This article examines the controversial use of the term "Byzantine Empire" to describe the ERE.
Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,542 pending submissions waiting for review.
If the submission is accepted, then this page will be moved into the article space.
If the submission is declined, then the reason will be posted here.
In the meantime, you can continue to improve this submission by editing normally.
Where to get help
If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews.
If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed.
To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags.
The term "Byzantine Empire" is commonly used to describe the Roman Empire after the loss of the western territories during 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.[1] 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.
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.[2]
Map of the 5 ecclesiastical sees (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) in the year of the death of Emperor Justinian (565 A.D.).
During the reign of Roman EmperorJustinian 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. The patriarchs of these centers were appointed by the Emperor.
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.[3]
Map of the Exarchate of Africa and the Exarchate of Italy (or Ravenna) in 600 A.D.
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.[2] 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.
As the Exarchate of Ravenna became more autonomous and attention of Consatinople shifted eastward due to the Arab invasions, and this lead the Patriarchate of Rome had more freedom to make decisions. During the further Lombard invasions in the 8th century A.D., 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.
Taking the the advnatage of a weakend Roman Empire in 752 A.D., the Lombards, led by King Aistulf, conquered the northeastern portion of the Exarchate of Ravenna 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.[4]
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.[5] 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.[6]
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.
In the 10th century A.D., Holy Roman EmperorOtto 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. During the diplomatic visit the envoys referred to the Roman Emperor Nikephoros II Phocas with title of "Emperor of the Greeks", leading to further diplomatic friction.[7]
Gustave Dore crusades entry of the crusaders into Constantinople
During the Fourth Crusade, the Crusaders sacked, looted, and destroyed important historical documents and artifacts, leading to a massive loss of information about the history of classical civilizations.[8] The sack of Constantinople in 1204 significantly deteriorated relations between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, exacerbating anti-Roman sentiment in the West. The crusade delivered a severe and irreparable blow to the Roman Empire, weakening its political and cultural cohesion and subsequently leading to the collapse of the empire in the 15th century.[8]
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, nealy one century after the fall of Roman Empire. 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 Medieval 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. However, this claim has been questioned since, during the early Roman Empire, the Western half was predominantly Latin-speaking and the Eastern half was Greek-speaking. The distinction between the two periods is thus not as clear-cut, as the use of Greek in the Eastern Empire and Latin in the Western Empire began during the Roman Republic and continued into the early imperial period. This ongoing use of Greek in the Eastern provinces and Latin in the West reflects the continuity of the Roman state's cultural and administrative practices, challenging the notion of a clear demarcation between the classical and medieval phases of the Empire.[2]
During the Early Modern Period, there was no universally agreed-upon term for referring to the Medieval Roman Empire, and the terminology varied from region to region.
In the Islamic world, there was no specific term to differentiate the medieval Roman Empire from the classical Roman era. In sources from the early Islamic period and the Ottoman Empire, it was commonly referred to as "Qayrāwān al-Rūm," meaning "Empire of the Romans."[10]
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.
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.
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 Roman Empire. This terminology, some argue, reflects more about Western Europe's historical context and prejudices rather than the self-understanding of the Roman Empire during the medieval era.
Judith HerrinCritics 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.
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.
^Jeffreys, Elizabeth M.; Haldon, John F.; Cormack, Robin Sinclair (2008). The Oxford handbook of Byzantine studies. Oxford handbooks. Oxford: Oxford university press. ISBN978-0-19-925246-6.
^Whitney, J.P. (May 23, 2011). The Cambridge Medieval History (in eng) (1st ed.). Nabu Press (published 2011). ISBN978-1172766611.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
^Ullmann, Walter (1974). A short history of the papacy in the Middle Ages (Repr. with corr ed.). London: Methuen. ISBN978-0-416-08650-8.
^Siecienski, A. Edward (2017). The Papacy and the Orthodox: sources and history of a debate. Oxford studies in historical theology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 58–70. ISBN978-0-19-024525-2.
^Fichtenau, Heinrich (January 1, 1964). The Carolingian Empire; The Age of Charlemagne (in eng) (1st ed.). Harper Torchbooks. pp. 85–102.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
^Kaegi, Walter Emil (1997). Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests (Reprint ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN978-0-521-41172-1.
^ abAngold, Michael (2003). The fourth crusade: event and context. The Medieval world. Harlow New York: Longman. ISBN978-0-582-35610-8.
^Massie, Robert K. (2012). Catherine the Great: portrait of a woman (Random House Trade paperback ed.). New York, NY: Random House. ISBN978-0-345-40877-8.
^Robinson, Chase F.; Cook, Michael, eds. (2010). The formation of the Islamic world: sixth to eleventh centuries. The new Cambridge history of Islam / General editor Michael Cook (Class of 1943, University Professor of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University). Cambridge New York,NY Melboure New Delhi Singapore: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-1-107-45694-5.
,_RP-P-OB-31.457.jpg)
