You have to be more specific as to what you mean by the "Byzantine Empire". If you are asking about the eastern part of the Roman empire, which historians have dubbed "Byzantine" (after the city of Byzantium), be aware that there was no such thing. It was the Roman empire-- period. Historians used the term Byzantine when they were referring to the eastern parts of the Roman empire in order to differentiate between the two areas of the empire.
He moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium, which would be the capital of the Byzantine Empire for more than 1,000 years.
Well considering that he was the Byzantine emperor (the eastern Roman Empire was called the Byzantine Empire and did not fall when the western one did), I'd say many. He actually was more like Roman emperors then his Byzantine predecessors and attempted to restore the old borders of the empire.
The early Roman Empire was a polytheistic one. Polytheistic means that the religion contains more than one god/goddess (female god). The later empire saw the rise of Christianity as the new religion, replacing the old deities. The Byzantine Empire, which emerged in the eastern half of what was the old Roman Empire, continued these Christian beliefs, however, it did gradually evolve differences from the older Roman Empire, such as the iconoclasm crisis in the 700s and 800s, which caused internal pressures, as well as the idea of having a Patriarch, particularly the Patriarch of Constantinople, lead the Byzantine Church, whereas the Western Europeans increasingly followed the Pope in Rome. This resulted in the Great Schism in 1054, the culmination of centuries of gradual separation between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, that, in some ways, continues even today.
Yes and No. Comparing Byzantine emperors with Charlemagne in the time of 800 to 814 is comparing them with the one person who was probably the most powerful monarch of the Middle Ages. Later Byzantine emperors would have to be compared with western emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of their own times. Most of the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire were rather weak. This was partly because they were elected, and so there was no father to prepare the throne for them, but it was mostly because they had powerful feudal vassals, including kings, who limited their authority. Of course the Byzantine Empire gradually declined through the entire Middle Ages, leaving a rather decrepit country in the end, and an emperor of this country had no more power than his country did, and the Holy Roman Emperor had much more power than the Byzantine Emperor.
Slavs definitely. Silly answer The highest Church official was the Patriarch, who was considered superior to all the Archbishops and bishops. When the Byzantine empire still controlled all the areas of the Levant and North Africa there were other Patriarchs at Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. As he was in the imperial capital at Constantipole he was considered the most important when they met in Council. After the Muslim invasions the other patriarchs have dwindled to unimportance. The current Patriarch has a very small congregation in Istanbul, after the Greeks were expelled at the end if the first world war. He is still considered the head of the Orthodox Church, though the patriarch in Moskva controls far more adherents.
The Byzantine EMpire was a monarchy. It litrally for about 500 years part of the Roman Empire, just known as the Eastern Roman Empire. When the Capital was moved to Byzantium, and when the wesrtern regions fell (ROme, France, Spain) it changed its name from the Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire with its capital at Constantinople. Even though it is an Empire, a monarchy, it was ruled greaty also by the doctrine and laws of the Eastern Orthodox Church and Patriarch centered in the Agia Sophia (St Sophia) church in Byzantium. It was not ruled by the church to the extent of the Catholic states, but more on a guiding level rathern then politically.
You have to be more specific as to what you mean by the "Byzantine Empire". If you are asking about the eastern part of the Roman empire, which historians have dubbed "Byzantine" (after the city of Byzantium), be aware that there was no such thing. It was the Roman empire-- period. Historians used the term Byzantine when they were referring to the eastern parts of the Roman empire in order to differentiate between the two areas of the empire.
The Byzantine Empire was the first Christian empire. It was in territory that now is called Turkey. The Byzantine Empire was formed from the remnants of the Roman Empire. The Byzantines were also slightly less brutal then their predecessors.
He moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium, which would be the capital of the Byzantine Empire for more than 1,000 years.
He moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium, which would be the capital of the Byzantine Empire for more than 1,000 years.
The Pope.
Well considering that he was the Byzantine emperor (the eastern Roman Empire was called the Byzantine Empire and did not fall when the western one did), I'd say many. He actually was more like Roman emperors then his Byzantine predecessors and attempted to restore the old borders of the empire.
The early Roman Empire was a polytheistic one. Polytheistic means that the religion contains more than one god/goddess (female god). The later empire saw the rise of Christianity as the new religion, replacing the old deities. The Byzantine Empire, which emerged in the eastern half of what was the old Roman Empire, continued these Christian beliefs, however, it did gradually evolve differences from the older Roman Empire, such as the iconoclasm crisis in the 700s and 800s, which caused internal pressures, as well as the idea of having a Patriarch, particularly the Patriarch of Constantinople, lead the Byzantine Church, whereas the Western Europeans increasingly followed the Pope in Rome. This resulted in the Great Schism in 1054, the culmination of centuries of gradual separation between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, that, in some ways, continues even today.
It was more or less a continuation of greco/roman earlier amphitheaters found through out the empire
The Byzantine empire was nothing more than the eastern part of the Roman empire. Historians gave it that name because its capitol, Constantinople, was built upon the site of the old city of Byzantium.The Byzantine empire was nothing more than the eastern part of the Roman empire. Historians gave it that name because its capitol, Constantinople, was built upon the site of the old city of Byzantium.The Byzantine empire was nothing more than the eastern part of the Roman empire. Historians gave it that name because its capitol, Constantinople, was built upon the site of the old city of Byzantium.The Byzantine empire was nothing more than the eastern part of the Roman empire. Historians gave it that name because its capitol, Constantinople, was built upon the site of the old city of Byzantium.The Byzantine empire was nothing more than the eastern part of the Roman empire. Historians gave it that name because its capitol, Constantinople, was built upon the site of the old city of Byzantium.The Byzantine empire was nothing more than the eastern part of the Roman empire. Historians gave it that name because its capitol, Constantinople, was built upon the site of the old city of Byzantium.The Byzantine empire was nothing more than the eastern part of the Roman empire. Historians gave it that name because its capitol, Constantinople, was built upon the site of the old city of Byzantium.The Byzantine empire was nothing more than the eastern part of the Roman empire. Historians gave it that name because its capitol, Constantinople, was built upon the site of the old city of Byzantium.The Byzantine empire was nothing more than the eastern part of the Roman empire. Historians gave it that name because its capitol, Constantinople, was built upon the site of the old city of Byzantium.
Yes and No. Comparing Byzantine emperors with Charlemagne in the time of 800 to 814 is comparing them with the one person who was probably the most powerful monarch of the Middle Ages. Later Byzantine emperors would have to be compared with western emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of their own times. Most of the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire were rather weak. This was partly because they were elected, and so there was no father to prepare the throne for them, but it was mostly because they had powerful feudal vassals, including kings, who limited their authority. Of course the Byzantine Empire gradually declined through the entire Middle Ages, leaving a rather decrepit country in the end, and an emperor of this country had no more power than his country did, and the Holy Roman Emperor had much more power than the Byzantine Emperor.