Below is a list of interesting viewpoints from published scholars taken from their works on the matter of the “Byzantine” Empire. I am selecting their views on the continuity of ‘Byzantium’ with earlier Roman eras and whether or not is was still seen by them as “really” the Roman Empire. Many authors choose to use the term Byzantine but still acknowledge it is the same Roman Empire. I will list the author, book, and the year it was published (important to see how these views evolve over time, more recent publications seemingly place more emphasis on continuity).
Nicholas Morton – The Mongol Storm: Making and Breaking Empires in the Medieval Near East (Published 2022)
This is a brief quote from his book, but to the point. In his introduction, contextualizing the situation of 13th century Anatolia, he wrote: “At the western end of Anatolia lay the borders of the Byzantine Empire (the direct-line continuator of the ancient Eastern Roman Empire).” I admire that in his introduction he made it clear that to his audience that what he was calling the Byzantine Empire, or the Empire of Nicaea, was still in-fact the continuation of the Roman Empire, however humbled and diminished it was by that point.
Anthony Kaldellis – Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Published 2019)
This book is one of few actually dedicated to medieval Roman identity. It is a must-read, even if one does not fully accept his argument it has a lot of points even a denier must reckon with. In his preface he says “The Byzantines, however, did not call themselves Byzantine…instead they consistently called themselves Romans…They also had a proper name for their state, Romania(Romanland), which is absent from most modern discussions.”
He also specifically addressed his own use of the term Byzantine or Byzantium. I wish all authors on this subject did this. “It is well known that the term ‘Byzantium’ is a modern label for the eastern Roman Empire and its people, most of whom called themselves Romans. It is less well known that this term is only the most recent in a series of invented names that the West has devised during the last thousand years precisely in order to avoid using any Roman label in connection with the eastern empire and its people. This book exposes the politics of these invented labels and the historical misunderstandings which result from them. For example, the label ‘Byzantine’ obscures the difference between imperial subjects who were ethnically Roman and those who were not.” He said he used it regardless at times because “the term is still the internationally recognized and conventional name of a specific and still fairly coherent academic discipline: Byzantine Studies. I am a member of that field and address it as such with a contribution to an ongoing debate. Also, we will not solve the problem by making a word a taboo. It is better to improve our understanding of the historical reality that lay behind the words that we (fallibly) use…In the short term, it is possible to retain the label ‘Byzantium’ as a general term for the field and civilization as a whole, for example in titles of our books and articles, while referring inside them to Romans and Romania.“
If you want a book on Roman ethnic identity, this is the one I recommend.
Sverrir Jakobsson in the introduction to The Varangians: In God’s Holy Fire (Published 2020)
“The Byzantine Empire was in no way a separate entity from the earlier Roman Empire. The Roman Empire did not evolve into a Byzantine Empire; it simply continued its existence. Hence, there was no Byzantine emperor, as the office of the Roman emperor never transmuted into anything else than it had been before. This is acknowledged by most historians and experts in the field, but the weight of tradition continues to compel scholars to use the term Byzantine for what is actually the Roman Empire. As this will never change unless we scholars rebel against this practice I use the terms Roman Empire and Roman emperor throughout this book. Even if this might confuse some readers, I hope that this note will clarify the issue, as I have no wish to further the myths of earlier generations of Western European supremacists.“
I really love this point of view, I totally agree with Sverrir. I do not necessarily mind the term Byzantine, but I see in my work on social media that it confuses many people that do not have the educational context to interpret it. Many people see Byzantine and because it does not say Roman, they do not see it as Roman. I see the argument that a term like Byzantine has historiographical value, but it is also problematic. Professor Jakobsson is trying to change his field, and I admire it. Also, it is an AMAZING book he wrote on the Varangians, I strongly recommend it.
John Haldon from 1. The Empire that Would Not Die: The Paradox of Eastern Roman Survival, 640-740 (Published 2016) 2. Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565-1204 (Published 1999):
1– “The Byzantine Empire — better described, in fact, as the medieval Roman Empire — has been characterized as many things: as a bulwark against expanding Islam, as a bridge between east and west, as the transmitter or at least a conserver of Classical literature an learning, as the last ancient state.”
2– “‘Byzantine’ should be understood as the convenient label which it is—a shorthand for “medieval East Roman”, for the Byzantines referred to themselves as Romaioi or Romans, a term which subsumed at once their identity as Orthodox Christians, the Chosen People who, in the eyes of God, had succeeded to the place of the Jews from the time of Christ; and as Romans, the inheritors of a world empire protected and guided by God. From the point of view of the medieval observer, the artificial chronological divisions imposed by modern historians, sometimes for perfectly valid reasons, upon Byzantine history are quite meaningless; and even from the perspective of the modern specialist historian, the divide between late Roman (i.e. up to the later sixth century) and Byzantine (from the early seventh century) serves, as often as not, to obscure the fact that continuity in every respect—socio-economic, political, institutional and ideological—was the norm.“
I have nothing to say other than I totally agree with Professor Haldon. He is one of the greats of Byzantine scholarship and I highly recommend any work by him.
Michael J. Decker from the Byzantine Art of War (Published 2013):
Decker uses the term Byzantine, but he also recognized the continuity of Roman civilization and seems to be using it more for historiographical purposes. He wrote that “the majority of the empire’s inhabitants spoke Greek, and we refer to them as Byzantines, but they called themselves Romans as viewed their empire as the state once ruled by Augustus or Trajan. After all, they were the direct inheritors of the Roman Empire’s territory in the eastern Mediterranean, continued its administrative and legal framework without interruption, and, most important for our purposes, relied on the military apparatus that evolved from the old Roman legionary armies of antiquity.” I like that he points out military continuity, not just legal or administrative aspects.
Decker of course sees the obvious changes, but he is framing them in a Roman imperial context in his introduction. He also throws other lines which indicate continuity – referring to it as “the Roman Empire of Byzantium” for example. His text is focused on military matters, and in one line he refers to the armed forces as “the medieval Roman army.”
Overall Decker is an excellent example of how to use the term Byzantine responsibly for historiographical ease, and with proper historical context to educate readers. I use the terms Byzantine and Roman interchangeably just as he does. Decker often reminds readers that where we today draw lines in our books for our own purposes of study, the contemporary Romans did not see them. Such as – “for many modern historians, the year 330 marks the beginning of the ‘Byzantine’ or ‘East Roman’ Empire. For their part, the Romans gathered on that spring day on the shores of the Bosphoros had no sense of a break with the past, rather they viewed with satisfaction the achievements and continued power of eternal Rome under their vigorous leader. The inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire called themselves Romans until the destruction of their state by the Ottoman Turks in the spring of 1453.” Excellent, check out The Byzantine Art of War!
Lars Brownworth from Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization (Published 2009)
“The term ‘Byzantine’ is a thoroughly modern invention, making the empire attached to it notoriously difficult to define. What we call the Byzantine Empire was in fact the eastern half of the Roman Empire, and its citizens referred to themselves as Romans from the founding of Constantinople until the fall of the city eleven centuries later…Only the scholars of the enlightenment, preferring to find their roots in ancient Greece and classical Rome, denied the Eastern Empire the name ‘Roman,’ branding it instead after Byzantium — the ancient name of Constantinople. The ‘real’ empire for them had ended in 476 with the abdication of the last western emperor, and the history of the ‘imposters’ in Constantinople was nothing more than a thousand-year slide into barbarism, corruption, and decay.”
Brownworth does a good job of not only recognizing continuity and explaining it, but also giving readers a history of the bias which led to the term Byzantine being prevalent.
Judith Herrin Byzantium from The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire (Published 2007):
Professor Herrin has an interesting view, one I find a bit vague. Firstly, I want to say that her book is great, and I recommend reading it. Secondly, I do not think her views are malicious towards Byzantium and she is a great scholar. I just do not agree with her in many regards on this topic, I will explain her views and my issues with it.
On one hand a reader could say she does not deny the Roman continuity – “The eastern half of the Roman Empire is Byzantium. That name was not given to it until the sixteenth century, when humanist scholars tried to find a way of identifying what remained after the collapse of Old Rome in the West. Although they coined a term which has been used ever since, it is important to remember that the the inhabitants of the empire called themselves Romans (In Greek, Romaioi), and saw themselves as such. Their claim on Roman qualities is not a vanity or snobbishness.”
In my interpretation of what she wrote – Herrin does not want to concede that Byzantium was truly Roman, nor to deny it. She is acknowledging that “their claim on Roman ‘qualities’ is not a vanity” but she is not saying their claim of being Romans is true either. She argues that “From 330-619 Byzantium enjoyed imperial realities as well as ideology.” This implies, that after 619 imperial “realities” are no longer such. She does not really say what actually broke that reality, which bothers me. Herrin directly conceded that Byzantium is the eastern half of the Roman Empire, but does not seem to want to fully admit its inhabitants are truly Romans either. Is that not a paradox?
She also wrote other vague lines which imply a partial denial of continuity. Such as Byzantium “drew on pagan, Christian, Greek, Roman, ancient and specifically medieval components.” If it was the Roman Empire, one would not need to say it drew on Roman components, this is a subtle othering of the medieval Romans as Byzantine. I do not mind an author using the term Byzantine, but her contextual othering of them I find problematic. Especially because she offers little supporting reasoning on broad sweeping statements. But to be fair, Byzantine identity was not her purpose of the book.
Another phrase was “using the inheritance of Roman technology and engineering skill, Byzantium continued to build aqueducts, fortifications, roads and bridges, and huge constructions.” It is a true statement in one sense, but it also strongly implies Byzantium was a separate entity. It implies that ‘Byzantium’ was a new state which simply inherited Roman skill rather then it still being the Roman Empire which of course continued to employ similar techniques and skillsets. Overall Herrin does not outright deny Byzantium as being Roman, but it comes across that when she wrote this book she definitely did not truly believe they were “really” Romans.
Warren Treadgold, from the A History of the Byzantine State and Society (1997):
“If as many people think, states grow old and die after a limited lifespan long before it reached its Byzantine phase. As it was, parts of the Roman State that threw off Etruscan rule about 510 B.C remained independent until the fall of Trebizond in 1461AD. In the course of those two millenia, the state naturally underwent profound changes: vast expansion, transformation into a monarchy, administrative division into eastern and western parts, the fall of the western part, and the dwindling and fragmentation of the eastern part. Yet, long after the city of Rome had been lost, something calling itself the Roman Empire remained in the East, under the rule of Emperors who could trace their succession in an unbroken line back to Augustus. Modern historians have called this empire “Byzantine” because it was ruled not from Rome but usually from Constantinople, the former Byzantium. Even though the name ‘Byzantine Empire’ was never used at the time, the distinction it represents is a useful one.”
A History of the Byzantine State and Society is a major text for the field of Byzantine history, one of the best overviews of the subject ever made. So I had to quote Professor Treadgold. Much like Whittow below, he believes the term ‘Byzantine’ is a useful term to study this era of Roman history. However, he is also explicitly saying this is the Roman Empire, just that over time it changed in culture in circumstance so it is more useful historiographically to say Byzantine rather than Roman.
Mark Whittow: The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025(1996):
“Mention of the Roman Empire can often conjure up images of legionaries, pagan temples and the Latin language. None of these characterized the Empire in 600. The striking force of its army was now cavalry; it was Christian; and the dominant language was Greek. Yet it was still the same empire which had dominated the Near East continuously since the first century…It had changed, but no more than would expect in the history of a state over several centuries. It was still the Roman Empire, and known as such to its citizens and enemies…After the mid-seventh century a major change occurred. The Romans were still there, but no longer a superpower; instead they were a medium sized regional state based on Constantinople, and fighting a dour battle for survival…The subjects of this empire still called themselves Romans…It is quite correct to point out that the last Emperor of the Romans died in 1453 when the Turks stormed Constantinople. However this had the danger of implying a degree of continuity between the empire of 600 and 1000(let alone that of 1400) which did not exist. Hence I think it is more helpful to the term the empire after the mid-seventh century the “Byzantine Empire.”
However, Whittow did elaborate that term Byzantine was “no more than a historiographical convenience” because as it he said above, it was still the Roman Empire. He just felt it had changed enough that a new term is useful to study it, but not for the purpose of denying it was the Roman Empire.
Cyril Mango from Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome (Published 1980):
This is an old book, but I think very highly of Mango and I think he was ahead of his time. He is another scholar who uses the term Byzantine but understands and explains well to his readers what exactly he means and why he uses it:
“As for the epithet ‘Byzantine,’ serious objections could be and have often been raised concerning its appropriateness. For better or for worse, this term has, however, prevailed, and it would be pedantic to reject it as long as we understand that it is merely a convenient label. In reality, of course, there never existed such an entity as the Byzantine Empire. There did exist a Roman state centered on Constantinople. Its inhabitants called themselves Romaioi or simply Christians; and they called their country Romania.”
Especially for a writer in 1980, this is great. He seems to see the issues with the term Byzantine, but feels he cannot fight against it and does not feel the need to do so. He said that “attempts to supplant it by means of more cumbersome equivalents, such as East Roman or East Christian, have not met with general acceptance.“
shadowsofconstantinople.com 