In recent years Byzantium’s self-definition as an imperial polity – indeed often uncritically adopted in modern scholarship – has repeatedly been challenged on the grounds that it does not at all times comply with the standard yet narrow definition of a multi-ethnic conquest empire. Meanwhile recent comparative endeavours suggest that universalist imperial aspirations declined in medieval ‘second-wave’ empires and were destined to disappear. A few tentative beginnings aside—such as the 2017 Spring Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks (‘Rethinking Empire’), which remains unpublished—any discussion of what empire might productively mean in a Byzantine context remains relatively muted; key concepts, such as the potential importance of inherited, continuous classicising imperial traditions; the Byzantine terminology of empire/statehood (basileia, politeia, archē, kratos, exousia, etc.); or the connection of any of these terms to territoriality, have not been explored in a systematic fashion; for instance, scepticism as to the imperial character of the Byzantine polity is often tied to the fact that it became a territorially rather small entity while imperialist expansion was limited and focused on previously lost territories. Pertinent historical comparisons, such as the Tang and Song empires at the far end of Eurasia that allow to look at Byzantium from beyond, have rarely been brought to bear on the discussion. This Thematic Session seeks to stimulate further discussion embedding Byzantium into a global/Eurasian perspective and invites speakers to tackle the following issues: (1) ‘strong statehood’ and empire; empire and territoriality; empire and commonwealth; (2) medieval empire from a comparative perspective, especially the correlation between monetised taxation and commercialisation and urbanisation across Eurasia; (3) the role of classical and imperial traditions, universalist aspirations; (4) alternative conceptions and definitions of ‘empire’.
Contemporaneous with the changing geographies of the Byzantine Empire, a series of Chinese empires expanded and contracted through interactions with other peoples and states in Eastern Eurasia. Sandwiched between the expansive, cosmopolitan Tang (618-907) and Mongol (Yuan, 1279-1368) world empire, the Song (960-1279) seems an imperial anomaly because of its shrunken territorial reach and military…
Despite Charlemagne’s coronation as emperor in 800, Carolingian Francia’s imperial dimensions are often played down in the modern scholarship of empire. Like Byzantium, the Carolingian empire was on a small scale when set in global comparison, and Byzantines raised eyebrows when ’emperor’ became a title held by one ruler alongside de facto independent Frankish kings….
The study of imperial phenomena in the early Islamic period is a developing field, which, in its present state, offers more questions than answers. The state of the art tells the story of the early empires mainly as a literary phenomenon, with some reflections on the nature of early Islamic ideology. This literary expression of…
The inclusion of China within the Mongol imperial project and the founding of the Yuan dynasty (1260-1368) was a turning point in the history of the Middle Ages, bringing Eastern and Western Eurasia closer together. As Emperor of China and Emperor of the Mongols, Qubilai (r.1260-1294) balanced legitimizing narratives from two different worlds, capitalized on…
The question posed in the title kind of haunts the field of Byzantine Studies as of late. Most Byzantinists remain adamant in their use of the term empire to designate the political entity under the centralized authority of the ruler of Constantinople until 1204, but also beyond that date, especially in the time between 1261…