Dark Age Revisionism: has it gone too far?

[Elrostar]

[quote name='Cimon' post='1668929' date='Jan 30 2009, 21.58']I'm kind of confused, are you making the assertion that referring to them as the Byzantines is relegating them to a sub-Roman status in history? I apologize if that's not what you were trying to say, but it seems to me that it makes perfect sense to think of them as distinctly different from Romans. I mean, not only was the culture/architecture etc. quite different from the western Romans, but seeing as how the western empire collapsed, and with it any idea of a Rome-centric empire, why would we refer to them as Roman? They thrived on their own merit and not from their status as an entity of the Roman Empire.[/quote]

My point is that they saw themselves as being culturally the descendants of Rome. Were they different from Romans? Absolutely, but then the Romans of the time of Augustus were very different from the Romans of the time of the founding of the Republic. And both were different from the Romans at the time of Marcus Aurelius. It's nice to picture Romans as being this one fixed thing, but that's completely fictitious.

Furthermore, the Byzantine Empire lasted for over a thousand years separated from the Western Roman Empire. A thousand years. What it was when Constantine founded Constantinople is completely different from what it was by the time the First Crusade stopped off in the city. And totally different when the city finally fell to the Muslims in 1453. It may not have changed quite as drastically as we've changed from the time of Elizabeth I, but keep in mind that we're only a bit over four centuries removed from her. Not ten.

So why should we call them Romans? Because they called themselves Romans, I guess. Because that's what they thought they were. Kind of like we (in the US) call ourselves Americans and our country USA. Wouldn't it be odd to refer to us as... FS... the Federated States, to denote that we weren't a confederacy of states, as we had initially started out, and as the secessionists were in the civil war. Perhaps not the best example, but I hope it conveys my point.

[Elrostar]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1668920' date='Jan 30 2009, 21.44'][url="http://www.anders.com/lectures/lars_brownworth/12_byzantine_rulers/"]http://www.anders.com/lectures/lars_brownw...zantine_rulers/[/url]
Greatest.Podcast.Ever.[/quote]
As you should well know, I'm working on it :)

[Cimon]

[quote name='Elrostar' post='1668952' date='Jan 30 2009, 22.28']My point is that they saw themselves as being culturally the descendants of Rome. Were they different from Romans? Absolutely, but then the Romans of the time of Augustus were very different from the Romans of the time of the founding of the Republic. And both were different from the Romans at the time of Marcus Aurelius. It's nice to picture Romans as being this one fixed thing, but that's completely fictitious.

Furthermore, the Byzantine Empire lasted for over a thousand years separated from the Western Roman Empire. A thousand years. What it was when Constantine founded Constantinople is completely different from what it was by the time the First Crusade stopped off in the city. And totally different when the city finally fell to the Muslims in 1453. It may not have changed quite as drastically as we've changed from the time of Elizabeth I, but keep in mind that we're only a bit over four centuries removed from her. Not ten.

So why should we call them Romans? Because they called themselves Romans, I guess. Because that's what they thought they were. Kind of like we (in the US) call ourselves Americans and our country USA. Wouldn't it be odd to refer to us as... FS... the Federated States, to denote that we weren't a confederacy of states, as we had initially started out, and as the secessionists were in the civil war. Perhaps not the best example, but I hope it conveys my point.[/quote]

Fair enough, I understand your point, but it seems to me like history is full of this sort of retroactive naming of peoples, culture/whatever. For example, in a very broad sense, we refer to to anyone who inhabited modern Italy during the Middle Ages/Renaissance as Italians although there was nothing approaching a unified Italy at the time. To term them as Byzantines seems to me more a matter of expedience. It is easier to discern who you're talking about, and also distinguish them as a distinctly different culture, despite what they themselves maintained.

[Elrostar]

I guess my point is that the people who were going through 'the dark age' hadn't ever experienced anything else.
Okay, obviously the specific people hadn't, because they would have had to have lived for hundreds of years. But the [i]peoples[/i] hadn't either. The Saxons, the Angles, the Picts, the Danes, the Geats, the what-have-yous. The Franks, the Goths, the Huns. They were all 'barbarians' from around the way, who had always been leading happy barbarian lives, so to speak. Moving along in their development steadily from 1000BC to whenever.
Maybe the Dark ages were dark, but they were no darker than the period [i]before[/i]. So why the special name?

So learning and knowledge were clustered in one place. They were in the period before as well (Rome and its world). And the period before that (Hellas). As well as other parts of the world, of course (along the silk road, primarily, and China). And there was a blossoming in India, as I recall?

So there are two parallel arguments here. One is whether the dark ages were as bad as all that. The other is one of definition (what were the dark ages?), which is sort of linked to the first. Because we see them as bad using some lens of what came before and what came after, and by looking at a narrow geographic region and comparing it to a different geographic region (generally speaking).

[Red Sun]

[quote name='Elrostar' post='1668916' date='Jan 31 2009, 03.38']But the Romans? Well the people who called themselves Romans were living in Constantinople, right? They certainly thought of themselves as the Roman Empire. And the East had always been the richer, more cultural part of the Empire. Gaul was always a cultural backwater, and Germania was the end of the world (not to even talk about Britannia). Granted, it was a shift that Rome ceased to be a center of things. But the fact that the chief weight of culture and civilization lay in the eastern portion of the Mediterranean was scarcely new.

So what were those Romans doing? Well, Justinian certainly got up to a lot. Defining the legal system in a way that would become the basis of most societies today was a pretty major step. But I'm not sure about the technological inventions. I think they were heavily into theology, though. But I feel that the very fact that we focus so much on 'the dark ages' and so little on the 'Byzantine Empire', and the fact that we don't really consider it the 'Roman Empire' is pretty telling. I mean, just because something isn't in Rome doesn't mean we don't call it Roman. Just look at 'The Holy Roman Empire'.
I guess they're just stuck with their name. Kind of like we're stuck with the name 'Dark ages'?[/quote]

First, the scholars for Byzance (Byzantinistik in German) distinguish the Late Roman Empire from the Byzantine Empire, starting with emperor Herakleios, because even though, they did consider themselves as the continuation of the Roman Empire, we can observe a change of self-perception in that time. For example, Heracleios is the first emperor that did not use the classic Roman profil for his sceau and money, anymore, and he also was portrayed with a long barbe, differently from before. And the emperor started to use the title "basileios", which originally means "king". Of course, they also used the title "autokrator" which implies the dignity of an emperor.

Second, "Byzantinistik" as a historical science is a product of the 19th century, like History as a science as well, and the words used in both areas reflect a certain bias of that time. So, the difference between the "Holy Roman Empire" and the Byzantine empire" is the reflection of a bias, it is not reflected in the sources of the time. The Byzantines are always the Romans (Romaios) in their own sources, and the area around Constantinople is called "Romania". Of course, we have the concurrence with the Western emperors since Charlemagne, even though, Charlemagne had no problems accepting the superiority of the Emperor in Constantinople, and we have to wait until Otto III before the Western emperor tries to present himself as the true heir of the Romans. Incidently, Otto III is the first Western Emperor with blood relations to the Eastern empire, and much of his concepts are based on a mixed greek and latin education.

Third, the Byzantine empire has always been important for the rest of Europe. Even in the times of concurrence with the Western empire, it was always the model. During the christianisation of Eastern Europe, both, the latin and the greek church had impact on these new countries. (By latin and greek, I mean the dominant language and the culture, based on texts in those languages.) The fact that Poland, Hungary and Bohemia became parts of the latin christianity and not of the greek christianity, was not clear from the start and has different reasons. Bohemia had a slavic liturgy, in analogy to the Eastern kingdoms that belonged to the greek church.

Up til the 1090ies, the "Byzantine" empire also still had territories in Italy, and even when Southern Italy was completely conquered by the Normans, greek culture was still present, and the Normans and later Frederick II. used greeks for their administration.

As for my university and our section for medieval history, I can say somewhat proudly that we do not consider the Byzantine empire as marginal for Europe, even though we can not create new scientific "terms" to replace the scholarly biases.

ETA: Regarding book recommendations, I have to state that scholarly tradition in Germany is a bit different from the anglophone scholarly tradition, and that I would have to look up which books are translated in English.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Cimon' post='1668929' date='Jan 30 2009, 20.58']I'm kind of confused, are you making the assertion that referring to them as the Byzantines is relegating them to a sub-Roman status in history? I apologize if that's not what you were trying to say, but it seems to me that it makes perfect sense to think of them as distinctly different from Romans. I mean, not only was the culture/architecture etc. quite different from the western Romans, but seeing as how the western empire collapsed, and with it any idea of a Rome-centric empire, why would we refer to them as Roman? They thrived on their own merit and not from their status as an entity of the Roman Empire.[/quote]

The fact is they were Romans. They continued an unbroken line of Roman emperors. They preserved and continued the philosophical, literary, and political traditions of Rome. They implemented the same style bureaucracy and laws. Enjoyed many of the same sports, architecture and arts. They were the direct cultural descendents of Rome and even using the term descendants might be a stretch. Sure they mostly were Greek and Greek was the language, but what is the name of the culture Rome transferred to us? Greco-Roman. An enormous amount of the culture that Rome enjoyed, practiced, studied and eventually transfered to us was derived from the Greeks who they admired and in some respects tried to emulate. Greek influence is inseparable from the later concept of Rome. It was an ever presence influence or inspiration to the empire.

The Arabs referred to them as the Romans, the citizens referred to themselves as the Empire of the Romans. You may say so what, but the Romanized Gauls, Brits and other provincials called themselves Roman. They had the dress, the culture, the institutions and perspective, noone at the time said they were not Romans. When the capitol of the Western empire moved from Rome to Ravenna, citizens in the ancient city and beyond didn't cease to be Romans. They were not called anything different either by contemporaries or historians.

Nobody called them Byzantines. Byzantine is an invention of of 16th century. The negative connotations that go along with the term were the result of our first modern historians of the 18th and 19th century. Gibbon and other contemporaries absolutely savaged any interest in or study of the Eastern Empire. They were ruthless in their denunciation of this empire that held the wealthiest, most sophisticated city in the world for quite some time, that preserved and later translated all the ancient learning that eventually allowed for Europe's ascension, and that protected Europe in its most base and pathetic moment from the Onslaught of conquesting Islam.

The Byzantines are quite possibly the only reason Europe exists in any recognizable Christian form and the reason they were later able to ascend to the top of the global food chain. Yet Byzantine has become a derogatory term synonymous with excessive, needless complexity and petty, duplicitous scheming. They've been ignored or diminished throughout history until recently because of the evisceration at the hands of our most prominent early modern historians. Its more than a bit of a tragedy.

I don't think using the term in the modern day is a problem because that is the label attached, in use for a few centuries, and it ain't going anywhere. But its inaccurate and quite frankly an affront to what they continued and represented.

[quote]Fair enough, I understand your point, but it seems to me like history is full of this sort of retroactive naming of peoples, culture/whatever. For example, in a very broad sense, we refer to to anyone who inhabited modern Italy during the Middle Ages/Renaissance as Italians although there was nothing approaching a unified Italy at the time. To term them as Byzantines seems to me more a matter of expedience. It is easier to discern who you're talking about, and also distinguish them as a distinctly different culture, despite what they themselves maintained.[/quote]

As I've stated above, the term Byzantine is itself retroactive naming. Not even the trumped up Holy Roman Emperors who were neither Roman, nor Emperors, nor Holy referred to the Eastern Empire as Byzantines. It was a construct of historians from the 16th century. Which was well after the fall of the empire. And the Italians thought of a unified Italy all the time. That's where the Roman Empire, the greatest power in history (so they assumed) and still very much in the consciousness of every single Florencian, Venetian, Genoan, and Roman, originated. Reuniting the peninsula and the city states to forge another empire was on the minds of many. Some as strong opponents and some as active instigators.

[Red Sun]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1669142' date='Jan 31 2009, 09.43']As I've stated above, the term Byzantine is itself retroactive naming. Not even the trumped up Holy Roman Emperors who were neither Roman, nor Emperors, nor Holy referred to the Eastern Empire as Byzantines.[/quote]

The Holy Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Emperors were not the same thing, and while the first was introduced as a concept in the 12th century. "Sacer" was never used for the Emperor, the emperor like all kings of the time were considered as chosen by God and gained sacrality from this, but that's not the same. "Holy" is a somewhat inadequate translation for "sacer/sacrum", anyway, because the latin term implies an inherent quality. The idea of the "Holy Roman Empire" was introduced as a response to the pope at the same time as the idea of the "translatio imperii", which meant a translation of heritage from the Roman Empire to their non-Roman successors. (That means that they were pretty much aware that they were no real Romans.) The concept of the inherent sacrality of the Roman Empire was also introduced at the same time as the emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire" started to rely on Roman Law as the basis of his legitimation. Basically at the same time as the Renaissance of the 12th century.

[quote]And the Italians thought of a unified Italy all the time. That's where the Roman Empire, the greatest power in history (so they assumed) and still very much in the consciousness of every single Florencian, Venetian, Genoan, and Roman, originated. Reuniting the peninsula and the city states to forge another empire was on the minds of many. Some as strong opponents and some as active instigators.[/quote]

That's a hyperbole, but it's true that the North Italian city states did play a major role as actors in the "Holy Roman Empire", be it as staunch supporters of the emperors, be it as their enemies with concepts on their own. Venice is a bit different, because the official memory of Venice starts with Attila and the refugees that founded the city, and historiographic works rarely touch the history before that fondation. Venice has the closest ties to the Byzantines anyway. Venice is also never really interested in forming leagues with other towns.

[Galactus]

Yep, where italian city-states go Venice is an outsider. Not quite a part of the rest of the gang.

[quote]The fact is they were Romans. They continued an unbroken line of Roman emperors. They preserved and continued the philosophical, literary, and political traditions of Rome. They implemented the same style bureaucracy and laws. Enjoyed many of the same sports, architecture and arts. They were the direct cultural descendents of Rome and even using the term descendants might be a stretch. Sure they mostly were Greek and Greek was the language, but what is the name of the culture Rome transferred to us? Greco-Roman. An enormous amount of the culture that Rome enjoyed, practiced, studied and eventually transfered to us was derived from the Greeks who they admired and in some respects tried to emulate. Greek influence is inseparable from the later concept of Rome. It was an ever presence influence or inspiration to the empire.

The Arabs referred to them as the Romans, the citizens referred to themselves as the Empire of the Romans. You may say so what, but the Romanized Gauls, Brits and other provincials called themselves Roman. They had the dress, the culture, the institutions and perspective, noone at the time said they were not Romans. When the capitol of the Western empire moved from Rome to Ravenna, citizens in the ancient city and beyond didn't cease to be Romans. They were not called anything different either by contemporaries or historians.

Nobody called them Byzantines. Byzantine is an invention of of 16th century. The negative connotations that go along with the term were the result of our first modern historians of the 18th and 19th century. Gibbon and other contemporaries absolutely savaged any interest in or study of the Eastern Empire. They were ruthless in their denunciation of this empire that held the wealthiest, most sophisticated city in the world for quite some time, that preserved and later translated all the ancient learning that eventually allowed for Europe's ascension, and that protected Europe in its most base and pathetic moment from the Onslaught of conquesting Islam.

The Byzantines are quite possibly the only reason Europe exists in any recognizable Christian form and the reason they were later able to ascend to the top of the global food chain. Yet Byzantine has become a derogatory term synonymous with excessive, needless complexity and petty, duplicitous scheming. They've been ignored or diminished throughout history until recently because of the evisceration at the hands of our most prominent early modern historians. Its more than a bit of a tragedy.

I don't think using the term in the modern day is a problem because that is the label attached, in use for a few centuries, and it ain't going anywhere. But its inaccurate and quite frankly an affront to what they continued and represented.[/quote]

This actually depends on the time-period. While "emperor of the romans" was one of the titles of the emperor in Constantinopole, at times they seem to have favoured Basileios Hellenos: King/Emperor of the Greeks. You're right in that no one called them byzantines, but neither was "romans" a universally applied term (for most of the middle-ages roman and greek seems to be used in paralell)

Note that the Holy Roman Emperor was the Roman Emperor becuase he, you know, actually was the emperor of the romans. IE: The people who lived in Rome. At least in theory. (the people around Rome of course never stopped calling themselves romans either. (and quite early on the Conclave of Cardinals was more or less accepted as the heirs of the roman senate)

[Galactus]

[quote]When we talk about 'the dark ages' we're really talking about western Europe, and really only France, Italy, and Germany (and parts of Britain). As mentioned before, the Moorish influence in Spain meant that places like Andalucia were having a cultural blossoming and can certainly not be said to be suffering. And Scandinavia, much of Britain, much of north-eastern Europe, those areas were all populated by peoples who were most eminently not Romans. Their development continued much in the way it had for the previous thousand years or so, with their tribal societies and whatnot.[/quote]

No! No! NO!

This is PRECISELY where you are wrong. Northern and Eastern Europe did NOT continue on the same trajectory, their trajectory was altered significantly during the early middle ages! The Roman Church (both of them) could go where the Roman Empire never could, and did so effectively and skillfully! The monks and bishops linked eastern and northern europe more effectively to the roman heritage than any number of roman legions ever could have.

[Elrostar]

[quote name='Bruce Galactus' post='1669242' date='Jan 31 2009, 08.43']No! No! NO!

This is PRECISELY where you are wrong. Northern and Eastern Europe did NOT continue on the same trajectory, their trajectory was altered significantly during the early middle ages! The Roman Church (both of them) could go where the Roman Empire never could, and did so effectively and skillfully! The monks and bishops linked eastern and northern europe more effectively to the roman heritage than any number of roman legions ever could have.[/quote]
Eastern Europe perhaps. But I will contend that Scandinavia was not much touched by the church. Isn't that Northern Europe?
Denmark wasn't turned Christian until Harald Bluetooth, who was in the mid-late 10th century. Same goes for the rest of Scandinavia (I'm fairly certain it wasn't any sooner, in any case).

[Galactus]

[quote]Eastern Europe perhaps. But I will contend that Scandinavia was not much touched by the church. Isn't that Northern Europe?
Denmark wasn't turned Christian until Harald Bluetooth, who was in the mid-late 10th century. Same goes for the rest of Scandinavia (I'm fairly certain it wasn't any sooner, in any case).[/quote]

Arguably they weren't "turned christian" until much later, some scholars argue the Reformation, but that's not really the point: The formal christianization isn't really important as much as the fact that the roman church can and does start sending people into Scandinavia. The danish administration is going to be staffed by clerics, and seamlessly they are going to switch shirts from vikings to crusaders: And in doing so grow ever-more integrated with the West.

In 300 Scandinavia has very little contact with Rome (some trade, that's more or less it, and most of it seems to have been indirect) by 900 Scandinavians are by and large acting within a west-european context, and it is the recognition of this fact that spurs christianization.

[CelticBrennus]

Also, the Vikings who settled in Europe very quickly became Christians and integrated into the Church structure, be it in England, Ireland or Northern France.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote]That's a hyperbole, but it's true that the North Italian city states did play a major role as actors in the "Holy Roman Empire", be it as staunch supporters of the emperors, be it as their enemies with concepts on their own. Venice is a bit different, because the official memory of Venice starts with Attila and the refugees that founded the city, and historiographic works rarely touch the history before that fondation. Venice has the closest ties to the Byzantines anyway. Venice is also never really interested in forming leagues with other towns.[/quote]

All I was trying to say was that an idea of a united Italy had never really disappeared. That there were forces that contemplated such a unification and sometimes even made small efforts towards it. Some of them simply wanted to make Italy a greater player in Europe others had dreams of restoring the grandeur of the old empire. (though you're right, Venice was an outsider there. Shouldn't have included them.)

[quote]This actually depends on the time-period. While "emperor of the romans" was one of the titles of the emperor in Constantinopole, at times they seem to have favoured Basileios Hellenos: King/Emperor of the Greeks. You're right in that no one called them byzantines, but neither was "romans" a universally applied term (for most of the middle-ages roman and greek seems to be used in paralell)[/quote]

There was a significant degree of what we'd recognize today as Greek nationalism in the empire, but the most popular term to refer to themselves and to the empire was still Roman. They recognized and celebrated their Greek/Hellenistic heritage, but still saw themselves as the continuation of the Roman Empire. Emperor of the Greeks was a Western European invention that arose around the time the West started crowning its own 'emperors' and caused its share of political conflicts between east and west.

[quote]Note that the Holy Roman Emperor was the Roman Emperor becuase he, you know, actually was the emperor of the romans. IE: The people who lived in Rome. At least in theory. (the people around Rome of course never stopped calling themselves romans either. (and quite early on the Conclave of Cardinals was more or less accepted as the heirs of the roman senate)[/quote]

They had a title, but most were not emperors even in the most liberal definitions of the word. And only for the briefest periods of its history did it every control, occupy, or administer Rome. Most of the territories within it were functionally independent in just about every respect.

[Red Sun]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1669482' date='Jan 31 2009, 21.38']All I was trying to say was that an idea of a united Italy had never really disappeared. That there were forces that contemplated such a unification and sometimes even made small efforts towards it. Some of them simply wanted to make Italy a greater player in Europe others had dreams of restoring the grandeur of the old empire. (though you're right, Venice was an outsider there. Shouldn't have included them.)[/quote]

However, the city states you mentioned are part of Northern or Central Italy, while the South takes a different direction. That's why I think that it's necessary not to conflate the memories of the Roman Empire still vivid in all parts of Italy with the idea of an united Italy, because before the Modern times, Italy was only a geographical entity, not a political entity.

ETA: Btw, how would you define "emperor"?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Red Sun' post='1669513' date='Jan 31 2009, 15.27']ETA: Btw, how would you define "emperor"?[/quote]

At the very least the title would imply effective control over the territories that he or she claims to be in the sovereign realm. Or at least the ability to regularly exercise such control when necessary from a central authority. Very few of the HRE's actually had anything close to that. For most of the period the many principalities remain largely independent.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1669482' date='Jan 31 2009, 15.38']Most of the territories within it were functionally independent in just about every respect.[/quote]
However, that wasn't all that out of the ordinary for medieval Europe. The Kingdoms of France, Poland, Aragon, and Denmark all had periods of only nominal central authority. Sometimes lasting centuries.

[Galactus]

[quote]At the very least the title would imply effective control over the territories that he or she claims to be in the sovereign realm. Or at least the ability to regularly exercise such control when necessary from a central authority. Very few of the HRE's actually had anything close to that. For most of the period the many principalities remain largely independent.[/quote]

That depends entirely on the timeframe, which, btw. also applies to the Byzantine Empire.

[quote]However, the city states you mentioned are part of Northern or Central Italy, while the South takes a different direction. That's why I think that it's necessary not to conflate the memories of the Roman Empire still vivid in all parts of Italy with the idea of an united Italy, because before the Modern times, Italy was only a geographical entity, not a political entity.[/quote]

Even today there is a huge difference between Northern and Southern Italy.

[quote]There was a significant degree of what we'd recognize today as Greek nationalism in the empire, but the most popular term to refer to themselves and to the empire was still Roman. They recognized and celebrated their Greek/Hellenistic heritage, but still saw themselves as the continuation of the Roman Empire. Emperor of the Greeks was a Western European invention that arose around the time the West started crowning its own 'emperors' and caused its share of political conflicts between east and west.[/quote]

It was not a western invention: The byzantines used it as well (remember, middle ages, the more titles the better)

[quote]They had a title, but most were not emperors even in the most liberal definitions of the word. And only for the briefest periods of its history did it every control, occupy, or administer Rome. Most of the territories within it were functionally independent in just about every respect.[/quote]

By modern standards, none of the polities of the period, including the Byzantines, were in control of their territories. Simply too many wild places where the Emperor didn't reach.

The HRE was never as stable as the Byzantine Empire was, but neither was it in the middle ages the shadow of it's former self it was in say, the 1700's: In the middle ages it was indeed holy, roman and in a very real sense an Empire. Yes, the Emperor had to put down rebellions (incidentally, so did most byzantine emperors) but it was actually more strongly unified for most of the period than France was. (it's a major theme that starting around 1200 the Empire grows more and more decentralized and France grows more and more centralized)

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Bruce Galactus' post='1669743' date='Jan 31 2009, 20.52']It was not a western invention: The byzantines used it as well (remember, middle ages, the more titles the better)[/quote]

The main label the Byzantines used for themselves was Roman Empire (or Empire of the Romans). Neighbors called them that. Arabs called them that. Empire of the Greeks as a main designation started in the West once they began crawling back out of the caves and crowning their own emperors. The first usage in the West amounted to a direct challenge to the validity of the Byzantine Empire's claim as heirs (or continuers) of the Roman Empire. It was I guess what we could call a medieval diplomatic insult. (And perhaps a necessary one because by this time Otto was calling himself the REAL Roman Emperor)

[quote]By modern standards, none of the polities of the period, including the Byzantines, were in control of their territories. Simply too many wild places where the Emperor didn't reach.

The HRE was never as stable as the Byzantine Empire was, but neither was it in the middle ages the shadow of it's former self it was in say, the 1700's: In the middle ages it was indeed holy, roman and in a very real sense an Empire. Yes, the Emperor had to put down rebellions (incidentally, so did most byzantine emperors) but it was actually more strongly unified for most of the period than France was. (it's a major theme that starting around 1200 the Empire grows more and more decentralized and France grows more and more centralized)[/quote]

I'm not expecting it to live up to modern standards. But even by the standards of the day the HRE was almost never anything closely approaching a unified kingdom with a dominant central authority. Neither was France of course until it really started consolidating its power in the 14th and 15th centuries. Hell for some stretches some of their supposedly subordinate duchy's were bigger than they were.

What passed for imperial administration typically came from the capital of whichever small principality happened to have been elected in the last round of HRE elections. There was no enduring, central capital. Nearly every one of the principalities maintained functional independence, not just mere autonomy. It was a loose confederation at best and during some periods, even that was a stretch. The most disunited Medieval kingdoms were still more of a kingdom than the HRE was an Empire.

[Galactus]

[quote]The main label the Byzantines used for themselves was Roman Empire (or Empire of the Romans). Neighbors called them that. Arabs called them that. Empire of the Greeks as a main designation started in the West once they began crawling back out of the caves and crowning their own emperors. The first usage in the West amounted to a direct challenge to the validity of the Byzantine Empire's claim as heirs (or continuers) of the Roman Empire. It was I guess what we could call a medieval diplomatic insult. (And perhaps a necessary one because by this time Otto was calling himself the REAL Roman Emperor)[/quote]

Emperor of the Greeks is different from EMPIRE of the Greeks (which, AFAIK, was never in use) Exactly which title was preferred depended on the exact timeframe.

[quote]I'm not expecting it to live up to modern standards. But even by the standards of the day the HRE was almost never anything closely approaching a unified kingdom with a dominant central authority. Neither was France of course until it really started consolidating its power in the 14th and 15th centuries. Hell for some stretches some of their supposedly subordinate duchy's were bigger than they were.

What passed for imperial administration typically came from the capital of whichever small principality happened to have been elected in the last round of HRE elections. There was no enduring, central capital. Nearly every one of the principalities maintained functional independence, not just mere autonomy. It was a loose confederation at best and during some periods, even that was a stretch. The most disunited Medieval kingdoms were still more of a kingdom than the HRE was an Empire.[/quote]

Err, no. The HRE was still significantly more unified than say, Scotland at times. Not to mention the theoretical irish kingdom. Or as mentioned Aragon, France...

And this "loose confederation" (which again, is true for EVERY MEDIEVAL STATE, including the Byzantines at several points in time, the most extreme case being of course post-1204, but a few points earlier as well) was still powerful enough to project armies as large as the Byzantines across the entire mediterrenean.

Methinks you are viewing the HRE anachronistically.

[Archibald Merriweather]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1665160' date='Jan 28 2009, 04.07']If we're defining "worked" as "lasted a period of time", then it's a useless term.[/quote]

The Great Depression "worked" really, really well.