User:Artaxias V/sandbox

The Controversy Surrounding the term Byzantine Empire

The term "Byzantine Empire" is commonly used to describe the Roman Empire after the loss of the western territories during the crisis of the 5th century. However, this designation is controversial and debated among historians. Critics argue that the term is an anachronistic label, not used by the contemporaneous inhabitants of the empire. Instead, it is seen as a label that breaks the continuous history of the Roman Empire, which persisted in the East until the fall of Constantinople in 1453, and further until 1479 when the last Roman strongholds in Epirus fell under Ottoman control, marking the end of the Roman Empire.

Origins of the Term

The origins of the term are highly disputed, with various theories about its inception. It is often attributed to the rivalry between the Patriarchate of Rome and that of Constantinople.

Pentarchy System (565 AD)

Pentarchy in 565 AD.

During the reign of Roman Emperor Justinian I, the Pentarchy system was established, designating five centers of Christianity to govern their own regions. The primary governing church was located in Constantinople, where the capital of the Roman Empire had been established since Constantine I moved it there in 330.

As early as the reign of Justinian I, there were disagreements between the emperors in Constantinople and the patriarchs of Rome on religious and theological issues. One notable dispute involved Justinian and Pope Vigilius, particularly regarding theological doctrines and the resolution of the doctrinal controversy known as the Three Chapters Controversy. These controversies further contributed to the growing disillusionment and separation between the Patriarchate of Rome and Constantinople.

Crisis Era

After the reconquest of some western territories during Justinian’s reign, his successors faced immediate challenges that weakened the empire. These included the Lombard invasions of Italy, migrations of Slavic tribes into the Balkans, and, most notably, the protracted Romano-Persian War from 602 to 628.

Exarchates - 600 AD

During this period of instability, the Romans were unable to manage their far western territories effectively. To maintain political stability, exarchates were established, such as the Exarchate of Ravenna and the Exarchate of Africa. These exarchates operated with greater autonomy and could exercise more power to protect their territories and take decisive actions against threats, rather than waiting for confirmation from Constantinople, which could take months on end.

Instability and Autonomy

As the Exarchate of Ravenna became more autonomous and attention of Consatinople shifted eastward due to the Arab invasions, due to this the Patriarchate of Rome had more freedom to make decisions. During the further Lombard invasions in the 8th century, the exarchate had to rely on foreign assistance, such as from the Frankish Kingdom, as Rome itself was unable to send reinforcements due to worsening conditions in the east, particularly during the Twenty Years' Anarchy.

In 752, the Lombards, led by King Aistulf, conquered the northeastern portion of the Exarchate known as the Ducatus Pentapolis. Although the Franks, led by Pepin the Short, expelled the Lombards, Pope Stephen II claimed the territory. Pepin donated the lands to the Papacy, and Charlemagne confirmed this donation in 774, marking the beginning of the papal temporal power known as the Patrimony of Saint Peter.

The Crowning of Charlemagne

As a token of gratitude, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne on Christmas Day that year, declaring him Emperor of the Romans. This act not only distinguished the Patriarchate of Rome from the authority of Constantinople but also intensified the schism between the two. Leo III later justified his actions by claiming that at the time, the Roman Empire was ruled by a woman, Empress Irene, and that a woman could not legitimately be Emperor of the Romans.

The Roman Empire reacted with significant discontent to Charlemagne's coronation as Emperor of the Romans by Pope Leo III in 800. The Romans, under Empress Irene of Athens, saw the act as a challenge to their imperial authority and legitimacy. The crowning was viewed as a direct threat, exacerbating diplomatic tensions between Constantinople and the Papacy and contributing to the eventual Great Schism.

The 10th Century Diplomatic Tensions

In the 10th century, Holy Roman Emperor Otto I sent envoys to Constantinople seeking to establish or strengthen diplomatic relations with the Roman Empire, partly to address mutual threats from Slavic and Hungarian forces and to assert his authority. The Roman Emperor Nikephoros II Phocas was particularly sensitive to any perceived affronts to Roman prestige. The envoys referred to the Roman Emperor with title of "Emperor of the Greeks", leading to further diplomatic friction.

The first uses of the term Byzantine Empire

The problem of two emperors mostly concerns the medieval dispute between the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire (yellow) and the Roman Empire (purple) as to which ruler was the legitimate Roman emperor, 12th century borders

The term itself was not coined until the Late Renaissance, when the German historian Hieronymus Wolf, who lived during the 16th century in the Holy Roman Empire, completed his work on Corpus Historiae Byzantinae. Wolf coined the term "Byzantine" to describe the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages, a designation that was not used by the contemporaneous inhabitants of the empire. His work aimed to classify and catalog the history of the Late Roman Empire. Although the intentions of Hieronymus Wolf in coining the term "Byzantine" remain a topic of debate, it is well-documented that the term had its roots during a period of significant rivalry between the Roman and Germanic worlds. The so-called "problem of two emperors" — referring to the simultaneous existence of the Holy Roman Emperor and the Roman Emperor — contributed to political biases and the potential distortion of historical narratives.

The name "Byzantine" derives from the ancient Greek colony of Byzantium, which was later renamed Constantinople when it became the capital of the Roman Empire in 330. This is why some historians refer to the medieval Roman Empire as the Byzantine Empire, as it was governed from the former city of Byzantium. However, historically, there is no direct affiliation between these terms and the Roman Empire itself.

In later periods the term became more commonly used to differentiate between the pagan, Latin-speaking Roman Empire and the Greek-speaking, Christian Roman Empire, as these periods were drastically different from one another.

Modern Day

In modern times, many historians have raised concerns about the legitimacy of the term "Byzantine" and its impact on historical perspectives. Some scholars argue that the term should be abolished, contending that it creates an artificial division between the ancient Roman Empire and its eastern continuation. They believe that referring to the Byzantine Empire simply as the "Roman Empire" would more accurately reflect its historical continuity and the self-perception of its inhabitants.

Historical Continuity

Some scholars emphasize that the Eastern Roman Empire, which continued to exist until 1453, viewed itself as the continuation of the Roman Empire, maintaining Roman law, institutions, and traditions. They argue that the term "Byzantine" undermines this continuity by suggesting a separate identity. This view is supported by evidence of how the empire’s inhabitants and rulers considered themselves as Romans (or "Ρωμαῖοι" in Greek) and continued to use the title "Emperor of the Romans" throughout the empire's existence.

Historiographical Impact

The use of the term "Byzantine" is seen by some historians as a product of later historical narratives, particularly from the Renaissance and early modern periods, when the term was coined by Western scholars to categorize the medieval Eastern Roman Empire. This terminology, some argue, reflects more about Western Europe's historical context and prejudices rather than the self-understanding of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Scholarly Perspectives

• Critics of the Term: Scholars such as Judith Herrin and John Haldon argue for a reevaluation of the term, suggesting that it obscures the historical realities of the Eastern Roman Empire and its continuous Roman heritage. They propose that referring to the empire as the "Roman Empire" throughout its history would better reflect its own self-conception and continuity.
• Support for the Term: On the other hand, some historians find the term "Byzantine" useful for distinguishing the medieval period of the Eastern Roman Empire from its earlier phases. This usage helps to delineate the significant cultural, political, and religious changes that occurred, including shifts in language, administration, and interaction with other cultures.

Further Reading

• Judith Herrin, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire (Harvard University Press, 2008). Explores the history and significance of the Byzantine Empire, including discussions on the term "Byzantine." ISBN: 978-0674027558.
• Michael Grant, The History of the Byzantine Empire (Harper & Row, 1988). Provides a detailed narrative of Byzantine history with commentary on the historiographical issues surrounding the term "Byzantine." ISBN: 978-0060159521.
• James Allen, The Byzantine Empire: A Historical Introduction (Yale University Press, 1997). An accessible overview of Byzantine history and the origins of the term "Byzantine." ISBN: 978-0300079643.
• Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Penguin Classics, 1994). A classic work on the fall of the Roman Empire and the transition to what would later be known as the Byzantine Empire. ISBN: 978-0140437641.
• John Haldon, Byzantine Diplomacy: The Evolution of Byzantine Diplomatic Practices (University of Washington Press, 2004). Examines Byzantine diplomatic practices and their impact on relations with the Holy Roman Empire. ISBN: 978-0295983214.
• Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe's History (HarperCollins, 2016). Comprehensive account of the Holy Roman Empire, providing context for its interactions with the Byzantine Empire. ISBN: 9781846143182.
• Neil Faulkner, The History of Byzantium: From the Fall of Rome to the Fall of Constantinople (Oxford University Press, 2004). Chronological history of the Byzantine Empire with discussions on historiographical debates about the term "Byzantine." ISBN: 978-0192853910.
• J. B. Bury, C. W. Previté-Orton, and Z. N. Brooke, The Cambridge Medieval History (Cambridge University Press, Various Volumes, 1923-1936). Extensive coverage of medieval history, including detailed sections on the Byzantine Empire. ISBN: Varies by volume.