History Question: When do late Imperial Romans become Early Byzantines?

[RichBliss]

Title says it all.  I’ve been wondering for some time now and I can’t find a clean answer.

[SJWi]

Good morning. I don't think there is a 100% clean answer. Given that people talk about the Western and Eastern Roman Empires I normally date "Byzantine" from when the Western Empire "fell".....and that's a topic in its own right. However, the last Western Emperor is conventionally viewed as Romulus Augustulus who was deposed in 476AD.  Thus, by my logic the first "Byzantine" Emperor would be LeoII who was reigning at the time in the East.

However, loads of other views/dates I'm sure ! 

[Atheling]

Good morning. I don't think there is a 100% clean answer. Given that people talk about the Western and Eastern Roman Empires I normally date "Byzantine" from when the Western Empire "fell".....and that's a topic in its own right. However, the last Western Emperor is conventionally viewed as Romulus Augustulus who was deposed in 476AD.  Thus, by my logic the first "Byzantine" Emperor would be LeoII who was reigning at the time in the East.

However, loads of other views/dates I'm sure !

Definitely. There's a huge overlap. If you mean when did the cultural change take place within Constantinople from Western Roman to Eastern Roman then that's an even harder question to answer concretely. Greek was not adopted as the official language of the Eastern Roman empire until 620 CE by Heraclius.

[Griefbringer]

My understanding is that the Byzantine empire is a term that was actually never used by the contemporary citizens, who still saw their realm as a Roman empire and themselves as Romans, even though Greek had become an official language. The term, though now generally used, has been assigned by later historians. On the other hand, on the west later on there existed the Holy Roman Empire, established by Charlemagne.

As regards wargaming, the interesting issue might rather be the transition from the infantry dominated armies of the antiquity to the cavalry dominated armies of the early medieval times, though this is a gradual transition taking place over a century or so.

[SteveBurt]

Oman's books on Medieval warfare start with Adrianople in 378AD - and that's also more or less the time cavalry starts to dominate

[Atheling]

My understanding is that the Byzantine empire is a term that was actually never used by the contemporary citizens, who still saw their realm as a Roman empire and themselves as Romans

They did. I doubt they ever felt any less Roman throughout their history until after the Walls of Constantinople came tumbling down in 1453.

I think for the sake of simplicity there is merit to "us" referring to an Eastern Roman and a Western Roman Empire. Even a Byzantine Empire. Though of course not technically correct.

[pallard]

May I give my feeling about this tricky question of the transition between Roman Empire and so-called Byzantium. Feel free to disagree of course.
The Greeks in the Roman Empire had always considered themselves apart from the " true " Romans, who they saw as culturally inferior. This evolved into a kind of cultural bipolarity when the differences became less and less pertinent between former barbarian come True Romans and former oriental come True Hellenes ( as for example Maximinus Thrax and Lucian).
 And simultaneously they shared a common sens of " us " compared to " them ": the real barbarians: they called it the Oikumene.
 So when the Roman political power collapsed in the western part of Empire, nobody considered that it was " the end " of the Romans. In the west, because the elites continued to rule by the Roman law, culture,  land property ( more or less according to place and germanic deals) and commerce, while the Barbarians had long appropriated the military. No emperor? so what! Business as usual. So much so that when, much later, Carl the Frankish king took the imperial title back for himself, it seemed only natural in the west.
Not so in the east, for they had received the western imperial insignia from the Senate of Rome, no less,  which had accepted Odoacre as king in 476. That was the end, not of the Roman Empire, but of a special co-ruling of the western and eastern parts by separate persons, a political mode used since Diocletian, and tested early in several instances. The only thing was that there had to come a time when the Empire would be reunited. Justinian and his successors made several attempts at that.
There was also a second level of consideration as to what is Roman: the religious question. The orthodox church, and by this I mean the catholic orthodoxy of the great councils, was linked with the Imperial power, apart from some monophysite emperors. The great question was: who led spiritually? The Pope in Rome or the Patriarch in Constantinopolis? This also contributed to the sense of a common spiritual destiny, and at the same time of a political competition inside the Church, which supersaded the lay politics of western and eastern imperium.

[LazyStudent]

As a slight aside, I can recommend the history of Byzantium podcast for those who like to listen to that sort of thing. https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/

[Atheling]

As a slight aside, I can recommend the history of Byzantium podcast for those who like to listen to that sort of thing. https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/

It's good to have playing background when painting up Eastern Romans/Byzantines

[Red Orc]

Unfortunately, though you say 'the title says it all', it really doesn't. It begs a lot of questions, which ultimately come down to 'what do you think the question means?'. Do you think there was a 'Byzantine Empire'? If you do, what do you think it was? If you can tell us what it is/was, maybe we can help with narrowing down when it might have come into being.

I think it's very difficult to argue that the Empire of AD312 (to pick a convenient date) was anything like the Empire of AD800 (to pick another convenient date). But I don't there's a definitive point where you can say one thing became the other. As many others have intimated, from a historical perspective, it's a process, that people did not see at the time, that has been given a name by people later that also would not be recognised at the time. Go to Romania and ask when they stopped being Roman. The question will not make sense.

The transfer of the Imperial Insignia in AD476 is a good candidate for 'when' the Empire ceased to be two parts (East and West) of a whole, and became in theory a single entity (a reunited Empire) but in fact the Eastern Empire with an independent west. So if that's what you mean by Byzantium, then maybe that's a good marker.

The point (that Atheling brings up) about use of Greek might be important so maybe AD620 is the year.

I'd wonder about Justinian and Belisarius. Justinian was the last Emperor (allegedly) to speak Latin as a first language, and he (like other Emperors before) re-codified the laws... I think it's arguable that the Justinian reorganisations and attempted reconquest of the West mark the recognition (to some extent) that might be regarded in current parlance as a 'new normal', a de facto situation where the West was not re-united but wholly independent. I wonder what people in Italy in and Spain and North Africa thought of Belisarius's armies - liberators or invaders? Romans, restoring Roman laws and administration to Roman citizens of Roman provinces, or foreigners seeking to establish alien rule by conquest?

Arguably, the situation between AD476 and AD800 was one in which the Emperors in Constantinople were theoretical overlords of the West, no matter what the situation actually was, and by proclaiming himself Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne provoked the changeover, so maybe AD800 is the date that the (theoretically unitary) Roman Empire became two states and the Eastern became the 'Byzantine' Empire.

And then, as Griefbringer intimates, there's another important question - are you looking for a 'historical' answer, or a 'wargaming' answer?

In terms of board admin, I think AD476 is generally taken as the formal end of the Western Empire and the beginning on the 'medieval' period. If you want Eastern Empire troops fighting Goths, then, Myths Gods and Empires is your board. If you want Eastern Empire troops reconquering Italy under Belisarius, I think Medieval is your board. What different rule-sets might make of the question, that probably depends a lot.

[RichBliss]

Thanks everyone for some thoughtful and thought provoking answers.  In regards to my intent, I perhaps should have been more specific.  Since this is a miniatures group, I was hoping to get a better understanding of how me would determine which figures to use for which period.

[SJWi]

OK, understood. I would use any range labelled “Late Roman” ( eg Gripping Beast or Footsore) for the period up to c450 ( no real rationale for the date!). If you want 6th or early 7th century I would look no further than the new Aventine Miniatures Range.

[OB]

I'd go with Peter Heather's view.  Once Egypt, north Africa and the Balkans are lost Byzantium begins its transformation from the East Roman super power to the Byzantine regional power. 

The troops still look quite Roman for a while after Justinian.

[Atheling]

OK, understood. I would use any range labelled “Late Roman” ( eg Gripping Beast or Footsore) for the period up to c450 ( no real rationale for the date!). If you want 6th or early 7th century I would look no further than the new Aventine Miniatures Range.

That's exactly the way I chose to go.

Years ago I put together a Justinian army using Gripping Beast mini's mainly, but not exclusively from their Lat Roman range. The army still looked decidedly Western which wasn't that much of an actually problem because I had the army of Belisarius in mind.

The thread can be seen here:
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=80561.0

Currently I'm putting together the same army but using Aventine- it can be seen in it's infancy below:
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=126018.0

[ErikB]

What amazes me is how little we know about these old, Eastern empires, in the US.  We barely mention Byzantium, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and so on.  This si probably not a surprise to anyone else, though.

I'd argue that, for wargaming and miniature-painting purposes, we consider "Byzantine", "Eastern Roman", "Greek-Roman", and "late-Roman" all the same.

For actual historical purposes, this thread is fantastic, please keep posting, folks!!!