The Roman Empire That Continued in the East

Kaldellis explains why he regards the so-called Byzantine Empire as the continuing Roman Empire: its people and state called themselves Roman, while the later label reflected other historical and political perspectives.

The speakers survey Rome’s kings, Republic and imperial monarchy, then discuss the terms “late Roman Empire” and “Byzantine” and the shift of the political center from Rome to Constantinople.

Fridman recites a broad timeline from Rome’s founding through the Republic, the imperial period, the division between East and West, and the fall of Constantinople, asking Kaldellis to identify omissions or errors.

Kaldellis identifies the Arab conquests, Seljuk conquest of Asia Minor and Fourth Crusade as major crises, set against longer periods of consolidation and growth. They distinguish discrete events from processes that unfolded over time.

Kaldellis uses the ship of Theseus to explain continuity through change. Roman history, he argues, is specifically the history of a political community; pride existed, but historians cannot assume it characterized everyone. Taxation, political responsibilities and the conduct of subjects also help explain how the society held together.

The speakers consider the diversity between Romans of different eras and social positions. Kaldellis points to soldiers’ oaths and Roman law, including the property rights that enabled women to bring disputes to Roman courts, as examples of institutions that connected people across time.

Kaldellis describes the image emperors projected through laws, petitions and public rhetoric: that they were responsive, accountable, proactive and hardworking, and governed for their subjects’ benefit. He explains how this persona could support the social agreement behind taxation.

Discussing Machiavelli’s emphasis on judging rulers by their actions, Kaldellis says East Roman authorities generally acted in line with their public claims, though not perfectly. The emperor’s vulnerability helped create incentives to keep subjects content.

Kaldellis explains that emperors had no hereditary right to the throne, and that coups and civil wars made their positions insecure. He describes how potential challengers sought popular support in Constantinople and how the prospect of violent removal encouraged emperors to maintain goodwill.

The speakers compare elections with the emperor’s ongoing need to assess public support. Acclamations in the Hippodrome and other gatherings could signal approval or discontent; Kaldellis gives the example of Alexius III abandoning a proposed tax after a hostile response.

They discuss the Hippodrome’s size, ceremonies and role as a place where emperors met the public and political demonstrations occurred. Kaldellis stresses that he is explaining how the system worked and endured, not advocating for it.

Kaldellis traces the gradual expansion of Roman citizenship and discusses Caracalla’s 212 decree extending it to free inhabitants of the empire. The precise motivation is uncertain, but the speakers examine the decree’s consequences, the rise of provincial elites and the limited surviving evidence for how it was made and implemented.

The conversation covers civil wars, murdered emperors, invasions, economic disruption and plague during the third-century crisis. Kaldellis cautions that political turmoil does not tell us by itself how ordinary people experienced events, citing the evidence from Egypt.

Kaldellis describes the third-century fragmentation as a contest for Roman power rather than a rejection of Roman rule. Diocletian addressed the problem of competing emperors by appointing colleagues, creating the Tetrarchy, and expanding government and military capacity.

The speakers discuss Diocletian’s bureaucracy, the limits of calling it a “deep state,” and the reforms’ role in funding armies and stabilizing government. Kaldellis highlights universal taxation, including the taxation of Italy, as a key part of the system.

Kaldellis explains the census and some obligations attached to professions and land, distinguishing fiscal responsibility from a uniformly rigid caste system. He describes considerable mobility alongside restrictions for certain farmers, and explains how military stability could support economic recovery.

The host thanks the podcast’s sponsors during a short break before the conversation returns to Constantine and Constantinople.

Kaldellis describes Constantine’s rise through the civil wars following Diocletian’s system and his victory as sole ruler in 324. He explains the founding of Constantinople at Byzantium as the creation of a new Roman center in the East.

Its position between the Danube and Euphrates frontiers and between Europe and Asia made Constantinople strategically important. The city also drew senators and elites from across the eastern Mediterranean, helping bind regions to the new center.

Kaldellis explains why Constantine tops his emperor ranking despite his violence, including the unexplained executions of Crispus and his wife. He weighs Constantine’s consequential decisions, especially founding Constantinople and supporting Christianity, against criteria of competent rule.

Kaldellis argues that Christianity acquired a role in the Roman system after Constantine adopted it, and that the imperial state incorporated the religion rather than simply being defeated by it. He discusses the limited political influence of Christians in Constantine’s time and the difficulty of explaining Constantine’s choice.

The speakers examine accounts of Constantine’s religious experience, which Kaldellis cautions should not be taken at face value. He describes Constantine as pragmatic and discusses his varied religious messaging, including Christian support and imagery associated with Apollo.

Kaldellis places the growth of a majority Christian society centuries after Constantine and describes incentives and restrictions that supported conversion. He also explains how Christianity appealed to different groups through theology, ceremony, initiation, court culture and the army.

Christianity’s exclusive truth claims could create conflict as well as community. Kaldellis describes theological controversies as processes in which beliefs were shaped through disputes, and discusses how written sources can make controversies appear more widely shared than they were.

The speakers consider the costs and contributions of religion and whether Roman and Christian identity were the same. Kaldellis says they overlapped but remained distinct, alongside Greek language and culture, and describes the society as a setting where these identities could be combined in different ways.

Kaldellis says Constantinople’s growth depended on migration from the provinces, not simply reproduction within the city. He discusses the senators and their households, the grain dole, the transfer of grain from Egypt and the signal this sent about the state’s priorities.

The speakers discuss the Western Empire’s loss of provinces and the resulting decline in tax revenues and military capacity. Kaldellis describes how settlement and territorial losses could create a cycle of reduced resources and further military weakness, including the Gothic presence in the Balkans.

Kaldellis discusses geography, Constantinople’s defenses and the ability to draw support from different regions as factors in eastern survival. He also argues that the center of the Roman state shifted eastward, with Constantinople and eastern emperors shaping Roman law and political life.

Kaldellis outlines the military and civilian branches of government, including recruitment, legal systems, record-keeping and the taxation used to fund the army. He describes the practical complexity of tax exemptions and how officials and communities petitioned for them.

Kaldellis explains the role of eunuchs in palace administration and their access to the emperor. Because they lacked family networks and depended on imperial favor, emperors could use them to counterbalance other powerful groups; the conversation also addresses how eunuchs entered these roles.

Kaldellis challenges the idea that rural people were generally isolated from the state. Censuses, taxes, services, recruitment and churches connected communities to imperial institutions, with taxation serving as a particularly important link.

Kaldellis explains why the state’s own terms included polity and monarchy rather than a straightforward equivalent of “empire” or “republic.” He uses “monarchic republic” to describe an emperor-led polity whose rulers were expected to serve the Roman commonwealth.

The speakers ask whether the East Roman system was a military dictatorship. Kaldellis says that although armies influenced who became emperor, they were rarely used to control society; he presents the army as principally a force for defending and serving the Roman people.

Kaldellis describes Justinian’s background, his relationship with his uncle Justin I, and his rise to power. He discusses Theodora’s influence and Justinian’s willingness to appoint people for their abilities rather than their social standing.

The conversation covers Justinian’s committee and the compilation of Roman law, which Kaldellis identifies as a major source for later study and legal traditions. They discuss the organization of private law and its attention to property, contracts, marriage and inheritance.

Kaldellis discusses Christian authorities’ condemnation of same-sex acts and Justinian’s severe penalties, while noting that the society did not systematically monitor people’s private lives. They also discuss Justinian’s marriage to Theodora and the legal change that allowed it.

Kaldellis describes Justinian’s wars of reconquest as religiously justified in his view, but says they stretched resources and left the East vulnerable. The discussion also covers the Nika revolt, the killing of protesters and the rebuilding of Constantinople, including Hagia Sophia.

The speakers discuss the plague that began in 541 and the debate over its mortality and historical impact. Kaldellis doubts claims that it killed half the population, pointing to the continuation of warfare, taxation and courts in the accounts.

Kaldellis says Justinian left his successors with a stretched military and a more vulnerable center, while cautioning against attributing every later problem to him. The conversation then turns to Heraclius.

Kaldellis explains how Heraclius’s rebellion against Phocas diverted Roman forces while Persia advanced. Heraclius took Constantinople and defeated the Persians, but Kaldellis questions the traditional heroic framing of his story.

The speakers trace the loss of eastern provinces to Persia and then the Arab conquests. Kaldellis links the rapid Arab gains to the two exhausted empires, their limited resources and the direction of the attacks, including the loss of Egypt and its grain supply.

Kaldellis describes the slow recovery after the Arab conquests: holding the line, building fleets, using Greek fire and reorganizing the military around a smaller core. He explains what is known and uncertain about the weapon’s operation.

Kaldellis credits Leo III’s preparation, fleet, use of Greek fire and Bulgar allies in the failure of the Arab siege. The conversation then introduces the Isaurian dynasty and the ensuing disputes over images in churches.

The speakers discuss the dispute over venerating or removing icons. Kaldellis argues that the controversy involved a relatively small number of influential writers and religious figures, and that the sources do not show broad popular mobilization, even though the pro-icon position eventually prevailed.

Kaldellis describes renewed campaigns from 955, followed by stability and prosperity, and then a crisis driven by attacks from Seljuk Turks, Pechenegs and Normans. He introduces the period covered in his book *Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood*.

Kaldellis challenges accounts that primarily attribute the eleventh-century crisis to internal decline, emphasizing the simultaneous attacks from three different forces. He also acknowledges internal pressures, including dynastic instability, political spending and budget strain.

Kaldellis argues that the empire’s crises were relatively brief external shocks, while its longer history was shaped by internal recovery, consolidation and growth. He says this capacity for resilience is the subject of a book he is writing.

Kaldellis critiques accounts that move from one dramatic event to another without explaining the institutions connecting them. He describes his approach in *The New Roman Empire* as giving greater attention to the structures and ideologies that shaped people’s lives.

Kaldellis places the drying up of the empire’s sources of resilience between 1300 and 1350, citing the loss of Asia Minor, civil wars, Serbian expansion and the Black Death. He attributes the final collapse chiefly to foreign invasions and describes the empire’s fall in 1453.

Kaldellis says the empire avoided many internal sources of fragmentation seen in other states. He points to authorities’ efforts—and often actions—to govern on behalf of their subjects, as well as Roman and Orthodox identity, and discusses why credible rhetoric mattered alongside policy.

The speakers consider what Roman history might suggest about modern government. Kaldellis emphasizes durable institutions that benefit the population and make their purpose clear, and discusses how a gap between political claims and actions can undermine trust.

Kaldellis reflects on continuity and variation in human nature, while Fridman raises possible technological changes to human capacities and consciousness. They consider whether future phases of history may alter what it means to be human.

Kaldellis reflects on historical periods of hardship and gives reasons not to despair about the present, while acknowledging future risks. The speakers close the interview with thanks and the podcast’s sign-off.