Quote:
|
Originally Posted by philipjd
A lot of confusion seems to surround these empires, whether they are the same, 'son of', or totally seperate.
Brief outline.
The Roman empire under Constantine (the Great) moved it's Imperial Capital to a small town called Byzantium which had been suitably embellished and expanded then given the Constantinople.
During the reign of Dioclecian (spelling?) the administrtive and militry burdens on the Empire were found to be too great for a single location to control. Hence both the military and administrtion were split between Constantinople and Rome, with, and this is the important part, the Emperor in Constantinople, but a second subsidiary 'Emperor' in Rome.
The Eastern Empire was much more viable economically than the west, and a lot of in fighting occurred between the two 'emperors' (and their subordinates). Eventually given human nature, the two sides broke apart formally as well as in actuality.
Hence the question, which is the Roman Empire?
In my view - the Byzantinie Empire IS the Roman empire, there is no difference between the two. The fact that the capital moved to Constantinople is irrelevent. The confusion arises due to the existance of a state with it's capital in Rome also calling itself the Roman Empire.
BTW - a historian would probably pull my summary apart but I've tried to keep it brief and, in outline, it is correct. Reality (as usual) was a lot more complex.
|
Phil, As you have already mentioned, the Byzantines took their name from Byzantium, an ancient city on the Bosphorus, the waterway linking the Black Sea to the Aegean Sea. The Roman Emperor Constantine had renamed this city Constantinople in the fourth century and made it a sister capital of his empire.
Byzantine, in my view is not to be called the Roman Empire.
THE Eastern Roman Empire(Byzantium) separated from the Western Empire in 395AD.
By 490AD there was no Western Empire left. But the Eastern Empire(Byzantium) was only begining to peak around that time.