All roads lead to Constantinople

Χαιρετε φιλε!

^ behold, ancient Greek. The accents have been entirely ignored because frankly life’s too short, but nevertheless look what I can do! (FYI that says hello friends)

Anyway, on to some sort of topic, this week the challenge was to do something that made me happy, then write about it. I’ve been too busy to do much, but today (or Thursday, as that’s when I’m writing this) I had an induction for a curatorial volunteer role with my universities research and collections- which is a MASSIVE step in the right direction for what I eventually want to do with my life. So that has made me happy, and was sort of fun. Also, I have started looking at houses- which is also good- if stressful! J

Nevertheless, onto the rest of my post!

The Roman Empire is not ancient history. Well, it depends on who you ask, but for the purposes of this post I am going to pretend that you have asked me and then just rant about Byzantium for 600 words.

When I decided I wanted to study ancient history, I found a lot of people felt it necessary to test my credentials by asking ‘when does ancient history end?’ Of course, this is an important question, for when did we slip from hoplites and helots into Saxons and serfdom? When did the Middle Ages (the so called dark ages that were confined only to Europe, I might add) take over from the emperors and legions? The answer, as with all historical analysis, is decidedly unclear. And to be honest, it seems a bit unfair to expect a first year student to know the answer! Nevertheless, I will avoid the question, by answering another one. While the line between ancient and medieval is decidedly blurred, I propose that the Roman Empire did not end until 1453.

I know what you’re thinking, and it’s probably ‘shut up’. It’s a well-known fact that in 476 CE the Goths invaded Rome, and with the collapse of the city, was the collapse of civilisation until the renaissance. As problematic as this view is, even taken on face value, it can be only argued this was the collapse of western civilisation, for the eastern Roman Empire was still going strong.

So some clarification, when I say Byzantium/Constantinople I am referring to the capital of the eastern Roman Empire, originally a fishing village where modern Istanbul lies, and expanded under the emperor Severus. Due to power struggles in Rome, occasionally two emperors would emerge, one in the west, and another in the east. The eastern emperor has control of Egypt, parts of Africa and the other Asian provinces. The emperor Constantine I (last week’s funny looking fellow) renamed the town (Byzantium at this point) Constantinople, and greatly expanded it, making it Constantine’s capital city. And when Rome fell, Constantinople was still being ruled by the eastern Roman emperors.

So how Roman was this Roman city? Its undoubtable the state mutated, being so removed from Rome, though I firmly believe it’s still the Roman Empire. Byzantium had been a Greek village, and Constantinople’s Hellenistic roots were apparent throughout its history. Further, Constantine’s reason for expanding the city (well one reason- but I won’t go into too much on it now) was to create a Christian capital, removed from the pagan associations of Rome, and some argue (though not necessarily me) it was chiefly a Christian city. Therefore, with these two factors in mind, I shall explain why Byzantium, was still Rome.

With Greek roots, Constantinople is often considered to be a Greek city after Rome’s fall. With all due respect to those who hold this view, it’s quite blatantly wrong. The Greek influence in the city was apparent, but this is no way invalidated the romaness (that’s a word now deal with it) of the state. While Greek was the most commonly spoken language, and became the legal language under Heraclius in the 600s, Greek had also been the lingua Franca of Rome; therefor this change in no way prevents the city being considered roman. Further, much of Rome’s roots as a civilisation had been in Greek colonies. Aeneas, their mythological founder, was a hero of the Trojan War. In Sicily, Naples and all of central Italy Greek city states had existed for centuries before the foundation of Rome, to the extent Italy was considered Magna Graecia, by the Greeks. I won’t even begin to explain the similarity between the gods, because it would take far too long. Nevertheless, much of the art, architecture and society of Rome were based in the society of the Greeks who migrated there, and consequently it would be ignorant to look at the Hellenism within Byzantine society, and argue this made it un-roman.

The second argument against why Constantinople was simply a continuation of Roman society is that is became Christianised. Personally, I don’t believe Constantine intended the city to be a Christian capital, however I could write 1000+ words on that matter, and you don’t want to hear me talk about it right now. But even on the assumption that Constantinople was meant to be Christian alternative to Rome- it certainly didn’t have any religious pretentions that Rome didn’t. At the council of Nicaea in 325, three Christian cities were established, each ruled by a Patriarch. These included Alexandra, Antioch, and Rome. Constantinople was not given the role of a Christian city within Constantine’s lifetime- and it was Rome where he built 7 churches. It’s doubtable that Constantine even built any churches in Constantinople, besides that attached to his tomb. Besides, between 250 and 350 the Christian population of the empire had grown from 1 million to 34 million- Christianity as a major religion was in no way endemic to Constantinople, and by 476, Christianity was a vital part of Roman society, and by continuing the religious traditions Byzantium was continuing the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire in 96 CE

The Byzantine empire in 555 CE... does it look a bit familiar to anyone?

Of course, there are plenty of differences between Byzantium post-476 and the Roman Empire at its peak- however I hope I have made my point clear, that for all intents and purposes, Byzantium was Rome, the people spoke the languages of the empire, followed one of its largest religions, and most importantly considered themselves Roman. Just to highlight this even further, following the Ottoman occupation of Constantinople in 1453, Sultan Mehmed II took the mantle Kaysar, which was the Turkish translation of Caesar. The title was still being used in Constantinople, as it had in Rome. So next time you are asked when ancient history ended and the middle ages began (for some reason- seriously is it just me who gets asked this all the time?) tell the questioner you have no bloody clue whatsoever, but the Roman empire did last until 1453.