>Byzantium is the political successor of the Roman Empire, but NOT the Roman Empire
It literally was though. If you want to cope with the changes that the empire went though, do as others do by simply acknowledging the medieval period of Rome as Byzantium and not claiming that it wasn't the same entity.
It isn’t because it doesn’t control Rome. Imagine if the US conquered China, divided into the Eastern and Western USA and eventually fell with the Chinese half still calling itself the United States of America while controlling no part of America.
>Own Rome
What a load of nonsense. Rome something much bigger at that point, so much so that the city was simply known as "Res Urbs." >Majority language or main language is Latin
Again, utter nonsense. The Roman elite was always bilingual and adopting Greek culture and language never meant being less Roman. >Has a senate
Nations are not defined by their institutions. The requirement for being Roman is being Roman, obviously, you ignoramus.
>The Roman elite was always bilingual
It only became the fashion during the late republic. Still few of them were fluent >adopting Greek culture and language never meant being less Roman
Despite adopting a lot of their culture they considered Greeks to be inferior and speaking Greek in the presence of other Romans would have been utterly disgraceful
Their relationship to the Greeks was complicated and could best be described as a mixture of feelings of admiration and loathing with a touch of an inferiority complex. Besides that you haven't said anything I didn't already agree with and this post doesn't contradict my point. Despite their bitter feelings the Greeks and Romans were really one people in the same way the Welsh and English are, and the Romans made no effort whatsoever to impose Latin culture on the east.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>with a touch of an inferiority complex
If the Romans had something, it was definitely not that.
You are trying to obfuscate the point by saying a lot of dumb irrelevant shit. Romans spoke Latin. Greek was never a language that was spoken at Rome. They are not equivalent and mutually interchangeable and it is not acceptable for a Roman to not know Latin.
I'm not smart enough to actually get into some Spenglerian analysis of their character, but I definitely get a much different feeling from Byzantium than I do from Rome, as I believe we all do. However, I can also discern the beginnings of this culture in the Dominate period, so you may as well partially exclude the empire at that point if you're also going to exclude the Byzantines from being Roman.
And at any rate, the definition of "Roman" had expanded so much by that point that it's hard to disqualify almost anyone. Whereas the original definition of being a Roman would disqualify almost everyone.
>doesn't own Rome >not even in Italy >is in Greece >speaks greek (muh nobles spoke greek, English nobles speak French it doesn't mean anything) >opposed to the current authority in Rome >be surviving remnant from half a part of the Empire that was separated before the collapse of the Empire proper
They had the best claim and were the direct successors but they were not the Roman Empire, that is complete cope on their part and larp on the part of the modern Greeks
The Byzantines held Rome for a good while, but it had been severely depopulated and looted so it wasn't the israeliteel it once was.
Byzantines held a good chunk of Italy until the Normans in 11th century managed to unite the peninsula.
Byzantines were put in their territorial position by Constantine, was he the dividing point where ERE was no longer Roman? How about when the capital got changed to Milan, did it stop being Rome?
Byzantines intially got along okay with the Pope, but he wanted supremacy over the other archbishops. Then there was the gradual rift due to local customs and politics leading them to split.
>The Byzantines held Rome for a good while, but it had been severely depopulated and looted so it wasn't the israeliteel it once was.
So at what point does that stop mattering? Does the relatively brief Italian reconquest campaign mean anything for the Byzantines in the 1100s? the 1300s? My point is that frankly doesn't matter in the context of the Byzantines as a whole rather then in their heyday when the rest of Europe were figuring out what land they wanted to cement themselves in. >Byzantines held a good chunk of Italy until the Normans in 11th century managed to unite the peninsula.
See previous answer >Byzantines were put in their territorial position by Constantine, was he the dividing point where ERE was no longer Roman? How about when the capital got changed to Milan, did it stop being Rome?
The difference being that Rome was still controlled and in a relative short distance from these essentially administrative capitals. When Rome was still controlled it was still the heart of the Empire. >Byzantines intially got along okay with the Pope, but he wanted supremacy over the other archbishops. Then there was the gradual rift due to local customs and politics leading them to split.
That's true.
If everything East of the rockies falls to barbarians and collapses, is the West still the United States? Yes kinda, they don't control any of the thirteen colonies, where the documents were signed, where the battles of independence were fought, they may have the spirit of America but for how long? And then they change their language to Spanish.
>When Rome was still controlled it was still the heart of the Empire.
No it wasn't rome was a city that relied on gibs. It was not the same city of the republican and early imperial eras
>Byzantium is actually the Roman empire because... BECAUSE IT JUST IS, OKAY?!?
Both right,both wrong
>Byzantium isn't actually the Roman empire because... BECAUSE IT JUST ISN'T, OKAY?!?
Byzantium is the political successor of the Roman Empire, but NOT the Roman Empire
Just like the Russian Federation is the political successor of the Soviet Union, or Turkey is the political successor of the Ottoman Empire.
Let idiots argue with idiots to keep the other threads clean
>Byzantium is the political successor of the Roman Empire, but NOT the Roman Empire
It literally was though. If you want to cope with the changes that the empire went though, do as others do by simply acknowledging the medieval period of Rome as Byzantium and not claiming that it wasn't the same entity.
Countries aren't real
It isn’t because it doesn’t control Rome. Imagine if the US conquered China, divided into the Eastern and Western USA and eventually fell with the Chinese half still calling itself the United States of America while controlling no part of America.
A better analogy would be America not being American anymore if it suddenly lost Washington and no other city. Good Lord you people are braindead.
No. It is not a better analogy. The USA is culturally cohesive, Rome was not.
ur biggest flag is transgender
Modern England is England
Roman England also is England
But they aren't the same in many ways at all.
Same principle.
Minimum requirements to be CONSIDERED for being called Rome.
1)Own Rome
2)Majority language or main language is Latin.
3)Has a senate
>Own Rome
What a load of nonsense. Rome something much bigger at that point, so much so that the city was simply known as "Res Urbs."
>Majority language or main language is Latin
Again, utter nonsense. The Roman elite was always bilingual and adopting Greek culture and language never meant being less Roman.
>Has a senate
Nations are not defined by their institutions. The requirement for being Roman is being Roman, obviously, you ignoramus.
>The Roman elite was always bilingual
It only became the fashion during the late republic. Still few of them were fluent
>adopting Greek culture and language never meant being less Roman
Despite adopting a lot of their culture they considered Greeks to be inferior and speaking Greek in the presence of other Romans would have been utterly disgraceful
Their relationship to the Greeks was complicated and could best be described as a mixture of feelings of admiration and loathing with a touch of an inferiority complex. Besides that you haven't said anything I didn't already agree with and this post doesn't contradict my point. Despite their bitter feelings the Greeks and Romans were really one people in the same way the Welsh and English are, and the Romans made no effort whatsoever to impose Latin culture on the east.
>with a touch of an inferiority complex
If the Romans had something, it was definitely not that.
You are trying to obfuscate the point by saying a lot of dumb irrelevant shit. Romans spoke Latin. Greek was never a language that was spoken at Rome. They are not equivalent and mutually interchangeable and it is not acceptable for a Roman to not know Latin.
So the Roman kingdom is disqualified
I'm not smart enough to actually get into some Spenglerian analysis of their character, but I definitely get a much different feeling from Byzantium than I do from Rome, as I believe we all do. However, I can also discern the beginnings of this culture in the Dominate period, so you may as well partially exclude the empire at that point if you're also going to exclude the Byzantines from being Roman.
And at any rate, the definition of "Roman" had expanded so much by that point that it's hard to disqualify almost anyone. Whereas the original definition of being a Roman would disqualify almost everyone.
spartan midas diff
They were literal greekoid heretics
Venice was more Roman than them
>"the Senate and People of Rome"
>no senate
>weird Thracian-Greek mutt people
>no Rome
>doesn't own Rome
>not even in Italy
>is in Greece
>speaks greek (muh nobles spoke greek, English nobles speak French it doesn't mean anything)
>opposed to the current authority in Rome
>be surviving remnant from half a part of the Empire that was separated before the collapse of the Empire proper
They had the best claim and were the direct successors but they were not the Roman Empire, that is complete cope on their part and larp on the part of the modern Greeks
The Byzantines held Rome for a good while, but it had been severely depopulated and looted so it wasn't the israeliteel it once was.
Byzantines held a good chunk of Italy until the Normans in 11th century managed to unite the peninsula.
Byzantines were put in their territorial position by Constantine, was he the dividing point where ERE was no longer Roman? How about when the capital got changed to Milan, did it stop being Rome?
Byzantines intially got along okay with the Pope, but he wanted supremacy over the other archbishops. Then there was the gradual rift due to local customs and politics leading them to split.
Imagine Norman can conquer balkan from imperial hand.
>The Byzantines held Rome for a good while, but it had been severely depopulated and looted so it wasn't the israeliteel it once was.
So at what point does that stop mattering? Does the relatively brief Italian reconquest campaign mean anything for the Byzantines in the 1100s? the 1300s? My point is that frankly doesn't matter in the context of the Byzantines as a whole rather then in their heyday when the rest of Europe were figuring out what land they wanted to cement themselves in.
>Byzantines held a good chunk of Italy until the Normans in 11th century managed to unite the peninsula.
See previous answer
>Byzantines were put in their territorial position by Constantine, was he the dividing point where ERE was no longer Roman? How about when the capital got changed to Milan, did it stop being Rome?
The difference being that Rome was still controlled and in a relative short distance from these essentially administrative capitals. When Rome was still controlled it was still the heart of the Empire.
>Byzantines intially got along okay with the Pope, but he wanted supremacy over the other archbishops. Then there was the gradual rift due to local customs and politics leading them to split.
That's true.
If everything East of the rockies falls to barbarians and collapses, is the West still the United States? Yes kinda, they don't control any of the thirteen colonies, where the documents were signed, where the battles of independence were fought, they may have the spirit of America but for how long? And then they change their language to Spanish.
>When Rome was still controlled it was still the heart of the Empire.
No it wasn't rome was a city that relied on gibs. It was not the same city of the republican and early imperial eras
Wasn’t this argument created by the moronic monarchs of Europe so they could larp as successors to Rome