Why Did the Eastern Roman Empire Become the Byzantine Empire? (And Why That Name Is Misleading)

What if one of the most famous empires in history never actually changed its name—but we changed it for them?

For over a thousand years, a mighty civilization dominated the Mediterranean, preserving law, philosophy, and military science while western Europe languished in the early Middle Ages. We call it the Byzantine Empire. Its inhabitants, however, called themselves Romans. Their emperor sat on the throne of Augustus. Their armies marched under the Roman eagle.

So, why did the Eastern Roman Empire become the “Byzantine Empire”? The short answer is: it never did. The name is a modern invention, a scholarly ghost that has shaped how we misunderstand one of history’s longest-running superpowers. In this deep-dive, we will explore the origins of this naming confusion, the political agendas behind it, and why calling it the Byzantine Empire is historically misleading.

WHY IS THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CALLED THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE TODAY? HERE IS WHY:

Listen to this podcast about "Who Renamed the Eastern Roman Empire 'Byzantine'? The Truth Explained":

Constantine the Great: From Roman Emperor to Founder of Constantinople

What Was the Eastern Roman Empire?

To understand the confusion, we first need to look at the actual entity that existed for 1,123 years. The Eastern Roman Empire was not a successor state to Rome; it was "Rome itself", continuing unabated after a administrative division in the late 3rd and 4th centuries.

The Division of Rome

In 285 AD, Emperor Diocletian realized the empire was too large for one man to rule. He created the Tetrarchy, splitting the administration into Western and Eastern halves. Later, in 330 AD, Emperor Constantine the Great founded a “New Rome” on the ancient site of the Greek colony Byzantion. He named it Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul).

While the Western Roman Empire crumbled under Germanic invasions and officially fell in 476 AD, the Eastern half thrived. It retained control of the Balkans, Asia Minor, Egypt, and the Levant.

From Byzantion to Istanbul: The Historic Names of Istanbul, World’s Most Layered City

Language, Faith, and Identity

Over the centuries, the empire evolved. Latin remained the language of law and the military initially, but **Greek** became the lingua franca of trade, court, and literature. The state religion shifted from paganism to Christianity, becoming the bedrock of imperial authority.

However, the most crucial detail for our topic is identity. The citizens of this empire never stopped calling themselves Romans (Rhomaioi / Ῥωμαῖοι). Their state was officially the Roman Empire (Basileia Rhōmaiōn). When the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453, they still referred to the Christian subjects as "Rum" (Romans). They never used the term “Byzantine Empire.”

So Where Did the Name “Byzantine Empire” Come From?

If the empire was Roman, where did “Byzantine” come from? The answer lies not in the streets of Constantinople, but in the libraries of Renaissance Germany.

The 16th Century Invention

The term was coined in 1557 AD, over a century "after" the empire had fallen. A German historian named Hieronymus Wolf published a corpus of Eastern Roman historical sources. To distinguish the medieval, Greek-speaking Roman Empire from the ancient, Latin-speaking Roman Empire of Caesar and Cicero, Wolf named his collection Corpus Historiae Byzantinae.

He took the name from the city’s pre-Constantine past: Byzantion (Byzantium).

Ottoman Empire: Successor of the Roman Empire? The Ultimate Historical Debate

A Scholarly Classification

Wolf was not trying to erase history; he was trying to organize it. Renaissance Europe was obsessed with “Classical” antiquity (Greece and Rome). The medieval Roman Empire, with its icons, Orthodox theology, and complex court rituals, felt alien to Western scholars. By labeling it “Byzantine,” Wolf created a mental firewall:

• Ancient Rome Latin, pagan, noble, “Classical.”
• Byzantine Empire Greek, Christian, complex, “Medieval.”

This was a scholarly classification, not a historical reality. But once the label stuck, it changed everything.

Why Did Historians Separate “Rome” from “Byzantium”?

If the name was invented in the 16th century, why did later historians embrace it so eagerly? The reasons go beyond simple linguistics into the realm of culture, religion, and political propaganda.

1. Cultural Differences

There is no denying that the Eastern Roman Empire looked different from the empire of Augustus.

• Language Shift By the 7th century, Greek had replaced Latin as the administrative language.
• Religious Divergence The Great Schism of 1054 split Christianity into Roman Catholicism (West) and Eastern Orthodoxy (East).
• Dress & Aesthetics The beardless, toga-wearing senators of Rome gave way to bearded, jewel-encrusted emperors in diadems.

These differences made it easy for Western Europeans to view the “Byzantines” as foreigners.

Empress Theodora: The Most Powerful Woman in Byzantine History

2. The Political Agenda of the West (Critical Angle)

This is where the narrative gets sharp. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, a massive political vacuum opened. The Germanic kingdoms (Franks, Goths) and later the Papacy needed legitimacy.

The Coronation of Charlemagne (800 AD)

In a pivotal moment, Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne as “Emperor of the Romans.” There was just one problem: a perfectly legitimate Roman Emperor (Irene) was already ruling in Constantinople. By crowning Charlemagne, the Pope was effectively saying that the throne in the East was either vacant, illegitimate, or not “truly” Roman.

This act cemented the Western idea that the true Roman heritage belonged to Europe (Germany/France), not to the Greek-speaking East. To justify this theft of legacy, Western chroniclers began to subtly deny the Roman-ness of the Eastern Empire.

3. The Renaissance Bias

During the Renaissance (14th–17th centuries), Italian scholars idolized the pagan, pre-Christian Roman Republic. They looked at the Eastern Roman Empire—which was deeply Orthodox Christian, had destroyed classical statues to make Christian churches, and had fought against the Crusaders—as a “decadent” corruption of the original.

Thus, the term Byzantine entered the English language not just as a geographic marker, but as an adjective meaning “complex,” “devious,” or “intricate” (e.g., “byzantine bureaucracy”). The name became a value judgment.

The Reality: It Was Always the Roman Empire

Let’s set the record straight. The “Byzantine Empire” was, in every legal, political, and ideological sense, the Roman Empire.

Continuous Government

The Roman state never stopped. The consuls, the senate (which survived in Constantinople until the 13th century), and the legal codes of Theodosius and Justinian were direct evolutions of the Roman system. When a law was passed in Constantinople in 900 AD, it was Roman law.

Imperial Identity

Every single emperor from Constantine XI (who died fighting on the walls in 1453) back to Augustus saw himself as the successor to Romulus and Remus. Their titles evolved from "Imperator Caesar" to "Basileus", but the meaning remained “King of the Romans.”

Evidence from Enemies

Even the empire’s enemies acknowledged its Roman identity.

• The Arabs called the empire "Rum" (Rome).
• The Turks called the sultanate that replaced them the "Sultanate of Rum".
• The Vikings (Rus) called Constantinople "Miklagard" (The Great City) and served as mercenaries in the "Varangian Guard" of the "Roman Emperor".

The Fall of Constantinople (1453)

When Mehmed the Conqueror took the city, he claimed the title *Kayser-i-Rûm* (Caesar of Rome). He understood what modern historians often forget: he had just conquered the Roman Empire.

👉 Critical Point The “Byzantine Empire” is a retroactive label imposed after its existence. The people living through those centuries had no idea they were “Byzantines.”

Why the Name “Byzantine Empire” Is Misleading

Given the evidence, why should we care about a name? Because language shapes perception. Using “Byzantine” instead of “Eastern Roman” creates three major historical distortions.

1. It Erases Roman Identity

When we say “The Roman Empire fell in 476 AD,” we ignore the 1,000-year history of Romans who lived afterward. It tells a story of collapse where there was actually continuity. Schoolchildren learn about “Goths and Vandals” ending Rome, but they don’t learn about Emperor Justinian reconquering Italy just 60 years later because—according to the naming convention—that was “Byzantine.”

2. It Creates an Artificial Separation

The name “Byzantine” suggests a hard break, like a light switch turning off. It implies that one day the empire was Roman, and the next day it was something else. In reality, it was a **continuum**. Emperor Heraclius (610–641) changed the official language from Latin to Greek. Does that make him the first “Byzantine” emperor? What about Constantine the Great, who spoke Greek and founded the city on the Bosphorus? Was "he" Byzantine?

The division is arbitrary and misleading.

3. It Reflects a Western European Bias

This is the most crucial argument. By calling the Eastern Roman Empire “Byzantine,” Western historians implicitly crowned the Holy Roman Empire (Charlemagne’s creation) as the “true” successor to Rome. It centers Western Europe as the protagonist of history and dismisses the Eastern Mediterranean as an exotic, lesser offshoot.

This bias ignores the reality that for 700 years (476–1204 AD), the Eastern Roman Empire was the only stable, organized, wealthy Roman state in existence. It preserved the works of Homer and Aristotle while the West burned libraries. It gave us the Corpus Juris Civilis (the basis of European law). Without the Roman Empire in Constantinople, the Renaissance would not have happened.

Why Historians Still Use the Term Today

At this point, you might be wondering: If the name is wrong, why is this article called “Byzantine Empire”? There is a pragmatic reason.

Practicality Over Pedantry

In academic circles, “Byzantine Empire” is a convenient shorthand. It allows historians to specify the medieval, Greek-speaking, Orthodox Christian phase of the Roman Empire.

• If I say “Roman Empire,” you might think of togas, the Colosseum, and Julius Caesar.
• If I say “Eastern Roman Empire,” you get closer.
• If I say “Byzantine Empire,” you immediately know the time period (330–1453 AD), the aesthetic (icons and domes), and the religion (Orthodox).

Acknowledging the Problem

Most modern historians fully admit that the term is problematic. In scholarly texts, you will often see the phrase “the so-called Byzantine Empire” or the preferred alternative: The Eastern Roman Empire.

There is a growing movement to rename the field. Textbooks are slowly shifting. However, changing a 500-year-old convention is like turning a battleship; it takes time.

The Balanced View

The term is useful for categorization, but not historically accurate for identity. The best approach is to use “Byzantine” with an asterisk—understanding that we are talking about the Roman Empire after the loss of the Western provinces.

Reframing the Story: Rome Didn’t Fall—It Moved

If we abandon the misleading term “Byzantine,” we unlock a much more powerful narrative about Western history.

The story of Rome is not one of collapse, but of transformation.

When barbarian armies crossed the Rhine in 406 AD and the last Western emperor was deposed in 476 AD, the Roman Empire did not vanish. The administrative center simply shifted east. Think of it like a government moving its capital during a war.

• Washington D.C. is the capital of the USA.
• If an enemy destroyed Washington, and the government moved to New York, would the USA stop existing? No.
• Likewise, when Rome was sacked, the government moved to Constantinople. The Empire continued.

For nearly 1,000 years after the fall of the West, Constantinople was the real center of Roman power. It was the largest, richest, and most sophisticated Christian city in the world. While Paris and London were muddy villages, Roman emperors in Constantinople were watching chariot races in the Hippodrome and illuminating manuscripts in the Great Palace.

The Crusades? That was Western Europeans coming to visit (and eventually loot) the Roman Empire. The Renaissance? That was Western Europeans finally stealing the Roman/Greek manuscripts that had been preserved in the Roman Empire all along.

👉 Suggested line “To ignore the Eastern Roman Empire is to ignore the majority of Roman history.”

Conclusion: A Name That Changed History

So, why did the Eastern Roman Empire become the Byzantine Empire? It didn’t. The name was invented by a 16th-century German scholar to distinguish a medieval, Greek-speaking Rome from an ancient, Latin-speaking one. It was perpetuated by Western political figures (like the Pope and Charlemagne) who wanted to steal the prestige of Rome for themselves.

The “Byzantine Empire” is a ghost. It never existed in the minds of the people who lived and died under its laws. They were Romans. They built Roman aqueducts. They fought Roman wars. They prayed in Roman churches.

The next time you read about the “Byzantine” Empress Theodora, the “Byzantine” general Belisarius, or the “Byzantine” architecture of Hagia Sophia, remember the truth: you are looking at the Roman Empire.

If the people themselves never stopped being Romans… should we?

FAQ

Did the Byzantines call themselves Romans?

Yes, 100% of the time. For over a millennium, the citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire used "Rhomaioi" (Romans) as their primary identity. Their neighbors (Arabs, Turks, Slavs) also called them Romans ("Rum").

When did the Byzantine Empire start?

It never “started.” However, historians often use arbitrary dates to mark the transition from “Ancient Rome” to “Byzantine” Rome. Common markers include:

• 330 AD Constantine dedicates Constantinople.
• 476 AD Fall of the Western Roman Empire (the East survives alone).
• 610 AD Emperor Heraclius switches official language from Latin to Greek.
• 717 AD The loss of the Levant and North Africa to the Arabs, reducing the empire to mostly Greek-speaking lands.

Who invented the term Byzantine Empire?

The German historian Hieronymus Wolf invented it in 1557, over a century after the empire fell.

Why is the term still used today?

Convenience. It helps historians quickly identify the medieval, Greek-speaking, Orthodox phase of Roman history. While technically inaccurate, it is a standard academic convention. However, many modern scholars prefer Eastern Roman Empire.

Is it wrong to say “Byzantine Empire”?

It depends on the context. If you are discussing the "identity" of the people, yes—it is wrong. If you are using it as a geographical/temporal label to distinguish the medieval period from the classical period, it is acceptable as long as you understand the limitations of the term.