If there was any connection between later roman shield designs and later western europian heraldry it was probably only small as real heraldy only emerged some 5th centuries after fall of the Western empire and art of Heraldry although known in "Byzantium" via western knights on crusades was never completely accepted by the Byzantine time Romans.
I never realised anyone did pictures like this; I really like it. I noted in previous comments that you consider the Byzantines as just part of the evolution taking place in the Roman Empire. From what reading of this and later periods I have done (some, not a lot), I would agree. That evolution was influenced by the cultural influences and geography of the Eastern Empire, I would think.
Hi. About "Byzantines"-just imagine if you woke up one day and somebody from completely different age came to you and says:you are not an Australian! And you naturally asked him:really?why?And his answer would be:becouse you doesnt look like Australians do in 1901! Or maybe he would claim that you are not an Australian,because you speak english,so you must be an Englishman.Like that silly argument that if byzantines spoken mostly greek then they must have been greeks not romans(but in the eastern half of the roman empire greek language was always main language not just in medieval times-so why nobody speaks of them as about greeks?)This is just examples of how term Byzantine is twisted.
It only has been accepted with Enlightenment movement era thinkers like Montesquieu who do not like how roman state was like in the middle ages(although,in fact,not even taking their time to really study it into deep,so having been full of misjudgments from the very beginning),so they felt need to have clear line between that "real" romans and those "wannaby" byzantine romans,no matter that there were NO LINE at all between ancient and medieval romans.Roman state just continued on in the east in every aspect of private to public life and its inhabitants were doing it fully consciously with a knowledge of clear historical self identity. Of course that they doesn't look the same as in a Julius Caesar's time,of course they had many different features as time passed.Republican Rome is also very different in many things from that of Imperial(or that even older royal),but somehow, nobody seems to have problem with both having been simply roman states.
Nobody says that (for example)modern day Frenchman's are not real frenchman's because they didn't look like those from the time of hundred years war.So why the hell should it be different in the case of Byzantium,when in fact,byzantine state had much more fluently continuous history than any other state in european history. Truth is that if there were not thinkers like Montesquieu(who,moreover,was more a philosopher the real historian),who influenced greatly first modern scholars,who then often uncritically accepted their ideas and views,we would have probably still use only historycaly correct name Roman Empire,with term Byzantine empire being totally unknown.
Fortunately,Now I Am encountering more and more increasing tendency in most recent works to treat the byzantines as real romans(only not ancient) and if they are using byzantine terminology,they at least mention its historical artificiality.
Well,this is something that can make me angry and because byzantine romans cannot defend themselves anymore,so at least I will.
And thanks for comments.Late roman army is not widely depicted but you could find definitely more of it.
But romans were much greecified in culture for most of their history,long before Byzantine times.And in the eastern part of the empire greek was always prevailing language.And not only of common people,also most of official state administrative was writen in Greek from the very beginning of Roman domination over east.When Heraclios finally decided to change state language oficially he only confirmed wat was already in practice for centuries and in the view of loosing Syria and Egypt,because core territories now left in his hand were strongly greecified.Well it was logic move,not to retain language with whom most of empires inhabitants dont talk anymore.
To me,They were combained ancient Greeks and Romans,which over many centuries of close co-existence became very much the one and the same nation and it is even more complicated because there were,especially in earlier Byzantine centuries many other ethnicities.In this way Greek dont stop to by greeks by their ethnicity and greek culture was especially dominant after 6th century,but they(and all other free inhabitants of other ethnics)were of Roman citizenship.Maybe you herd somwhere that saying:Romans conquered Greeks politicaly but Greeks at the same time conquered Romans culturally.I think it is very well exspressed in this sentece.
Yes, but also, latins-romans have kept many non greek (and kept alive some bits of the mysterious Etruscans-Rasnas) cultural bits in perhaps more subtile ways, as well as a discrete cultural syncretism from other sources...
As I already said-Romans were basicaly multiethnic society and by early 3rd century all personaly free inhabitants also had automatically Roman citizenship.With later loose of greater part of the Roman controled area in the more latinized west,Greek element with its strong tradition in the east became naturally dominant,but the core idea of their Roman statehood stát didn't disappear at all. What is the most important for me is the fact that in the east Roman state continued in existence completely uninterrupted and that its inhabitants were doing it quite consciously about their roman past,with keeping many ancient Roman traditions and laws to whom naturaly new one,as time passed,emerged.Most of Byzantine historians if doing a list of their Emperors stated Augustus as first one.And emperors themselves done the same-some of theme were proud of how well they know Roman history.
Just imagine how would you feel if somone have claimed from day to day you are not what you always was anymore.
You've certainly thought about this alot. For my part, I see it as part of the evolution of the Roman Empire; the Empire of the fourth century was quite a bit different from thee time of Augustus, yet was still "Roman". The medieval empire was certainly different from the classical empire, but in what reading I have done, it seems that many of these developments date back to the time of Diocletian, which no one questions as being Roman.
I think a lot of people have a block due to absence of latin in the medieval empire, even myself to an extent. But as you said, greek was the language spoken in the East throughout the Roman Empire, even in earlier times, there was seemingly no effort to make latin the spoken language. When Heraclius changed the administrative language from latin to greek, it was reflective of the reality that the use of latin in the mostly greek speaking regions of the empire was impractical. I found it interesting to note that the parts of Southern Italy that the Empire maintained a hold on up to the eleventh century spoke greek.
Ultimately, the people of the Empire continued to call themselves Romans, even if they said it in greek. That says enough to me.
P.S. I think your comment about the difference between medieval and modern France was quite illustative.
Yes, the Greek element of the Empire shouldn't be underestimated, but that had always been a factor in the east. I might be slightly incorrect, but I believe that the Imperial cult was strongest since Augustus' time in the east, yet was still an important feature of Imperial Roman rule. As Amelianvs says below, the influence of Greece was always there. I suppose you could say that in the Medieval period it didn't have the west to balance things out, but the continuity of culture and tradition, though evolving, should be noted.
Io direi che questo Costantino ha avuto il coraggio di affrontare la situazione gravissima in cui si trovava la Britannia e L' Impero di occidente mentre Onorio dimostro' sola mente di essere un Fasullo e Mediocre!
Constantine was at least definitely personally much more able and brave than incompetent and from reality disconnected Honorius and his court...with exception of general Stilicho...whom Honorius unwisely ordered to kill.
Truth.But you may compared it to modern super power like U.S.A.They also fight some war or minor conflict almost constantly,but an average American is not bothered with it or having any complications with it in everyday life.Same or at least very similar it was for most of romans who dont have to care about minor skirmishes or even bigger wars,that were fought somewhere on distant frontiers.
It have maybe also a more subtile but dangerous consequence - there was scholars pointing that the economy was dangerously based on 'sucking ressources' dry and not a more long term agricultural and such colonisation-development. Like being forced by it's nature to keep warfare around, to conquer on... or one day, later, to stagnate and what happened. Maybe.
.But they do-at least for the vast territory around mediterranean(with some rather episodic (and bloody)exceptions),from Augustus to the reign of Marcus aurelius(or Alexander severus)that means some 200 years,they managed to maintain peace for approximately one quarter of the world's population(or even almost half if we follow more bold(and I think exaggerated)estimates.But its truth Romans were fighting somewhere vith very rare and short exceptions almost constantly even in the time frame of what is called as pax Augusta-Romana.
Roman state lasted to 1453(1460)and its eastern part played major imperial role up to eleventh century so it was real empire for more than just four centuries...but even if it lasted"only four centuries"it would still be quite long duration if compared with many other empires.
It all looks so fluid and you're great at fleshing the later relatively obscure type of Roman uniforms and weapons used around the 300s to 600s AD, when the Roman Empire was in slow decline as an Eurasian superpower (becoming greatly outmatched by the Arab Caliphates during the 7th century after barely surviving a Sassanid conquest).
Yes,but principate-dominate,these are(I think)modern terms never used by romans so there was no need to renamed something,only roman emperors were now officially addressed as dominus instead of older princeps(in the sense First Citizen)which does not sound so openly oppressive.By the way Roman state was still officialy considered to be a republic even during clearly Monarchic dominate and long into medieval byzantine era.But by that time it was more likely in the sense of word which represents roman state as such more than actual expression for the form of the government. And Regarding pilum,from what I know the last archaeological findings are dated to the end of 3rd century,but Vegetius writing at the turn of the 4/5 century mentions that the javelin of this name was still in use by that time though it was favored mainly by barbarians more than romans who on the other hand had adopted barbarian forms of javelins...but we cannot be sure if this late pilum was really the same weapon as in earlier times.