I am shocked at the passionate response to my tweets about the Byzantine Empire being the Roman Empire. So today, a related issue: not recognizing the #Roman identity of the #Byzantine Empire creates problems for our understanding of the early Middle Ages. 🧵 #History
While many specialists of Byzantine history may assume that everyone knows that the people we call "Byzantines" were actually Romans, this knowledge has not fully permeated to the level where most people encounter the Byzantines: secondary school and university survey textbooks.
At this level, in classes like European History, Western Civilization, or World History, the early Middle Ages is sometimes presented as the era of the "three heirs" of Rome. These heirs are identified as the Byzantine Empire, the early medieval West, and the Islamic caliphate.
This is a serious distortion of the historical reality of this era. Saying directly, or even implying, that the Byzantine Empire, the early medieval West, and the Islamic caliphate were all equally heirs to Roman tradition is just not accurate.
The Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire continued. It was not a successor state, with an identifiable break in political and military continuity, as the states of the early medieval West. It did not only replicate elements of the Roman past, as the Islamic caliphate.
Saying that these three regions were equal heirs of ancient Rome would be the equivalent of saying that today the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom are all equal heirs of Britain, which I believe most British would find preposterous. Brits, forgive me if I am wrong.
The Romans of the "Byzantine" Empire were Romans and considered themselves Romans, as I said the other day, and in the early Middle Ages just about everyone else considered them Romans as well. To the Arabs, the "Byzantine" Empire was Rūm.
Up to the eighth century, the rulers of the states of the early medieval West also considered the "Byzantine" Empire to be Roman. Interference by Roman emperors in the affairs of western states might be resented, but their Roman identity was not routinely denied.
So it is unreasonable to present the early Middle Ages as the era of the "three heirs" of ancient Rome. Other strategies used by general history textbooks to suggest that all civilizations of this era were "new" or "successors" are equally suspect.
Such organizational strategies, while they might save space in textbooks, suggest that the ancient Roman state had disappeared and been replaced by several different societies including Byzantium, which is not accurate. The ancient Roman state endured throughout this period.
Two examples where this matters: understanding that the "Byzantine" Empire was actually the Roman Empire fundamentally changes how survey textbooks present the wars of Justinian in the sixth century, or the "Byzantine" response to the crowning of Charlemagne in 800.
It is not necessary for secondary and university textbooks to completely drop the name "Byzantine" in order to correct this error, but I think it is fair to wonder if having a different name for the early medieval Roman state has encouraged this error in the first place. Fin.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Byzantine history enthusiasts often (with good reason) get irate about the Fourth Crusade. They should also celebrate the many conscientious objectors on the Fourth Crusade that refused to attack fellow Christians. This is an appreciation thread. 🧵
From the moment Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice, proposed that the crusaders should attack the city of Zara, Geoffrey of Villehardouin reports: "There was much opposition."
The most articulate voice against the twisting of the Fourth Crusade is Guy, the Abbot of Vaux, who loudly proclaimed "My lords, on behalf of the Roman Pope I forbid you to lay siege to this city. For it is a Christian city and you are pilgrims."
Have you ever wanted more details about the Fourth Crusade’s attack on Constantinople in 1204? Two eyewitness accounts that are great to read together are Geoffrey of Villehardouin and Nicetas Choniates. Here are a few excerpts. 🧵
Geoffrey of Villehardouin (born around 1150) was a French knight and the Marshal of Champagne. He was one of the ambassadors to Venice who negotiated the deal for Venetian shipping of the crusade and he remained with the crusade until the end.
Nicetas Choniates (born around 1155) was a Roman civil official and governor of Philippopolis. He was an important author and historian in Nicaea, to which he fled after the conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders.
Welcome new followers! 👋 Allow me to introduce myself. I am a historian of the sixth-century Roman world and I post about all things Roman/Byzantine. My interests range from the founding of Rome to the fall of Constantinople.
In addition to posting about my own research, I also occasionally post about the field of Byzantine studies (or as I prefer to think of it, medieval Roman studies) and teaching as a university professor in the USA. Thanks for being here!
If you are new to this account, here are a few of my greatest threads. Was the Byzantine Empire Roman?
To celebrate my book's first birthday (released July 4 last year), I offer up a meditation on a curious little episode: the Vandal King Gelimer quoting the great refrain of Ecclesiastes: "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." #Roman #Byzantine 🧵
Some background: At the command of Justinian (r. 527-565), the general Belisarius led a Roman army to crush the Vandals and restore North Africa and most of its surrounding islands to Roman control in a lightning campaign that lasted just six months (September 533-March 534).
(This is probably underselling the shocking rapidity of this victory, because all major combat operations were complete by December 533 [3 months], and everything after that was claiming far-flung outposts and forcing the besieged Vandal King Gelimer into submission.)
The Count of the Stable (Comes Stabuli, from which we derive "constable") was a late antique officer of the Roman imperial court responsible for levying horses and pack animals for government use. Although it sounds like a humble post, it was held by a number of famous Romans. 🧵
I have been writing on the Comes Stabuli recently and was astonished to learn that occupants of the office included the future emperor Valens (r. 364-378) and the famous generals Stilicho (d. 408) and Aetius (d. 454).
This is of particular interest to me since in the sixth century Belisarius held the title of ἄρχον τῶν βασιλικῶν ἱπποκόμων (Commander of the Imperial Grooms), which was presumably a variant form of the same office.
Over the past few months I engaged in a variety of media (podcasts, blogs, book sites, etc) to get word out about my new book. This thread summarizes all that activity, both to keep it in one place and to give ideas to other academics with new books!
I started with places that would let me write a few words about my book to catch the interest of other bibliophiles. The first was on a humble blog called "The Page 99 Test":