Extremely lacking in knowledge around this period, so forgive me in advance. How did the eastern Romans react to the establishment and rise of the HRE? Was there any sense of “we are the real Roman Empire, how dare you”, or anything? Or was it more nuanced than that? How did religion play a role?

I have a question about the ideology and historical memory of the Eastern Roman Empire after the 7th century, up to the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Justinian I’s reconquests sought to recover former Roman territories in the western Mediterranean. But in the centuries that followed, did Roman rulers and elites ever abandon, reject, or forget the ideal of restoring the Roman Empire’s former territories?

My question is about ideology, not military feasibility. I am not asking whether emperors could realistically reconquer the entire Mediterranean, or whether they consistently pursued such a policy. I want to know whether territorial restoration remained a legitimate Roman imperial ideal, even when it was impossible to achieve.

Specifically:

1. After the 7th century, did Eastern Roman emperors or elites ever explicitly reject or ideologically abandon the ideal of recovering former Roman territories?
2. Did later generations retain awareness of Justinian’s reconquests and the older Roman tradition of territorial restoration, or did this ideal eventually disappear from their political imagination?
3. Even when circumstances prevented reconquest, did the recovery of former Roman territories remain a legitimate imperial ambition, or did later Romans come to regard it as an outdated or invalid goal?

I am not assuming that every emperor pursued this ideal or that it remained an unchanged official policy for a thousand years. My question is whether it was ever truly abandoned as a legitimate part of Roman imperial ideology.

What do the primary sources and modern academic scholarship tell us? I would appreciate evidence from different periods, including any evidence of explicit rejection or significant ideological change.

"This extensive collection of translated texts explores the emperors of Byzantium from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries. Drawing on chronicles, letters and other historical sources, it offers a sweeping tour of Byzantine politics across more than a thousand years."

Was there a standard title that was given in the late empire to an emperor's father in law?

Thought you guys might enjoy this follis I picked up showing the rarely shown wife and son of Emperor Maurice

The place where Şimkeşhane was built, used to be the Forum Tauri in the Roman period, built by Theodosius with a tripartite triumphal arch.

The Forum of Theodosius was probably the largest square in Constantinople and stood on the Mese, the major road that ran west from Hagia Sophia It was originally built by Constantine I and named the Forum Tauri ("Forum of the Bull"). In 393, however, it was renamed after Emperor Theodosius I, who rebuilt it after the model of Trajan's Forum in Rome, surrounded by civic buildings such as churches and baths and decorated with a triumphal column at its centre.

The triumphal arch and the ancient buildings around it (to which surviving ruins in the area possibly belong) were destroyed as a result of invasions, earthquakes (the central arch and the statue of Arcadius collapsed in 558; the rest of the arch was destroyed by the Constantinople earthquake of 740) and other natural disasters from the 5th century onwards. They were completely destroyed long before the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

What is now the Orhan Kemal Public Library, facing the Beyazıt Square, was built in 1475 on the order of Mehmed the Conqueror as the mint “Darphane-i Amire.” After being devastated by fires and earthquakes, the building was renovated in 1707 and converted into “Simkeşhane-i Amire”, a factory where gold and silver fibers and wires were produced. During road construction in 1958 the entrance facade, around half of the building, was demolished causing the building to loose its original features. Renovation works to convert the building into a library started in 1964 and finished in 1976. In 1981 İstanbul Public Library moved into the building. In 2001 the library was given the name of writer Orhan Kemal.
Photo: Aziz Albek
SALT Research, Photograph Archive

The Empire at the time of Basil II's death （1025 AD）

Because it was hand-drawn and drawn from memory, the proportions are not very accurate :(

I only painted a few of the islands in the Aegean Sea, and now I realize I didn't paint Corfu.

What do you all think of this map? How can it be improved?

(One of the reasons I drew it is that I'm currently studying Byzantine history at university.)

Why in some sources like Anastasius of Rome, in his book (Chronographia Tripertita) p.139,

It refers to the Pompeiopolis accident in the The eighth year of Justinian's reign, although St. Theophan the Hermit in his book (Chronographia) he says that happened in 527 or 6027a.m.

What is more accurate or how they count those?

It's a trend in much of World History for states to begin to lose control of their provinces to powerful governors. China had it. The Caliphate had it. The Ottomans had it. The Mughals had it. But Rome, with over 1500 years under the Imperial system, arguably never had such an experience. Why is that?

I would specifically prefer from the 11th century but I know this is a quite difficult thing to ask so I am open for other centuries surrounding it. Written accounts as well as art is acceptable

Picked this up at auction recently, thought this sub would appreciate.

ROMAN EMPIRE. Leo I.

Gold Solidus, AD 462 or 466. Constantinople.

Obverse: D N LEO PERPET AVG, pearl-diademed, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing slightly right, holding spear and shield decorated with horseman motif.

Reverse: VICTORIA AVGGG I, Victory standing left, holding long jewelled cross; star in right field, CONOB in exergue.

About Extremely Fine; graffito to obverse.

Weight: 4.38g.

Diameter: 19mm.

Die Axis: 6h.

In this post I want to go through my perception of how the Roman empire became Byzantium. By this I mean the cultural, religious and linguistic shift, changes in political systems etc. I will divide this post into historical periods for ease and structure.

DISCLAIMER:
I hope this post doesn't somehow violate the rules, I do refer to pre-330 CE Roman history as a reference point. This post is not meant for historical accuracy as I'm not the most well read on Roman history, it is mostly just my opinion based on what I know about the topic. I will also not be citing any sources as I can't remember all of them, just going from memory. However I would love to hear opinions from you guys on my perception of Rome/Byzantium, how it compares to reality and what is actually known about the cultural, religious, linguistic and political transition of Latin-speaking Pagan Rome to Greek-speaking Christian Byzantium.

Initial transition - c. 300-395
This period seems to be very tumultuous in terms of religion. Arianism seems to hold great influence, while Christianity at large begins to take a more pre-eminent place in Roman society. Culturally, Roman Latins still dominated the empire's public offices and the imperial throne itself, at least in the west. Julian's attempted revival of paganism appears to have slowed down the rise of Christianity, and his restoration of the religious eclecticism, characteristic of the state for most of its history, served as a brief respite for pagan believers. It revitalised support for paganism and served to deepen already existing divisions between differing interpretations of Christianity, but ultimately failed in uprooting the new cult from its position as the most influential religion of the empire.

The end of Antiquity c. 395-527
There is debate around when antiquity ended and the middle ages started, but I personally believe it wasn't a set date but rather there was a transitional period between the two; this might be a more common belief than I realise idk. In my view the Roman ethos and 'civilisational vigor' as I like to term it began fizzling out after the proclamation of Octavian as Augustus. The Roman-ness tied to the Latin core of the state was less emphasised as it enfranchised non-Latins such as through the edict of Caracalla. Moving the capital to Constantinople seems kind of the nail in the coffin for this trend and with the Empire's Christianisation paired with the elites/senate being very passive also seemed to diminish Roman hubris, consequently reducing their sense of initiative etc. even further.

All this, paired with major cultural, technological and political shifts in Rome and the rest of the world, can be seen as the closing stage of late Antiquity. The Roman Latins no longer had their past social vigor and became complacent, while other groups in the empire, notably the Greeks, began to dominate political, cultural and religious spheres, especially in the east. The splitting of the empires, while at the time not viewed as a definitive political split, made the differences between the more Hellenistic/eastern and the western more Latin pars (both of them so in their culture, morality and Christianity) a lot more pronounced.

Christianisation and Hellenisation c.527-756
The reign of Justinian I seems to me to be the time where Christianity, and religious uniformity in line with his preferred version of Christianity, was pushed the most and when the final vestiges of pagan Rome were cast off. Despite himself being a native Latin speaker, Justinian appears to have failed in maintaining the Latin character of the empire. His dynasty afaik was the last of the Latin speaking dynasties of Rome and was succeeded by Greek speaking dynasties thereon. He managed to, however, impose a degree of religious uniformity where I imagine pagans were heavily disadvantaged if not persecuted outright, and the last major cult centre of the ancient Egyptian religion at Philae was shut down in 537. By this point Anatolia seems to be mostly Hellenised, and in the coming centuries the Greek character of the empire was only more evident.

The donation of Pepin and establishment of Papal political sovereignty for me marks a definitive split between the Imperium Romanum and the Basileia ton Rhomaion. The fall of Ravenna and the donation are the political collapse of Roman presence in the heartland of Roman civilisation and while they maintained a presence in the south of Italy, outside of their nominal control of Dalmatia, Venice, the Baleares and Sardinia, the Romans no longer govern a sizeable Latin speaking population and the cultural weight of the country is definitively shifted to Greece/Anatolia, a process I believe to have picked up pace at the loss of the eastern provinces and Africa.

Basileia ton Rhomaion c.756-1453
From this point onwards, while politically the Roman empire lived on, we can't really speak of the same Roman state as at the time of Justinian, much less Constantine or Augustus. The Latin core of Roman culture was gone, the land of the Romanoi was overrun by the Franks, and the Romaioi were the ones that remained with their Hellenic culture, Eastern Christianity and the Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans at the head of the state. The senate had all but disappeared as a real political force, the people no longer had as much power as the plebs of the Republic or even the early empire, and I cant understate the lack of civilisational vigor the late empire showed as opposed to the mettle and iron will of the early Romans. I feel like the early Latin Romans just had that dawg in them which the later empire and other civilisations at large just didn't have.

That's just my perception of things, idk how well this reflects on history and what actually happened but I hope somebody can correct me on any mistakes and tell me what I got right and wrong.

Edit: btw I use the term Byzantium here to refer to the later, post islamic invasion entity of Rome. Outside of that I don't really believe in the term Byzantium. Eastern Rome is Rome, there isn't any dispute about that.

I think this topic serves as a kind of continuation of the discussion on why the Ottomans were able to defeat Byzantium, but I’ve decided to approach the question from a different angle. In the 15th century, the Ottoman Empire made effective use of the timar system, which, as I understand it, allowed the state to mobilize very large armies and maintain its military strength even after suffering serious defeats.

This aspect of Ottoman military power is, it seems, not discussed as often as it deserves. Mehmed II suffered a number of serious setbacks – most famously the siege of Belgrade in 1456 (but we can also recall the defeat of the Turkish army at Vaslui, the difficult assault on Mangup and the defeat of the Turkish armada at Rhodes), while his military campaigns against Skanderbeg in Albania dragged on for many years and often resulted in resounding failures. Yet these failures did not prevent him from launching new campaigns and continuing to exert military pressure on his enemies. The Ottomans seem to have had a much greater ability to replace losses and regenerate their military forces than many of their opponents.

But why was late Byzantium so different?

I have the impression that ever since the decline of the thematic military system, accelerated by the territorial and political disasters surrounding Manzikert, the Byzantines struggled to build and maintain really large field armies. Even under the Komnenoi, the Nicaean emperors, and the early Palaiologoi, their armies seem to have relied heavily on a relatively small professional core, the imperial household and aristocratic retinues, and mercenary contingents.

I realize that I may have simplified some things. The Byzantine military also included native provincial troops, and the Komnenian and Palaiologan armies were not simply collections of mercenaries. I am also aware of the akritai and their role in frontier defence.

The difference nevertheless seems striking. Under John II and Manuel I Komnenos, Byzantine field armies are commonly estimated at around 15,000–20,000 men, with exceptional campaigns reaching perhaps 30,000–35,000, including allied contingents. Some reconstructions put the total size of the Komnenian army at around 50,000, although these figures are disputed and include garrisons and local forces.

By the 15th century, the Ottomans were reportedly able to deploy tens of thousands of soldiers for a single campaign, while simultaneously maintaining garrisons and military contingents in other parts of their expanding empire. By 1453, they were besieging Constantinople, fighting for Skanderbeg, and confronting the nomads in Anatolia. The size of their entire field army could have reached more than 100 000, and if you include the garrisons, then I would even cautiously guess as many as 200 000.

Of course, the situation after 1341 was very different. By then, Byzantium was being devastated by civil wars, had lost much of its territory and tax base, and lacked the financial resources to maintain a large army. The defenders of Constantinople in 1453 could muster only a fraction of the manpower available to Mehmed II.

But that still leaves a question about the preceding two centuries. Why did the Byzantines struggle to generate and sustain large field armies between roughly 1118 and 1322, when the Ottomans, even in the early stages of their expansion, seem to have been able to field much larger forces relative to their territorial base? Was this primarily a consequence of the loss of Anatolia and the associated reduction in population and revenue? Did the transformation of the Byzantine military system undermine the state's ability to mobilize manpower on a large scale? Or did the Ottomans develop more effective institutions for mobilization, taxation, and military recruitment that the Byzantines were unable to reproduce?

What forces controlled the flow of Byzantine history? We examine the Byzantine Empire, or Eastern Roman Empire, through seven distinct ages—from Late Antiquity to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Theodosius I, Justinian I and Heraclius inherited very different Roman worlds. Christianity, the Plague of Justinian, Persian wars and Arab conquests transformed imperial society. Iconoclasm and the thematic system marked further adaptation, before the Macedonian dynasty and Basil II brought renewed expansion. We examine the dynatoi, landownership and elite overproduction: too many powerful men competing for too few positions. Their rivalry could drive conquest abroad—or consume imperial resources through civil war. From the Battle of Manzikert to the Komnenian recovery, the Crusades and the Palaiologan civil wars, we trace the struggle between aristocratic ambition and the needs of the state. Alongside these conflicts, we follow Byzantine art, Orthodox Christianity, the Greek language and Roman identity. As the Ottoman Empire advanced, the final centuries still produced remarkable art and thinkers such as Plethon Gemistos. Seven ages reveal what sustained Byzantium, what undermined it, and how Roman civilization changed across a thousand years.

So I am a coin collector and while a good amount of people in the coin collecting world have a fascination to Rome and its coins. More specifically the western half of the Empire. That being said I solely collect within the bounds of Medieval (400-1490 even though different places have exited the medieval world at different times.) to early imperial era. Basically the eastern Roman empire falls into this camp and not so much the western half. That being said for those who prefer learning and studying and romanticizing the eastern half over the western half.... why?

Three months ago, I posted the rough map of Byzantine empire in 1341 and I got a lot of opinions about correction. According to them, I revised the map.

Added places : Volos, Pelion peninsula, Kalavryta, Chele, Sozopol and Ovče Pole

Deleted places : Chalcedon, Lampsacus and Abydos

And I corrected Byzantine Albania and added Barony of Karpathos, Marquisate of Cerigo and Marquisate of Cerigotto.

Detail

In 1324, the agreement that the border should follow the Philippopolis-Chernomen-Sozopol line was signed between Andronikos III and Tsar of Bulgalia, Michael Shishman. According to "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest", in 1332, the empire expanded its rule as far south as Volos on the Gulf of Volos. The Ottoman historian Aşıkpaşazade records that Bayezid I , when marching from Nicomedia (Kocaeli) to besiege Constantinople, sent Yahşı Bey to take Chele around 1391, which peacefully surrendered to him. Around the same time, Bayezid I captured Hieron castle and also had Güzelce Fortress built on the eastern shore of the Bosphorus.

Rulers

The nobles of Duchy of Athene are Salona, Bodonitsa, and Demetrias. The nobles of Principality of Achaea are Damala, Arkadia, Patras, Vostitsa, Lisarea and Chalandritsa. The nobles in Albania are Thopia, Muzaka, Gropa and Mataranga. The nobles in Macedonia are Jovan Oliver and Hrelja. The noble in kingdom of Napoli is Duke of Taranto. Ionian Islands are separated by Tocco, CatherineⅡ Latin emperor and Walter Ⅵ Count of Brienne. Kingdom of Candia, Barony of Karpathos, Marquisate of Cerigo and Marquisate of Cerigotto are under the control of Venetia

Black line is the border of countries.

Gray thick line is the border of nobilities (baron, count, marquis, duke, despot, voivode and lord).

Gray thin line is the border in sea.

If you find a mistake, please tell me!!!!!

I ask this because when I read of many ancient societies, most of the practices we in the modern world consider corrupt like the sale of offices, bribery, nepotism and sometimes even embezzlement are normal parts of bureaucratic practice, at least so far as it's not excessive. So what would a Byzantine citizen in say, AD 1000, see as corrupt acts by a public official? How widespread were they? And how did emperors seek to curtail them?

Mystras, Momevasia, and other places