Byzantine and Rome

[maximusslade]

So, a question. How do you reconcile calling Constantinople a Roman Empire when Rome goes her own way in everyway conceivable, diplomatic, military, cultural, religious, political to the point that Crusaders sent by Rome destroyed Constantinople?

I would like to clear up that it was not Rome that sent the Fourth Crusade that sacked Constantinople, but rather the Venitians. Those dirty ******* had been eyeballing Constantinople's trade routes and just plain wealth for a long time.

[sealion]

just a few comments many have forgot ( not meaning anything , just litle spots)

rome became empire from what alexander the great left and he was greek

rome took the architecture from greece

rome took political system of athens

italy and greece in general where very close to each other , romeo and romylo with the wolf symbolize exactly this , greece and italy

plato says italy and greece was ones the same nation

what passed to rome passed to constantinoupoli too

the right name for byzantium is eastern roman empire , an empire is property of the imperor and not of the pope ( the title shows so)

1204 many thinks were stolen from constantinoupole (just like the lions wich are now in venetia

the history doesnt change because we say so !

[Sombra]

I would like to clear up that it was not Rome that sent the Fourth Crusade that sacked Constantinople, but rather the Venitians. Those dirty ******* had been eyeballing Constantinople's trade routes and just plain wealth for a long time.

The original target of the 4th crusade was Egypt. But the armies assembled in Venita which had promised to take the crusaders to Egypt.

The Venetians used the crusaders first to take out a pasky rival town "Zara" which was destroyed .against the will of the pope . The crusaders were thrown out of the church for this deed. But what do you do with an purposeless army ? To they got absolution by the pope. Then Venita wanted to take out Constantinople. Against the will of the pope again and again he was ignored.

[Rex290]

rome took political system of athens

Undoubtedly there was some leakage of political ideas between the two, but the Roman Republican system was actually quite distinct from Athens; Athens was either a democracy (not in the sense we know today) or a oligarchy ruled by a few families. The SPQR was a "Republic" (we get the term from them) with checks and balances between the organs of government, which did involve tribal voting and other direct votes by the franchised masses. Even so it had many characteristics of a democracy in the greek style while being a separate system. Its actually pretty interesting the contrast between ancient political systems and modern day ones and how they're viewed commonly; when people say democracy they usually think of citizens voting for members of parliament who elect the Prime Minister or direct for the President, etc, when the real meaning behind "democracy" is a direct vote on all issue and the election of government officers by the entire franchise pool.

plato says italy and greece was ones the same nation

Plato's referring to the Greek colonies in the south of Italy and how much the Romans followed Greek culture and styles (while maintaining their own to a large degree). North of them were the Latins of Rome, and the "Italians". The Romans always admired greek culture, but when it came down to Empire building in the begining they followed the Roman model. Eventually the Republic conquered all the Greeks and they indeed became the same country. The interesting part is that the Empire granted citizenship too all its subjects; effectively recognizing no more distinctions between those that lay under its rule. "Romans" became to mean everyone in the "Roman Empire" since they shared a common culture (with natural regional differences; the east was more greek and the west was more latin) and political organization.

When Diocletian changed the form and constitution of the Empire from pretending to be merely the first minister/citizen of the Republic to being the monarch with absolute authority over the empire he followed what Alexander the Great did and make himself master of Europe in the style of Cyrus the Great.

I don't mean to be jumping on you, but your points were a good setting for my own. :p

[scotsboyuk]

The Byzantine Empire was undoubtedly the continuation of the Roman Empire, indeed it's citizens and Emperors called it the Roman Empire. In the aftermath of the decline of the Western Roman Empire many kings of Europe who were carving out their own petty fiefdoms still looked to the Emperor as a source of legitimacy, at least in a ceremonial sense. This gradually changed over time as the power of the church in Rome itself grew. However, it's important to note that looking to Rome for legitimacy and approval wasn't just a case of seeking the favour of the Pope, but also of associating one's self with the authority and the 'charisma' of the old order that had been based in Rome, and which was now carried on in Constantinople.

So powerful was the Roman Empire's authority that it is very difficult to overestimate its importance to the development of modern Europe, and through the colonial empires much of the world as we know it today. Archaeological evidence shows that even in the 7th century Edwin of Northumbria was using Roman battle standards, a clear attempt at linking his own rule to the authority and potency of the old Roman order that had in reality ceased to govern Britannia over two hundred years previously.

Many of the modern nations of Europe are to a greater or lesser extent based upon the Roman provincial divisions. The early rulers of those countries sought to emulate Roman traditions to give themselves legitimacy. When Constantinople fell for the last time in 1453 the Tsar of all the Russias lay claim to the title of Rome, declaring that he ruled over the Third Rome. This can be seen as a mere propoganda exercise, but also a testament to just how potent Rome's authority and legitimacy still was, a legitimacy that the Byzantine Empire had carried unchallenged no matter how weak it may have been. Indeed the Russian title 'Tsar' itself derives from Ceasar, the title given to the heir presumptive of the Empire, and which was derived from Julius Ceasar.

In the West the Holy Roman Empire, although at times filling none of those criteria as per Voltaire's famous quip sought to carry itself on as a legitimate successor to the Empire of the Romans. Indeed the very fact that Charlemagne was crowned 'Emperor' is testament to that fact, rather than merely settling for the title of king, which had been use by the Merovingians and Carolingians before him, he sought the legitimacy of being Emperor, a title at that time reserved solely for the ruler of the remnant of the Roman Empire in the east. The later German title of kaiser is, like the Russian tsar, derived from the term 'Ceasar'.

[Countezero]

A somewhat frivolous, but related point, is that Istanbul currently markets itself as the historical seat of three empires -- Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman. Most of the signage and historical markers adopt this trope as well.

[superstring01]

A somewhat frivolous, but related point, is that Istanbul currently markets itself as the historical seat of three empires -- Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman. Most of the signage and historical markers adopt this trope as well.

I find it odd that Turkey would brand the streets in such a way. The "Byzantines" didn't call themselves that (as I'm sure you know), that's a somewhat modern colloquialism that wasn't adopted universally until well after its fall. During its time, both internally and externally, the Empire was called "Romania", "Rome", "The Roman Empire", or "The Eastern Roman Empire". Even the Ottomans seemed to lust after calling itself "Rum" after its conquest.

A bit misleading if not outright deceptive [or, dare I say, Byzantine?] to try to label itself as the seat of three empires. No?

~String

[TTL]

A bit misleading if not outright deceptive [or, dare I say, Byzantine?] to try to label itself as the seat of three empires. No?

It is tourism marketing. It is bound to be flashy to generate interest, also Istanbul actually had been the capital of both Ottoman and Byzantine empires and was an important center of Romans, so not very deceptive IMO.

[Countezero]

I find it odd that Turkey would brand the streets in such a way. The "Byzantines" didn't call themselves that (as I'm sure you know), that's a somewhat modern colloquialism that wasn't adopted universally until well after its fall. During its time, both internally and externally, the Empire was called "Romania", "Rome", "The Roman Empire", or "The Eastern Roman Empire". Even the Ottomans seemed to lust after calling itself "Rum" after its conquest.

A bit misleading if not outright deceptive [or, dare I say, Byzantine?] to try to label itself as the seat of three empires. No?

~String

I think it's that they've simply adopted the language commonly used by historians. Roman ruins, like those at Efes, and the more-Byzantine ruins, like the structures in Istanbul, are clearly labeled as such.

It is tourism marketing. It is bound to be flashy to generate interest, also Istanbul actually had been the capital of both Ottoman and Byzantine empires and was an important center of Romans, so not very deceptive IMO.

Yeah. Marketing does play a role in it, especially with the whole Capital of Culture in 2010 bit. They are currently laying that on pretty thick here with posters and such.

[Imho]

To my knowledge the Eastern Roman Empire became Byzantine Empire sometime 5-7 century AD.Just evolve from Roman to Greek.Byzantium was more Greek then Roman-languange,religion,culture.At the time Byzantium flourish,Rome was gone.There is a more historical facts that point at direction Byzantium being Greek.