although… are they primarily known as such? I suppose the answer is: “it depends who you’re asking to”.

Roman is a wide term and not everyone is a history buff. Romans or Roman Empire as the name of the civ would leave many puzzled, thinking of ancient Rome. Eastern Roman Empire would definitely signify Constantinople but in the Middle Ages, that’s redundant. The Western Roman Empire is fallen (476 a.d., marks the beginning of the Middle Ages, as we all know) so there’s just one Roman Empire standing but, as I said, it’s best to not use that name.

Other appropriate names are possible, like Rhomaioi (the one I would personally choose, because beyond the meaning is greek and so eastern), but let’s admit it, greco-romans have come to be generally known as Byzantines. The term is modern but has been wildly used everywhere and also in other videogames to unequivocally represent the Empire of Constantinople. If you say Byzantines everybody knows what romans you are talking about.

So, calling them Byzatines in 2023 is fine, having the Holy Roman Empire as another civ’s name does not imply that the true and only Romans are the Germans :laughing: . The last roman died 531 years ago, if you want to make them “justice” ask that the civ be called Rhomaioi and that they speak greek. The last one alone would be enough for me.

One last thing, I dare to say that this is not the right place to discuss the legitimacy of the holy roman emperors entitlement to consider themselves roman.

1 Like

You misunderstand what is being handed down. The state is not. The title is. The title is the property being handed down, not the land or the state. Hence why the TITLE of king is approved by bishops. This was universally true in the West as well as the East wherever Christianity was the official religion.

That’s absolutely false and you contradict. They were active in organizing religious councils. Meaning they did discuss religious matters. The fact they call for a council is an input by saying “this needs to be cleared up.” And no, bishops could call for councils independently.

Speaking of Patriarch of Alexandria:

"Imppp. ########## ############# et Theodosius aaa. edictum ad populum urbis Constantinopolitanae. ####### populos, quos clementiae nostrae regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Alexandriae episcopum…

Bishop of Rome, Damasum, is referred as “pontificem,” Pontiff . Peter of Alexandria is called “episcopum” or bishop. It’s incredibly telling how Roman emperors viewed Bishop of Rome: above other bishops.

This is straight out of Codex of Theodosius

You misunderstand the word “Pope.” It’s basically a different way of saying “Patriarch.”

Roman bishop’s supremacy did exist. And it was understood, no matter how much later patriarchs deviated from the tradition. Again, see my note about “Rome has spoken” and the Roman bishop being called to resolve disputes. Just Google it and you will find plenty of examples.

This is absolutely false, and I don’t know which half-baked Wikipedia page says this. There was a law of succession. There is no “Book of Imperial Succession Law.” But there are laws regarding property rights and Romans generally applied property law to titles. Again, TITLE is what’s being succeeded, not the land. Emperors routinely appointed their successors themselves and the senate routinely ratified. And in many cases it was basically hereditary. This is true for both pre and post Christian Rome.

On top of that, the Patriarchs routinely coronated the new emperor. And there were bureaucratic procedures that were the norm when talking about imperial succession. Why do you keep saying that there was no law of succession?

As for kidnaping and other atrocities, many were declared anathema and excommunicated, at times barring accension of the throne, so that doesn’t help your case.

And holding power =/= legitimacy of title. They’re not logical equivalents.

This is the crux of the misunderstanding of what I am saying. This “continuity” you are speaking of only applies to the administrative state. If administrative continuation was the be-all and end-all of the issue, then the Vatican can be considered to be the legal successor to Roman Empire as the only remaining secular fraction of Roman governmental body (remember that the Vatican and Papal States are not only religious entities but secular governments)! You are interjecting post treaty of Westphalia notion of nations to this. It doesn’t matter where the location of this administration is. Wherever there is the true emperor, there is the empire.

The bishops have the power to give the title or ratify it. That’s precisely the reason why coronation rites exist. While not absolutely necessary, as the state religion, a consent from the Church was thought to be a crucial part. Coronation rites were performed in the Byzantine Empire as well, so this understanding didn’t somehow go away.