I was wanting to learn more about the Byzantine Empire and this seemed like the place to ask.
>Why did the Eastern Roman Empire get the name "Byzantine" from scholars?
>What exactly is or was the Edict of Caracalla?
>Why did Justinian want to retake the "Roman Lake" despite over-expansion being a major factor in the downfall of the "original" Rome? Was it just ambition, or was there a tactical/economic goal in mind?
>What caused Christendom to become more tolerated?
>How did the Great Schism effect the Empire?
>Was Caligula actually insane or was he just trying to humiliate the senators?
>If they still considered themselves Roman, what was the point of Constantine I declaring Byzantium a "New Rome"? Did he mean "Rome" as in the city rather than the Empire?
>>312852
>Why did the Eastern Roman Empire get the name "Byzantine" from scholars?
German scholars in the 16th century wanted to discredit it and undermine its connection with the Roman Empire. It's just something that has stuck to illustrate that there were some major differences between the Empire of antiquity and the medieval one.
>What exactly is or was the Edict of Caracalla?
It was a pronouncement by the emperor Caracella in 212 granting citizenship to all free people within in the Roman Empire. It meant a lot more people were susceptible to certain taxes, but most people had already acquired citizenship by that time. It meant that later in the Empire instead of whether or not you were a citizen, being a rich 'honestior' as opposed to a poor 'humiliores' was what mattered.
>Why did Justinian want to retake the "Roman Lake" despite over-expansion being a major factor in the downfall of the "original" Rome? Was it just ambition, or was there a tactical/economic goal in mind?
Various reasons. Firstly, the Romans like all pre-modern civilisations had no conception of "over-extension" which in many ways is just a meme and ignores the realities on the grounds. It was presumably mostly ambition, and the expectation that the cities of the west would be amicable to Roman control once again since most of them still considered themselves in some way Roman (he was right).
>What caused Christendom to become more tolerated?
Constantine becoming Christian, that was it. As soon as several emperors in turn began to patronise the Church, some aristocrats quickly followed in order to kiss arse. Roman culture, like our own, has lower class people suck up to their social betters which led to a trickle down effect. Before then it had only really been the urban poor.
>How did the Great Schism effect the Empire?
In the long run, it meant that westerners were much less inclined to support the Empire. Though the First Crusade kind of debunks that idea.
>>312852
>Was Caligula actually insane or was he just trying to humiliate the senators?
Hard to tell because of our sparse and hostile sources. He was very probably as mad as a march hare though.
>If they still considered themselves Roman, what was the point of Constantine I declaring Byzantium a "New Rome"? Did he mean "Rome" as in the city rather than the Empire?
Of course he meant it just as the city. Constantine wanted to create a Christian equivalent to Rome which was 'tainted' in his eyes by its pagan associations. Emperors had founded many cities before, so this was not exactly a new policy. What was new was that the new foundation, due to its position, quickly became an incredibly powerful and wealthy city, valuable shit from across the Empire was grabbed and dumped there like obelisks from Egypt (if you go to the hippodrome area in Istanbul there is a needle which records the Romans complaining about what a pain in the arse it was to move down to the Nile).
Literally asking us to do your homework for you.
>>312852
>Why did the Eastern Roman Empire get the name "Byzantine" from scholars?
It was referred to as the "Greek Empire" and the "Roman Empire" by westerners. Some German scholar in seventeenth century called them Byzantines after the city of Byzantium, which was Constantinople before it was refounded (Byzantine sources often refer to it as Byzantium because they love switching out names for the ancient Greek equivalent). The name stuck because it was a convenient alternative to deciding whether they were Greeks or Romans.
>What exactly is or was the Edict of Caracalla?
An edict that made everybody Romans at a time when citizenship carried the fewest privileges and the most responsibilities. It gave the emperor the right to raise taxes but it had its effect of convincing many people to self-identify as Romans.
>Why did Justinian want to retake the "Roman Lake" despite over-expansion being a major factor in the downfall of the "original" Rome? Was it just ambition, or was there a tactical/economic goal in mind?
Its a huge oversimplification to say that the Roman Empire fell from over-expansion considering it survived at its maximum extent for centuries. Reconquering the West had its sentimental value but would have also paid back with taxes and soldiers once the provinces had time to recover. The plague and Persia being aggressive ruined this however.
>What caused Christendom to become more tolerated?
You mean when the Roman Empire was pagan? The usual policy of the Romans was to punish anybody who was openly Christian but not to go looking for Christians. There were some major persecutions but they were episodic. After the last persecution under Diocletian the Romans realized that Christianity was too large to be eliminated. Tolerance quickly gave way to conversion under Constantine.
1/2
>>312950
>How did the Great Schism effect the Empire?
At first the Great Schism was only a break between the leadership of the churches and reunion should have been possible. The Crusades increased the tension aroused resentment between Catholics and Orthodox that was rooted in cultural differences. Eventually both sides began to see the other as heretics and the Schism was made permanent with the Fourth Crusade. Because the schism had caused the Fourth Crusade, some Byzantines saw reunion with the Catholics as the only way to prevent their destruction and to get another crusade against the Turks. Efforts by the emperors to reunite the churches were resisted by the people and were unsuccessful.
>Was Caligula actually insane or was he just trying to humiliate the senators?
He was probably an asshat who was made to look deranged by biased sources.
>If they still considered themselves Roman, what was the point of Constantine I declaring Byzantium a "New Rome"? Did he mean "Rome" as in the city rather than the Empire?
Yes.
>>312917
In what was is over extension unrealistic? It seems like a single governmental system, no matter how organized and well-structured, would only be able to handle a certain amount of land, bureaucracy, and growth before it starts to break down under its own weight.
>>312966
>It seems like a single governmental system, no matter how organized and well-structured, would only be able to handle a certain amount of land, bureaucracy, and growth before it starts to break down under its own weight.
That would be correct, if Rome wasn't the undisputed superpower of its region for a millenium. The Roman civil wars which destroyed it were not symptoms of overstretch.
>>312852
Wrong pic m8.
So what were the major causes of the Byzantine Empire before the Restoration? What exactly did Alexios I do to stop it aside from put down a bunch of rebels?
Sorry if it seems like I'm asking stupid questions here, but I really don't know much beyond what I've gleaned from History Channel documentaries and Crusader Kings.
>>313038
Causes of what?
>>313050
Causes of decline. Didn't catch that omission.
Something people don't talk a lot is the fall of the Greek Empire. They were rich, had nice technology... But were always on the defensive, being saved by the Crusaders and the Mongols, in a way, for a time.
>>313072
>Greek Empire
>>312986
Definitely looks better without the minarets. Could use a paint job though.
>>313080
>ruled by Greeks
>had Greek armies
>Spoke Greek
>had Greek churches
>had Greek art
>had Greek sexual preferences
At least the Holy Roman Empire had Italy and was crowned by the Bishop of Rome.
>>313081
If I recall correctly the last major paint job it received before Mustafa fixed it up came in the form of 28000 angry Ottomans redecorating it with dead bodies.
>>313061
565 - 867 was a period of general decline because of overextension under Justinian. Reconquering Africa and Italy was bad timing because these provinces still devastated from war when the empire was hit hard by Persian aggression and plague.
Eventually the empire finally buckled and gave way to Muslim expansion. By the middle of the seventh century it was bordering a massive Islamic Empire that was several times as large, much more powerful, and very aggressive. The empire was on the defensive until the ninth century.
1025 - 1081 the empire went into decline again after the death of Basil II, who did not leave an heir. The position of emperor fell into the hands civil authorities and aristocrats that were too isolated in the capital to pay attention to the provinces. The empire was left without any major enemies after the death of Basil II so there was less urgency for the army to march on the capital and install a candidate.
The army eventually installed Isaac Komnenos (uncle of Alexios) but he abdicated after a crisis of conscience. Romanos IV was another army candidate who took over right as the Turks were fucking around on the borders. Romanos IV wanted to win a decisive battle but the army was so out of practice that he had to train his troops while on the march. The emperor was captured and all of Anatolia was conquered by Turks within a decade of the defeat at Manzikert.
Roman history tl;dr
1.Awesome Emperor does useful shit
2. His shitty successor ruins everything
3.Power get's seized by someone competent eventually
and repeat
It wasn't the best of empires.
>>312852
>I must unite the Roman peoples under one flag
