| Submission declined on 15 August 2024 by Curb Safe Charmer (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review 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. Editor resources
|  |
Comment: GPTZero shows a very high probabability that parts of this, such as most of the "Modern day" section, is AI-generated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: See comments at Talk:Byzantine Empire#Draft:The Controversy Surrounding the term Byzantine Empire Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
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.
Origins of the term
editThe 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]
Pentarchy system (565 AD)
edit
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. 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]
Crisis era
editAfter 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-Sasanid War (from 602 to 628 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.
Instability and autonomy
editAs the Exarchate of Ravenna became more autonomous and attention of Constantinople shifted eastward due to the Arab invasions, and other future crises such as the Twenty Years' Anarchy, the Patriarchate of Rome was able to exercise more freedom in making decisions in the region without the approval of Constantinople. The papacy also had considerable power in the western territories since it was the sole church in control of them.
Taking advantage of a weakened 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]
The crowning of Charlemagne
editAs a token of gratitude, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne on Christmas Day of 800 A.D., 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 of Athens, and that a woman could not legitimately be Emperor of the Romans.[6]
The crowning was viewed as a direct threat to the Roman Empire, which in turn aggravated diplomatic tensions between Constantinople and the Papacy and contributing to the eventual Great Schism.
The 10th Century diplomatic tensions
editIn the 10th century A.D., 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. 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]
Fourth Crusade
edit
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 first uses of the term Byzantine Empire
edit
,_RP-P-OB-31.457.jpg)
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]
Early modern period
editDuring 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.
Russian Empire
editDuring the reign of Empress Catherine the Great of Russia, she referred to Medieval Roman Empire as the "Empire of the Greeks" in her ambitions to reconquer Constantinople from the Ottomans and restore the Roman Empire under Russian governance.[9]
Islamic world
editIn 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]
Greek War of Independence
editAfter the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 15th century, most of its former inhabitants came under Ottoman jurisdiction. Ottoman accounts and other sources refer to these people as "Rum," meaning "Romans."[11] The Greeks, also known as Romans, managed to preserve their identity and beliefs during this period.[11]
In the early 19th century, the Greeks successfully revolted against the Ottoman Empire from 1821 to 1829. The Greeks received support from the British Empire, the Kingdom of France, and the Russian Empire in 1826, while the Ottomans were aided by their North African vassals. This conflict resulted in the creation of modern Greece, which would later expand to its current size. Some groups in Greece continued to call themselves "Ρωμαῖοι" (Romans in Greek) as late as the 20th century.[12]
The medieval era in Roman history has become heavily associated with Greek identity due to similarities in language, beliefs, customs, and geographical location. This association is why some historians use the label "Byzantine Empire" to identify this period in history.
Modern day
editIn 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
editSome 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.[2] 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
editThe 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.
Scholarly perspectives
edit
- 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.[2]
- 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.
References
edit- ^ Jeffreys, Elizabeth M.; Haldon, John F.; Cormack, Robin Sinclair (2008). The Oxford handbook of Byzantine studies. Oxford handbooks. Oxford: Oxford university press. ISBN 978-0-19-925246-6.
- ^ a b c d e Herrin, Judith (2008). Byzantium: the surprising life of a medieval empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13151-1. OCLC 209570880.
- ^ Whitney, J.P. (May 23, 2011). The Cambridge Medieval History (1st ed.). Nabu Press (published 2011). ISBN 978-1172766611.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Ullmann, Walter (1974). A short history of the papacy in the Middle Ages (Repr. with corr ed.). London: Methuen. ISBN 978-0-416-08650-8.
- ^ 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. ISBN 978-0-19-024525-2.
- ^ Fichtenau, Heinrich (January 1, 1964). The Carolingian Empire; The Age of Charlemagne (1st ed.). Harper Torchbooks. pp. 85–102.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Kaegi, Walter Emil (1997). Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests (Reprint ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-521-41172-1.
- ^ a b Angold, Michael (2003). The fourth crusade: event and context. The Medieval world. Harlow New York: Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-35610-8.
- ^ Massie, Robert K. (2012). Catherine the Great: portrait of a woman (Random House Trade paperback ed.). New York, NY: Random House. ISBN 978-0-345-40877-8.
- ^ 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. ISBN 978-1-107-45694-5.
- ^ a b Quataert, Donald (2010). The Ottoman Empire, 1700 - 1922. New approaches to European history (2., [rev.] ed., 6th. pr ed.). Cambridge: Cambrige Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-521-54782-6.
- ^ Beaton, Roderick (2020). Greece: biography of a modern nation. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-198652-4.
Further reading
edit- 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.