is he right about the byzantines?

is he right about the byzantines?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Based putin

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Built for BGC

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He's me.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      high treason traitor

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Absolutely.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He's right.
    Russia for all its problems, at least dosen't brainwash its students with historical nonsense such as the bizarre "bizantines" thing.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's "bizarre" to claim that you cannot be the Roman Empire without actually controlling Rome?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because its bizarre to claim that a state that can trace its lineage to Constantine Augustus Ceasar and even a perhaps historical version of Romulus, to claim that its not the same state just because they moved their capital.
        Did you know that China, had multiple capitals through history?
        More than Rome in fact.
        Yet we still call them "China" or at least "Chinese dynasties"
        So why do we all put importance on a capital move, if specially the people in Constantinople saw themselves as Romans or Rhomaioi.
        So yes it's actually "Bizarre" to claim they are not the same state.
        Understand now?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Did you know that China, had multiple capitals through history?
          China was never called "The Nanjing Empire" or "The Beijing Empire".

          In fact, with China specifically there's never a geographical issue, since they just called themselves "Great [Name of the Dynasty]"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, fair enough.
            Regardless my point was about the Constantinople Romans, not China.
            And in that im right and you know it.
            If you went to Constantinople in history and called someone a "Byzantian" they would be confused.
            The "Byzantine" name is ridiculous and you know it.
            Call them for what they were, Romans or Rhomaioi, not Bizarre "Byzantians".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Roman legal polity expanded beyond the city

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Define Roman then. Caracalla proclaimed everyone was Roman early 3rd century. But that's not a problem for you? How many Italian born emperors were there after Nerva?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Seething byzaboo. You will never be roman. You don't follow roman customs or religion. You're a twisted christcuck that pays tribute to Arabs and Turks

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Byzaboo"?
            More like im aware of actual reality.
            How about i call the US the British empire because it was originally controlled by Britain?
            Im sure you are not going to like that.
            So shut up, stop calling the Roman's "Byzantian" when it doesn't even make sense.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the US is the British empire
            Why yes, if the byzantines are Romans then the Americans are British

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You didn't even get my point idiot.
            United States of America is not Britain/British Empire.
            Roman empire is not "Byzantine empire".
            Understand now?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, the Greek and anatolian christcucks who claimed to be Roman were not the roman empire. Glad we could agree

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No?
            That's not what i said.
            You strawmaned me.
            I said DON'T call Rome, the "Byzantine empire" when they were just Rome or Rhomaioi, idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >they were just Rome bro
            Then the French have claim over Germany and Italy because charlemagne was a frankoid. Tell me, byzaboo, are Frenchmen Franks? Or are they different?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No because they are not the Same state.
            The East Romans, were LITERALLY the same state, that Constantine the great, Augustus, Ceasar and possibly a historical romulus had.
            The same state, that those people shaped or created or lived.
            The franks or germanic tribes didn't have that, im willing to give them the title "Sucessors of west rome" but not literally "the Roman's".
            Since the Roman's still existed....
            In the east.
            You understand now, the difference between Franks and Actual Rome?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >this rump state identified as Rome even though they followed none of the customs or traditions of the roman republic and empire
            troony tier reasoning. Let me guess, you're a real woman because you cut your dick and balls off?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Byzantine as a term is just German propaganda. Can't go larping as the Holy Roman empire when there are still real Romans in Constantinople.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >muh propaganda
            >real Romans in Constantinople
            Yes just like the """real""" descendants of Rome today are Romanian gypsies. Cope and rope byztroony

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm Konrad born in Speyer I speak neither Latin or Greek and I am true Roman Emperor I call myself Kaiser because we are true Romans.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hello konrad, I am basil the basileos of the roman empire. I was born a peasant in illyria and descended from pirates who raided Rome. We wuz the true romanz because we paid off the huns and germanics while our western half collapsed. Our larp is going well. Pls don't claim you're the real rome

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hello Basil. I am Lucius Bassianus, born in Lugdunum, my Father was born in Africa . I am the Roman emperor and I declare everyone is Roman.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hello lucius, I am fredrick born in swabia. My father was the duke of swabia. We wuz the true Romans because my ancestors were given roman citizenship

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Didn't follow any of the Roman customs"
            What?
            Senate, contiuation of religion from Constantine, statues, roman calendar, magister millitum, are you insane?
            How did they not follow roman customs?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >religion from Constantine
            Yeah totally roman bro. Not a Semitic religion at all with wildly different customs and traditions
            >statues and art
            Severe decline in quality
            >senate
            Toothless and powerless compared to the senates under Augustus or the times of Marcus Aurelius
            >muh calendar
            Almost every nation on earth today uses a modified version of this calendar. What's your point?
            Sounds like you're an insane Christcuck buckbroken by your identity crisis into thinking a rump state is Rome

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So was Aurelians religion not "Roman" because it came from Syria?
            Why is Christianity not roman acording to you but for example the cult of Mitra?
            "Severe decline in quality"
            And? Is that still not roman.
            "Senate" "Toothless and powerless compared to the senates under Augustus or the times of Marcus Aurelius"
            Its still a roman senate, though.
            "Calendar"
            I dont care if everyone follows the calendar nowadays its still roman, and the east romans had it so they are romans.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >walls of cope
            >rivaling cults are completely different religions
            You're clearly a brainlet byzaboo who can't distinguish between two different traditions and cultures. Are you going to claim that the soviets were the same as the Russian empire next you mongoloid?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The east romans, were literally the same state a few 400-500 years ago Augustus,Ceasar and all thoses people battled in Philipi.
            Do you understand now, that i put it that way, how moronic is to claim that6 the east romans were not romans?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >give two examples of frank vs French, soviet union vs tsarist russia to help brainlet understand how they're different
            >he still can't stop sniffing his own farts
            You are a moron. Your commitment to christhomosexualry has robbed you of your senses. How about another example? Are the Iranians the true descendants of Alexander's empire because they were ruled by the seleucids?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >soviet union
            The Soviets and Imperial Russia aren't different states. If there were a revolution in America tomorrow and the new government called themselves the United Socialist States of America it would still be regarded as the same national entity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the soviet and imperialist regimes aren't different states
            Kek. Cognitive dissonance to the extreme. Do humanity a favor and have a nice day

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Are the Iranians the true descendants of Alexander's empire because they were ruled by the seleucids?"
            No because Alexander empire died, when he died, the diadochi figthing among themselves.
            Rome was still rome, it just lost the western territories.
            Thats it.
            I dont know why do you not get it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Alexander's empire died when he died
            So the roman empire died when the greeks in the east abandoned their religion, customs and western half. It makes perfect sense

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Rome was still rome, it just lost Rome
            lol

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And 700 years before 476 Rome was a mercantile republic fighting Hannibal
            And?
            A senate still existed under Odoacre and goth invaders. A senate no longer existed in Rome after Byzantine invasion

            Yeah what about 700 years later. It became effectively a different entity. It stopped owning Rome very early. Also, the greek-gothic war destroyed Italy's economy for centuries

            >Alexander's empire died when he died
            So the roman empire died when the greeks in the east abandoned their religion, customs and western half. It makes perfect sense

            You are all stupid.
            It dosent matter how much a state changes though history, its still the same state.
            Appling some of the logic you all have, nothing beyond the roman kingdom/republic, would be considered roman, so no east rome,and specially no roman empire.
            So if we apply the "Byzantine" logic you have, you are all saying the roman empire is not the roman empire but another thing.
            Which is beyond moronic.
            If the roman empire was the roman empire, then the east romans were actual romans.
            If you say otherwise you are also saying roman empire was not roman, because only kingdom/republic can be roman.
            So drop all this bs logic, and just admit 5hat the east romans that controled Constantinople (A city founded by a Roman emperor in a era where rome was still united) was roman, that the east romans were romans.
            You understand now?
            Or do i have to repeat myself?
            Fricking idiots.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Britain controls London
            >they wuz romanz

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Strawman.
            You know full well that's not what i said, or meant, idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Did you type this out with tears in your eyes?
            The Roman empire ceased to be Roman when the Romans left it and no amount of brownoid cope will change that.

            It's morons like you that don't understand that states change.

            t. moron that doesn't understand the concept of successor states

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Did you type this out with tears in your eyes?"
            No, in fact the opposite, i typed it with full confidence since i belive what im saying, and i believe im saying truth which you people can deny, but never outright overwrite it.
            The east romans were romans, and no amout of G*rmanic dna tears is going to change that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Did you type this out with tears in your eyes?
            >NO I DID NOT

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok iliterate G*rmanic barbarian state suporter, i prefer to talk about the true romans, not what was happening in Frankia.
            So shut up you idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is that you in the image? Lol.
            You are ugly as hell, must be those G*rmanic dna genes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Roman Empire wasn't the successor state to the Republic you dimwit and neither are the "Byzantines" to the Romans.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Republic and Empire were different states, The Roman Empire and The Eastern-Roman Empire in medieval times were different states, especially after the 4th crusade. I won't argue that any of those things were more or less Roman, but to act like nothing happened and that it's a perfect continuation is like pretending the republic and empire were exactly the same, as if August never happened, as if the crisis of the 3rd century never happened, or the fall of the west never happened. There is a continuation, but to pretend the governments and system never changed enough to see any difference is making yourself blind on purpose. In scientific essays I'd call the Byzantine Empire "ERE" and to differentiate further you could ad "pre-1204/post-1204". For the purposes of the discussions on a goddamn Indonesian basking-weaving board you can call it Byzantine Empire, as this term is well established and everyone immediatly recognises it.
            Again, to pretend the medieval ERE is the same state like Augustus', or Trajan's is pure lunacy

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But that's not what i said.
            I actually recogize the differences between Republic and Empire, and Empire and Eastern empire.
            But differences alone dont prove they are not the same state.
            Like, you wouldn't say that napoleon's france was a different state thsn monarchical france because it was a bit different.
            You would still recognize it as France or French.
            So why do we emphasize the differences between the various eras of the Roman state, giving stupid names to eras we don't like, for example "Byzantine" when everyone knows that's not how anybody in history called themselves.
            Its just hypocritical to do that to only rome, but not any other historical state.
            Like if you are going to do that, then do it to every other historical state, doing it to only rome, is hypocritical and moronic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >giving stupid names to eras we don't like
            And here we are at the bottom of it. It is about what you like and that you don't like that other people don't like what you like and that you REALLY like what you like.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No????
            Thats not what i said.
            I said "Byzantine" is not an accurate name for the era is designated, since it uses an old name of the main city of the period, and its a name created by people wanting to designate an entire era in negative terms.
            Haven't historians dropped the "Dark ages" negative designation for the middle ages?
            What if they could do the same with "Byzantine", because its essentially the same.
            That's what im trying to say.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Some historians say that dark ages refers to a lack of source material in certain parts of the middle ages, making us unable to "see" what happened. I'm a proponent of this notion, just like I'll keep call the Empire which is based on the location of the ancient town of Byzantion the Byzantine Empire.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, but it still doesn't change anything i said.
            In fact making its worse.
            By using "Byzantine" you are destroying the roman legacy of the Eastern Romans.
            Since the name, was made to be intentionally negative.
            So i would say the name might be even worse than calling the middle ages the "Dark ages".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Alright dude, enough for today. Enjoy the rest of the day and idk you appear to be a bit fragile if you care about negative connotation and not the issue itself. No offense, seriously. Bye!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not "Fragile"
            You moron.
            I just want those moronic historically iliterate idiots to stop going "Muh HRE" "muh latin" "Muh we control rome, you dont" (as if that matters) or "Muh Byzantine".
            Every time there is an East Rome thing.
            Understand now, moron?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            See you in the next thread you imbecille. Just don't get too mad. None of us wants to hurt your feefees, but you need to grow up Byzanboo.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Shut up you moron.
            "Byzaboo"
            God have you all have learned nothing, from this entire thread?
            Nothing?
            Actually nothing?
            Its like you didn't even listen.
            Fricking retads.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Go get your Byzantion!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Go frick yourself.
            Idiot moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            U mad! That's what I meant with fragile.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, its because you dont even want to listen.
            You are an idiot who closed your ears, and keeps repeating the same moronic bs the entire thread.
            You are a moron beyond normal moron.
            I hope you cure your brain damage, you idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Chill dude!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Shut up you idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no but seriously I can't be as silly as you even if I tried

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Silly"?
            For what?
            For stating that the Eastern Romans were actual Romans?
            That should be obvious to even morons like you.
            Yet you keep saying that they are not, with the most moronic bs i ever heard.
            So shut up you idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Silly Billy Byzanboo!
            Idolatry and proudy too,
            came to thread for real debate,
            got his anus blasted now it's late.

            My final take is very hot.
            He thinks he Roman, but he's not.
            In Germany we call him hoe,
            he's not Roman pope said so.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cringe.
            And i am the silly one?
            _
            You are absolutely ignoring all the times your "Muh Byzantine aren't romaaaans" got destroyed.
            Like i said, you actually have brain damage.
            So shut up you idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah you're way sillier, one of the silliest posters I've ever seen Silly Billy

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            :*

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            -_-

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Byzanboo!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            moron!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are dealing with an absolute lunatic who's been going on for days about how his rump state is the perfect continuation of republican and pagan Rome without any changes to the values of the people and the wildly different political structures

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I recognize the changes idiot.
            I never said that the Eastern Romans were not different.
            But to say that they were not romans, is actually moronic.
            So shut up you idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I meant 400 - 500 from the perspective of when they lost the western territories, so 600 AD or so, not our present perspective.
            Just making sure, you understand.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >LITERALLY the same state
            >empire split into wre and ere in 395
            Lmao. Are you really surprised people think the bit that kept Rome was the true heir instead of the bit that wanted to ditch latin and sent barbarian armies against Italy?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Was east Germany or west Germany the true Germany?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Neither was, each was its own country.
            TRUE Germany doesn't mean shit, either you got absolutely institutional continuity or you don't.
            This is why the byz issue is moronic. Successor states aren't the state they succeeded.

            >empire split into wre and ere in 395
            It was the same empire ruled as a diarchy.
            I think the reason people struggle with the concept of Byzantine "Romanness" is because they view the empire as being still like the Principate until 476 and then the East had this different system. The Empire post-476 was absolutely a continuation of the Dominate and a Roman from the late 4th Century would habe no difficulty identifying Justinian's empire as the same entity.

            That's not to say their identity didn't go through changes, by the 9th Century it was more of a national identity and less imperial, but that's evolutionary rather than a distinct break

            >It was the same empire ruled as a diarchy.
            Diarchy implies that both rulers have at least theoretical power over the whole state.
            The wremperor and the eremperor had completely separate spheres of influence and every attempt to interfere was met with war.
            >I think the reason people struggle with the concept of Byzantine "Romanness" is because they view the empire as being still like the Principate
            More like people don't actually care about whatever perceived romanness of the east, they just notice it split off the west and therefore wasn't the same.
            The fact the wre wasn't the same as early imperial Rome doesn't mean the ere's difference doesn't matter. It means the wre is less roman as well.

            On the ground they were the same state.
            The Constantinople they lost in 1453 was literally created by an roman emperor when rome was still united.
            I dont fricking understand why you people don't understand that they literally were the same state.

            >I dont fricking understand why you people don't understand that they literally were the same state.
            Because when you have completely separate everything, from courts to army to money to foreign policy, to really, literally fricking everything, just how exactly are you the same state?
            Nobody fricking says that medieval France and the HRE were the same fricking state, in spite of both splitting off the last carolingian emperor's division of his land between his sons. Which is exactly what Theodosius did.
            >The Constantinople they lost in 1453 was literally created by an roman emperor when rome was still united.
            By this reasoning Venice was the roman empire too and Rome ultimately fell in 1797.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Its like you people only care about the differences between the roman empire and the east romans.
            But the thing is, there is no fricking line in history separating the "2" "distinct" (Not actually distinct) states.
            Like i said The Constantinople they lost in 1453 was literally created by an roman emperor when rome was still united.
            Saying "Muh venice" to that is just moronic.
            Its like you people are actually invested in drawing a line, like: "In this place its all rome, but in this other place is not rome"
            And im like, "History just dosent fricking work like that"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think of Rome as the ship of Theseus. Some will argue it's the same ship and some will argue it's a different ship.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And im like, "History just dosent fricking work like that"
            History absolutely does work exactly like that.
            We don't go around just faffing about and ignoring any attempt to organize our knowledge and define terms and concepts.
            Historiography is absolutely full of more or less arbitrary (in the sense that they're applied to fit less than universal standards and may not fit others) definitions for pretty much everything, from the borders of states to the limit of periods, to the membership to organizations.
            We can't talk of what we can't define. Byzaboo frickery makes people mad because it comes off as an attempt to obscure shit for the sake of making a claim.
            >Saying "Muh venice" to that is just moronic.
            Why? The founding towns of Venice were all roman municipia set over older settlements in republican times, just like Constantinople was born off Byzantium.
            The lagoon itself never at any point left the roman sphere until the fall of the republic. Why is it not Rome? Because it's just a piece? Hint hint.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are really comparing Venice to east Rome?
            Really?
            Oh and dont do that "Historeography" shit, when the word "Byzantine" is the most well know example of bad "Historeography" that we are all still suffering from (Just look at this conversation)
            Also academic historians COMPLETELY disagree with you, since they consider East Romans well East Romans, since that's what they were historicaly, and saying otherwise is bad history.
            So i don't know why you bring the historians, when they agree with me on this, not you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >academic historians COMPLETELY disagree with you
            Lmao must be why I had a class on "byzantine history" in college. In the 2010s mind you.
            >since they consider East Romans well East Romans
            You do realize that this is literally them agreeing with me, right?
            If they call them east roman instead of just roman they're acknowledging that there IS a difference that needs to be recognized and upheld.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I been calling them east romans for the entire conversation, i acknowledge the differences, just as i acknowledged the difference between republic snd and empire.
            So think you are missrepresenting my point here.
            I just wanted to say "Byzantine" was a bad name for them.
            So i don't know why you say i acknowledge no difference when i literally did that for the entire conversation.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You complete and absolute goofball, it is based on location.
            Not that complicated.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            On location of what?
            The east was always the richest part of rome, even when it was united.
            It also had been romanized since the roman conquest of greece.
            So i don't know why having an independent Roman East, without the western territories is seen as "Not roman"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are a silly goose.
            Imagine if India today called itself the British Empire, or if Brazil asserted that they are the true Portugal.
            This is just nonsense.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I feel sorry for you if you think that those are equivalences.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What a funny fellow you are :^)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nonsense?
            But why, you can't explain why.
            Just because they didn't have rome?
            Why is that important?
            Rome had lost power as a city since diocletian.
            So i don't know why having a "new capital" means its now "Not roman"
            It's stupid and it doesn't make any sense.
            It's just drawing a line, just to draw a line.
            A line that doesn't even reflect reality.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            TOTALLY DIFFERENT PEOPLE, TOTALLY DIFFERENT LOCATION
            How about you and I form an alliance and then I tell everyone I am you?
            How is that any different?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But they didn't do that.
            Thats not what actually happened.
            They just slowly fragmented until they didn't have the western territories and just continued from there after a few attempts at reconquest.
            Thats what actually happened.
            They weren't "Different people different location"
            They were same people that slowly had a new capital and national territory of borders.
            That's it.
            They didn't tell a lie.
            They didn't tell anyone what they weren't.
            They told the truth, they are romans.
            So i don't know why you don't understand that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is there a difference between safavid and sassanian Persia? If there is, what is it? Here's some homework for you, brainlet-kun. If you're able to solve it, you'll understand why people insist on calling them byzantine instead of roman

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Weren't safavids a different ethnic group that ascended to power?
            So i would say that's not the same state thats a complite Dynastical change.
            Like parthia-sassanid where there is some cultural continuation but mostly a dynasty change.
            So i don't know why you bring safavid and sassanian Persia, when they are not that similar to the Rome-East rome change.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >different ethnic groups
            >implying Romans and Greeks are the same ethnic group

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But the greeks had been romanized sice the conquest of greece in i think 200BC.
            So its not even the same.
            Are you also going to say trajan is not roman because he comes from the province of Hispania?
            What about the ilyrian emperor's?
            I dont see why being ethnically greek means it now "not roman"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The ethisity of the Roman's had already changed way before even the Empires time.
            With the social war giving citizenship to random Italian tribes, the ethnicity was already changed by the republic and empire.
            You can't fault it on the east romans when rome had already lost ethnicity before even the empire, idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So the "Ethnic argument" holds no weight.

            So you agree that the Greeks of the east were just pretending to be roman? Much like the germans who claimed to be the third rome

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No i didn't agree with that.
            You just dont understand how states work, unfortunately.
            There is no line separating Rome from the Eastern Romans.
            NONE.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Except for the Latin dynasty and the fact that it collapsed because the elements of western Rome overpowered it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So the "Ethnic argument" holds no weight.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Safavid and Sasanids
            You must be trolling, another bad equivalence.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you can't use that example because......YOU JUST CANT OKAY???!!

            But the greeks had been romanized sice the conquest of greece in i think 200BC.
            So its not even the same.
            Are you also going to say trajan is not roman because he comes from the province of Hispania?
            What about the ilyrian emperor's?
            I dont see why being ethnically greek means it now "not roman"

            And the Arabs who lived in Persia were sufficiently persianized

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can't use it because the two aren't nearly comparable to the topic. Pretending it is moronic or a sign of trolling. I gave you the benefit of the latter.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "And the Arabs who lived in Persia were sufficiently persianized"
            Yes, and?
            You didn't even explain how that proves its the same state.
            Its just a Dynastical change.
            Not a good comparison to the Rome-East rome case.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The difference being they were separate legal entities

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >form an alliance
            What are you talking about? Roman continuity isn't based on an alliance.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If India had an unbroken transfer of legality as the British state, and a British identity and civic culture they’d be the British empire

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I acknowledge that east romans doesn't mean romans
            We agree then.
            >I don't acknowledge the use of a specific exonim that has the exact same meaning as east romans
            But why? Just because it has negative connotations?

            >instead of just Roman
            It's because it's convenient to describe the Romans after 476 to immediately know what you are talking about.

            It's no different from calling it the Monarchy, Republic, Principate, Dominate. Post 476 is just the east roman period and within that period you have additional sub categories.

            >because it's convenient to describe the Romans after 476
            >It's no different from calling it the Monarchy, Republic, Principate, Dominate
            Exactly. You're talking about different things, so you need different names. If you were talking about the same thing you wouldn't bother.
            You won't find many historians considering a republic the same state as the kingdom it replaced. In fact, in many contexts specific istitutional breaks like changing dynasties or replacing constitutions is enough to call it a successor state.
            You may not want to be so strict in defining this shit, and that's your prerogative. But you're no more correct in doing so than those who do want, and you invariably end up using the terminology anyway because it's useful and precise, so what's the point in your laxness?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because "Byzantine" is an exonim that they never used, it only appears after Constantinople falls, and then gets spread like wildfire.
            The reason i hate it, it's because it gives people weird ideas of what actually happened in the transformation of the "fall of rome" in the 5-6-7nt Centuries AD, specialy since the term "Byzantine" gets used in The education system corrupting young students minds, and giving them weird ideas of the so called "Byzantines" that they might not grow up.
            (Just see this thread for some people like that, you notice its the people that specialy use "Byzantine" whiout using a replacement or even thinking about it)
            And i think that is a real crime.
            Im not saying there was no change, there was, but i would say getting rid of the word "Byzantine" and finding replacements would be better for the world, since real misconceptions people have of history would instantly disappear.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you ChatGPT 4.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok bro, but if i was an AI i would be smarter that i am.
            I just said some true East Rome shit.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because "Byzantine" is an exonim that they never used
            I could not care less about this if my life depended on it.
            The same shit happens to half the people in human history and nobody complains, rightfully so.
            Nothing wrong with exonyms.
            >The reason i hate it, it's because it gives people weird ideas of what actually happened in the transformation of the "fall of rome" in the 5-6-7nt Centuries AD
            Well, I suppose I understand your point of view in this regard, but at the same time I don't think trying to ban a historically established name (even if it started getting used after the empire died) is an acceptable solution to this issue.
            You're basically n wording the situation. What happens when you ban the n word? People screaming Black person back at you is what happens.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes but the name is still actually moronic.
            Maybe not ban it, but use it less, try to be more accurate, use a more accurate name, at least at the transformation period of the 5-6-7nt Centuries AD, and i would be fine with the name.
            My main problem is the weird ideas people get because of "Byzantine", stop those moronic historical misconceptions from spreading and i would be fine with the use of the word.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are getting confused about what's a state and what's a government.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >instead of just Roman
            It's because it's convenient to describe the Romans after 476 to immediately know what you are talking about.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's no different from calling it the Monarchy, Republic, Principate, Dominate. Post 476 is just the east roman period and within that period you have additional sub categories.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Like imagine if we did this:
            On no The british empire is not a continuaton of Anglia, because we draw a line here.
            Or o no napoleon's france is not france, because we draw the line in the revolution.
            You get my point.
            Its like
            Why are you investing your time in drawing a line bittwen Rome and East rome?
            What's the reason?
            What do you gain from it?
            Because im confused to why you do this, its not that you don't understand the fact that's they were the same state, it's the fact that you are all invested in drawing the line i mentioned.
            Why?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Like imagine if we did this:
            We *DO* do this Black person.
            As I said, nobody considers the subdivisions of the frankish empire as still the frankish empire, it's just byzaboos who insist with this bullshit.
            >What's the reason?
            Precision. For the sake of give terms a clear meaning for the sake of communication.
            So that we know what people mean when they use a specific term to avoid misunderstandings or deception.
            Did you really need me to spell out to you the importance of technical terminology? No you didn't, you just know you don't really have a case and went "oh it doesn't matter, stop being a nerd".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you actually want precicion then why are you calling romans "Byzantines"?
            Im confused?
            You want precicion yet you do that?
            Wtf????

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >empire split into wre and ere in 395
            It was the same empire ruled as a diarchy.
            I think the reason people struggle with the concept of Byzantine "Romanness" is because they view the empire as being still like the Principate until 476 and then the East had this different system. The Empire post-476 was absolutely a continuation of the Dominate and a Roman from the late 4th Century would habe no difficulty identifying Justinian's empire as the same entity.

            That's not to say their identity didn't go through changes, by the 9th Century it was more of a national identity and less imperial, but that's evolutionary rather than a distinct break

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            On the ground they were the same state.
            The Constantinople they lost in 1453 was literally created by an roman emperor when rome was still united.
            I dont fricking understand why you people don't understand that they literally were the same state.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bro, you realize that the US, especially in the middle of its history, was claiming to be the successors of both the roman and British empire, including aping naming scheme and costums of both. Whenever you see an American siding with a European its always with someone from the UK because "our cultures/values are so much alike", despite that not being the case for like 200+ years.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Representing yourself as a spiritual or ideological successor or whatnot is not the same as saying that you are literally the same thing.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Whenever you see an American siding with a European its always with someone from the UK because "our cultures/values are so much alike", despite that not being the case for like 200+ years.
            I have literally never once in my life heard someone say that.
            Hell, I don't think I've ever seen an American side with a Brit on anything, either.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This guy is either Russian or AI, because his ideas are internally logical but completely divorced from reality.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you proved yourself wrong with your example

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Franish Empires can also claim lineage because Charlemagne's ancestrors married the daughters of Roman statesmen for alliances and they have genealogical ancestry links to every noble Roman family.

          Besides they actually spoke Latin occasionally, unlike the huge fricking cope in East.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Israel calls itself "Nation of Israel" even if they don't control Israel.
          Checks out tbh

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >saw themselves as Romans
          that's a dangerous game to play

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Greekoids simping for and larping as Romans != Romans

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are moronic if you don't see why those "ethnic greeks" lived in the roman empire, east rome, yes, but still rome.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are a swarthy gay greekoid who fricks little boys and also likes taking turkroach wiener in your butthole. Your opinion is worth nothing.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            see

            Do you really think we don't notice you're a Turk

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cope

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If im a gay greekoid then what does that make you?
            A filthy T*rk?
            Or perhaps a Lunatic G*rm-anic virus?
            I think its the 2 one.
            Your hate of greeks shows you are a loser.
            Greeks kept the roman spirit, while your ancestors were iliterate G*rmoids.
            Lol.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Don't you have to pay back your debts to those germanoids, gabrielois sarantepechos?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nah, modern greece is cucked.
            But that has nothing to do with East Rome.
            Also you think Germans nowadays have something in common with ancient germanics?
            Lol.
            Germany stopped being germanic when they destroyed the HRE, everything else is Bismark shit.
            So your point is moronic since modern Germans are not germanics, idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >modern Germans are not ancient germanics
            It's baffling that you're able to admit this but you can't admit that byzantines were not romans. You're either trolling every sucker who's replying to you or genuinely moronic

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you see the germanics in modern Germans?
            Because i dont actually see it idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also Germany not being germanic has nothing to do with the Eastern Romans being actual romans, idiot.

            Alright you got me Alexios. Your troll was elaborate and well played.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nah, that was not a troll but ok.
            Im correct though, Eastern Romans were actual Romans and you guys are coping with the reality of that.
            So cope, and remember:East rome equal Rome.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >that was not a troll
            Kek. I hope you get help for your severe mental moronation and cognitive dissonance michaelos

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why?
            For stating reality?
            In my opinion it should be all of you that should do that.
            You keep saying nonsense about history and shit.
            You are all insane idiots.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can never win against a brown troll, they have all day to shitposts while most of us have to actually work or have real hobbies to spend time on lol

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Isn't that actually good, though?
            Why should i be ashamed of not having a job, to be a slave to society?
            It's actually great, you should try it.
            Also i already said, that was not a troll, im right on the Eastern Romans being actual romans, and you guys are just coping with the reality of that.
            So cope, G*rmoids.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also Germany not being germanic has nothing to do with the Eastern Romans being actual romans, idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Modern Krauts cluster right by Danes, cope however you like brownoid.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why yes I am an aryan chad with 100% pure bavarian phenotype, how could you tell? Cope and sneed gay shitskin lmao.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Aryan chad"
            Lol, you mean the aryan filthy illiterate barbarians?
            That's what your "Aryan chad" looks like in reality, and not memes.
            Greeks instead are actual chads, that kept the roman spirit while your ancestors were iliterate G*rmoids.
            Lol.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Muh Roman spirit!
            >Is actually Anatolian mystery meat mutts
            >Loses all of Greece and is populated by Slavs despite outnumbering the Bolgars 8 to 1
            >Loses to Muslim goat herders despite outnumbering them 3 to 1
            >Goes out of their way to pay multiple amounts over what they pay their troops to hire white barbarians
            >These white barbarians become a sex icon throughout Byzantium
            >Gets fricked up by a small band of Crusaders numbering around 10,000 while having 50,000 soldiers
            >Gets fricked up by Norman led shitalians multiple times that they paid tribute to the Italian Normans, Bulgars, Turks to not raid their lands
            >We wuz rome n sheet because despite uprooting all her traditions, some of our offices had names that vaguely sounded lime their old titles
            Pathetic, even dirty Albanians managed to wreck the Turks multiple times

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And still even with all of that, it was the greeks who where the true romans.
            That, dosen't, change, anything, i said.
            Just because they had some bs, happening in their history doesn't mean they stop being Romans, idiot.
            How about i list, all the bs that happened to the franks, how would you feel, then?
            Probably bad right?
            So stop listing, bs, that doesn't even change what i said, idiot.
            So cope, you B*rbarian moronic G*rmoid.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why does it matter? The Roman Emperor moved the capital to New Rome (Constantinople). They also did own Rome itself at one point and appointed their own popes.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, you don't understand what Rome is as a civilization if you say this

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It is bizarre to say something this overwhelmingly stupid, yes. It's like saying you can't be a Frenchman unless you live in a polity that governs Paris. When in reality you don't need that or even any knowledge of the language to be French, you simply need to be French.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not in the slightest. Rome is a culture, a spirit even. Roman isn't where you are but what you do.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So the Ottoman Empire was Rome since the Sultan claimed to usurp the title after Byzantium fell?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you dont know the implications of what you are saying, It is tantamount to a Wignat view of history, the change in capitol, symbol, and culture were not for nothing. America no longer exists, America was not founded with DC as the capitol, Canada was not founded with Ottawa as the Capitol.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Are you dumb or something? The US is Washington DC and Canada is Parliament House. Not having these things prevents you from being able to call yourself American or Canadian. It's why Texan exists and why Yukoner exists.

          You absolutely cannot be America without Washington DC and the US Capitol Building as your seat of government. This was proven in 1864.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Meanwhile the west calls the Aachenian Empire the “Holy Roman Empire”

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Pope said so.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't remember what they had it labeled or not but i dont even recall the term being shown in a history book at any point during my school years aside from ap european history. as far as i know in america standard roman history ends at 476 and the east as a whole beside the glancing pass at classical greece is very nonexistent

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Based Putin. He knows Byzantine is just a term some autistic German made up so the Germans could continue larping as Romans.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The term didn't become popular until after the Greek War of Independence, after which it became unfashionable to use "Greek" as a racial slur.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The thing that has always cracked me up about Tucker and /misc/s attraction to him is his dad was a legit CIA agent that worked in Operation Mockingbird.

    Why do /misc/tards ignore this?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The thing that has always cracked me up about Tucker and /misc/s attraction to him is his dad was a legit CIA agent that worked in Operation Mockingbird.
      Putin mocks him in the interview about Tucker trying to join the CIA and getting kicked out (allegedly)

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >claim to be Roman
    >Can't even speak Latin

    what did they mean by this

    Unironically Romanian gypsies have more claim to Roman ancestry since they maintained the language despite linguistic isolation

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Greek was spoken in the roman empire, since Rome conquered Greece, dude.
      You think they were speaking latin in Greece in the 1st Century?
      No they were speaking greek not latin.
      So this "you need latin to be rome" is just moronic idiot.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wait until you tell him that all the aristocrats spoke fluent Greek and most of the contemporary histories were written in Greek. Everyone ignores Caracalla's edict as well.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >By the time of Marcus Aurelius, Greek was already being phased out of the educational elite in favor of Latin only philosophy and translations
        >Nuh uh TRUE ROMAN BVLLS SPOKE GREEK
        An Italian, Spaniard, Romanian, Portuguese, and Frenchman to this day can vaguely understand each other when spoken to. Yet your moronic Black person monkey "True Roman Successor" is an incomprehensible cryptic mess known only to the peculiarities of their own local mountain Black person dialects.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Did most Franks speak latin, or their own local languages?
          Why is the "Latin Greek" thing so important, if barely any franks, could read latin.
          Did you know charlemagne, couldn't even read, he barely read the bible, in latin, he was mostly illiterate his whole life.
          At least the East Romans were literate, even with greek and not latin.
          The franks could barely read "muh latin" lol.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Constantinople sent tutors to Charlemagne to try and teach him to read and write but eventually gave up because he was moronic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly.
            "Muh latin"
            "Muh we control rome"
            Is all these people have.
            Its kind of pathetic, they even call me "Byzaboo" or "Trannie" for acknowledging reality, lol.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is the "byzantine empire" lol. Its just roman empire.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Exactly.
      I dont know why These people dont get, it was the same state.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah what about 700 years later. It became effectively a different entity. It stopped owning Rome very early. Also, the greek-gothic war destroyed Italy's economy for centuries

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah what about 700 years later
        And 700 years before 476 Rome was a mercantile republic fighting Hannibal. The Dominate would have been totally unrecognisable to a republican observer.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >And 700 years before 476 Rome was a mercantile republic fighting Hannibal
          And?
          A senate still existed under Odoacre and goth invaders. A senate no longer existed in Rome after Byzantine invasion

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes you stupid Black person that's why people say the roman empire was different from the roman republic. They don't perform mental gymnastics like byzantine larpers and pretend like nothing changed in the customs followed during the roman empire under trajan and the """"roman"""" empire under the komnenoi

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's morons like you that don't understand that states change.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >pretend like nothing changed in the customs followed during the roman empire
            There was a greater difference between Trajan's empire and Constantine's than between Constantine and Justinian's.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Rome wasn't the center to Roman empire after Constantinople. But the civilization still continued thriving. It didn't get deposed. It didnt get destroyed by another civilization. It didnt decline into nothing. It survived. It began to decline century after century due to various conditions, but it was still roman empire. Just a lot weaker/smaller

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty sure the name "Byzantine" empire exists is because "Holy Roman Empire" exists. Holy Roman Empire, aka Germany's influence in historical naming is what caused the naming shift. You cant have 2 roman empires. One must be illegitimate. Its ofcourse not the German empire. Its the Byzantines who are not Roman.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    His speaking facts, but his wrong about Moscow being the 3rd Rome

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The east coast gets overun by Canadians, the USA continues in California and eventually comes to speak Spanish, do they cease to be American because the capital is no longer in Washington?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A more accurate comparison would be if Britain was conquered and India or some other colony reverted to native rule while calling itself the British Empire.

      [...]
      [...]
      [...]
      You are all stupid.
      It dosent matter how much a state changes though history, its still the same state.
      Appling some of the logic you all have, nothing beyond the roman kingdom/republic, would be considered roman, so no east rome,and specially no roman empire.
      So if we apply the "Byzantine" logic you have, you are all saying the roman empire is not the roman empire but another thing.
      Which is beyond moronic.
      If the roman empire was the roman empire, then the east romans were actual romans.
      If you say otherwise you are also saying roman empire was not roman, because only kingdom/republic can be roman.
      So drop all this bs logic, and just admit 5hat the east romans that controled Constantinople (A city founded by a Roman emperor in a era where rome was still united) was roman, that the east romans were romans.
      You understand now?
      Or do i have to repeat myself?
      Fricking idiots.

      You're extremely moronic.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "You're extremely moronic"
        I migth be, but i am right and you know it, you are all coping because the "Byzantine" "We wuz the true romans HRE" "We control rome, you dont" (As if that matters) and "Muh latin" things are not working anymore.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >you are all coping because the "Byzantine" "We wuz the true romans HRE"
          No one thinks the HRE is the same thing as the Roman Empire.
          >"We control rome, you dont" (As if that matters)
          What matters is that it was populated and ruled by Greeks instead of Romans.
          I agree that Byzantine is a somewhat inaccurate name, it should simply be called the Greek empire.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "No one thinks the HRE is the same thing as the Roman Empire."
            What?
            People in this thread actually think that.
            Have you seen this thread even?
            Nah greek empire is also a bad name, just call them romans or Rhomaioi, because that's what they actually were.
            As for the city of rome thing.
            Who cares?
            The east always had provential capitals independent of the west, and the empire changed capitals even before Constantine's Constantinople (Ravenna, or mediolanum are examples of that)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What?
            >People in this thread actually think that.
            I haven't gone through every single post, but quickly searching "HRE" and "German" just shows Byzaboos bringing it up as if anyone who doesn't think Byzantium is the same thing as Rome must therefore think that the HRE is.
            The HRE was a German empire, and Byzantium was a Greek empire. Just because they had some continuity with ancient Rome doesn't mean either can be considered the same state.
            >Nah greek empire is also a bad name, just call them romans or Rhomaioi, because that's what they actually were.
            Calling them Roman would imply that they're the same people as ancient Romans, which they were not.

            >What matters is that it was populated and ruled by Greeks instead of Romans.
            Who ruled the Roman Empire after the 3rd Century? Who made up the vast majority of Roman citizens after Caracalla?

            It goes back to the example I gave earlier, of British colonies without Britain. Even with some administrative continuity it couldn't be considered the same entity.

            "Greek empire" is a very bad name because the hellenic national identity was based on ancient greece not medival eastern rome, and the hellenic identity was a product of the Greeks revolution.
            Therfore the East romans were not greek, since they wre not hellenic, hellenic was how they referred to the past, to Alexander's time or to pre roman controled greece.
            Again just call them romans or Rhomaioi, because that's what they actually were.

            Rhomaioi works as long as you're not just using it as a synonym for Roman, which you are.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What matters is that it was populated and ruled by Greeks instead of Romans.
            Who ruled the Roman Empire after the 3rd Century? Who made up the vast majority of Roman citizens after Caracalla?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Greek empire" is a very bad name because the hellenic national identity was based on ancient greece not medival eastern rome, and the hellenic identity was a product of the Greeks revolution.
            Therfore the East romans were not greek, since they wre not hellenic, hellenic was how they referred to the past, to Alexander's time or to pre roman controled greece.
            Again just call them romans or Rhomaioi, because that's what they actually were.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A more accurate comparison would be if Britain was conquered and India or some other colony reverted to native rule while calling itself the British Empire.
        Not really. Constantinople was made capital by the Roman Emperor, the inhabitants were Roman citizens who were goverened by the same institution as anyone else in the empire.
        >bu-but rome
        The Dominate barely had anything to do with the city itself. The ruling elite were Illyrian, Diocletian hated the place and it wasn't a seat of government. The Senate was a glorified town council after the Third Century and was totally irrelevant whether you were in Italy or Constantinople.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A more accurate comparison would be if Britain was conquered and India or some other colony reverted to native rule while calling itself the British Empire.
        This works if you include a 2nd British monarch ruling India for 200 years

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >This works if you include a 2nd British monarch ruling India for 200 years
          Do you honestly think people would laugh any less if a bunch of bong led indians called themselves the british empire after separating from britain?

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "byzantium" was Rome until at least 1200s

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, call them romans or even greeks but the byzantine thing is no less nonsensical than calling them aliens

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He's right about trannies.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And yet it was the forefather of Russ (the Scythians) who invented transgenderism. Curious.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    BASED
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow,_third_Rome

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >3rd
      Are we witnessing the birth of the Fourth Reich?

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Putin represent the average IQfytard well

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think the HRE and ERE are both legitimate Roman successor states, just rivals. One is the spiritual successor and one is the temporal successor. Note, both aspects equally important

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, to say it more accurately, one is the same state (East Rome) while the other is a powerful succesor (HRE).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What is a temporal successor if not just a continuation of essential material with some slight changes to certain aspects? A succession can certainly be dramatic but I believe when we are talking about states it can be gradual shift. The French Republic is not the French kingdom, but neither is the United Kingdom of today the United Kingdom of yesterday

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Its the lineage whats important.
          East romans are the same state that Constantine Augustus Ceasar controled changed and lived in.
          The hre, is instead a complite succesor to the lost western roman territory of the west.
          Thats the difference between the 2.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >muh lineage
            This is the same moronic line of reasoning and pilpul that tradcaths and ortholarpers have here. They disregard all differences or similarities and cry about lineage. You're clearly a byzaboo christcuck with cognitive dissonance

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "muh linage"?
            "??????"
            Are you moronic?
            I dont even care if tradcaths use the same reasoning, im actually correct.
            Do you just dismiss and argument just because its similar to an argument someone else's uses in a different topic?
            You are literally moronic if you do that.
            Try to explain East Rome without using "muh linage" in a way that makes sense, ill wait.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are a moron. An affront to humanity and intelligent life. You disregard all the cultural, political, religious and militaristic changes that differentiate the roman empire with your pet rump state. No matter how many times you cry about it, your rump state will never be the real rome

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mirror your statement.
            In fact you are worse because you dont even understand a historical state, so easy to understand, that even morons should do it.
            You are worse than those morons.
            Here explained for people like you:
            East rome equal rome, differences dont matter and they are the same state, same people and same culture to the roman one you know.
            Understand now?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >one is the same state (East Rome) while the other is a powerful succesor (HRE).
        Rome died with the city Rome. Greekoids larping as Romans changes nothing

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But greek or not greek, eastern Rome is the same state as Rome, you actually can't deny that, even if you wanted.
          So yeah, Eastern Romans equal Rome, while HRE, equal not rome but good succesors though.
          Understood?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >if I say it enough it'll be true

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >eastern Rome is the same state as Rome
            A Rome without a Roman Emperor and a Roman Senate is not Roman, sorry

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "A Rome without a Roman Emperor and a Roman Senate is not Roman, sorry"
            What?
            But they had that, the emperor was called Baliseus, and they actually had a roman senate.
            So you are not even close to being correct there.
            And yes, the Eastern Romans were Romans you can't deny that.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, but he's saying that because Moscow's identity as the Third Rome relies on the perceived continuity from Constantinople, which is not accurate.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Byzantinegays are the ultimate midwits. They think they're geniuses for knowing that Byzantium was the Eastern Roman Empire, but are too dumb to realize the economic, political, and cultural differences between the Roman Empire of antiquity and the Byzantine Empire of the middle ages warrants a different academic term. Not to mention the moronic narrative that Byzantine is some kind of derogatory or dismissive term in the west. Take any class on Byzantium and you'll get the same spiel about them being Eastern Rome. Really it just shows that no internet byzantinegay has ever taken any kind of serious interest in Byzantine history. They just play paradox games where they fantasize about beating up turks or catholics or whatever.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Do you really think we don't notice you're a Turk

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >byzgay gets btfo
        >uhhh ur a turk
        You're just proving that your entire understanding of Byzantium comes from paradox games

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm sure I did

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ok bro, that's just not even reality anymore.
      Wtf did even you wrote?
      What world are you from?
      Because from what i see, its the opposite, "Byzantinegays" are actually pointing out a problem with historical discussion while moronic historically iliterate people go "But they weren't romans, because rome, they don't have rome, or" muh latin" "Or HRE" nonsense.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      People who think Byzantium wasn't actually like late Rome are the ones who've only played Paradox games or all they know about Rome is white marble statues and temples.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It was just a continuation of the Dominate polity. They hate it because it was too similar to late-antique Rome.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >similar
          Wrong word friend
          It WAS

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Byzantine is a stupid term because it tries to erase the dominant ethnicity of the Empire and fill in the blank space with nothing. There was no "Byzantine" race. This is objectively the purpose of the term Byzantine and why it came to prominence in the 19th century, if you disagree you're just ignorant. If you don't want to call them Romans, then call them Greeks. But as far as I'm concerned Greek culture didn't really survive antiquity.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The picture that broke IQfy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry I posted the wrong picture here

      Pic related is it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You post that as if we don't have Roman mosaics lmao

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is there any evidence that Byzantines cared about the history of Rome?
    Surely they had a ton of statues and stuff celebrating things like the myth of Romulus and even moreso actual history like the victory of Scipio Africanus against Hannibal and other such events which defined Rome.
    IF Byzantgays can prove Byzantines actually gave a shit about the real Rome they could just maybe be considered descendants of Rome in some sense.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Watch this video and learn.
      Channel name:https://youtube.com/@toldinstone?si=55f4dzY8fw5XmBWr
      Search Video "Byzantine knowledge of Roman history"

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Threadly reminder the Henry VI of the HRE made the Byzantines pay him tribute. The Byzantines payed this tribute by plundering the tombs of their emperors. So much for reverence for Rome.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      After the fourth crusade

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >they didn't own Rome

    Constantinople was more like Rome than Rome was after the fall of western Rome

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's an argument for why it should be called the Constantine empire instead of the Roman.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Insisting on any concrete, bright line of uninterrupted continuity and perpetual essence of a state or empire, in re Rome, or "China", or Rus' or whoever,

    is basically nothing but feels. It's almost a mystical essentialism. Yeah this is still Theseus' ship except it's a hot rod now. History is complex and societies are complex. We can call them whatever we want, but a millennium later if you're pretending it's still literally the same "thing" then you're a delusional who can't be assed to recognize that the taxonomy of culture is a study aid, not a brute fact of nature

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you have to follow up a claim with “in (X) we know this” then your claim is most likely bullshit

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, yeah pretty much, but the Western Roman empire still held a seat to this especially after tge split from Rome in spiritual matters. If anything the last emporer of the East who concerted to Catholicism and essentially died in martyrdom was the last nail in which all spiritual and physical rites of the Roman empire were split across claimants of Europe.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    American political dialogue: CHYNA RUSSIA GAY RACIST BLACK

    Eurasian political dialogue: Two hours of history and philosophy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      t. self loathing american.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >t. self loathing Chicano
        ftfy.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When did the Roman/Byzantine distinction take root in the Western mind? Bede still refers to the Byzantine Emperor as the Roman Emperor in his Ecclesiastical History of England written in the early 8th century.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >people made mistakes in the 8th century too
      woah mind blowing stuff right here

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      After the fall of Constantinople is when we see "Byzantine" first used, and then spread like wildfire.
      Its the reason i hate it, too.
      Its like: Now that you finally fallen, we are going to retroactively destroy your roman legacy with a nonsensical word "Byzantine".
      And propogate the "only if you control rome, you can be rome" idea/myth when that didn't exist in the minds of the east romans since they saw their capital (Constantinople) as a kind of "Nova Roma" a new rome, upholding everything about rome, with only slow changes that in centuries became big.
      But that doesn't mean that they weren't Romans and everyone here arguing otherwise is just coping with the fact that the:
      "Byzantine" "We wuz the true romans HRE" "We control rome, you dont" (As if that matters) and "Muh latin" things are not working anymore.
      There all g*manic idiots.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think the ERE, WRE, and HRE were all inheritors of the Roman legacy. They were all Rome.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, they were all the succcessors of Rome's, but not "The literal romans" that title belongs to the East Romans, because they we're literally the same state as Rome.
          So there's is a difference between being "A successful successor" and "Literally the same state"
          The east romans we're literally just the same state as Rome.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They were not literally the same state as Rome. They were literally a different state than Rome. The only position which has been present in Roman history throughout all its history is the Pontifex Maximus.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They were not literally the same state as Rome. They were literally a different state than Rome.
            they literally x2 were

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Correct. They all evolved into something. As Rome itself did numerous times.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes but the thing is that no one disputes that.
            The thing is, that there is a difference between being "A successful successor" that takes on the role of the lost west romans, so the (HRE), and a state that's literally the same state as the Roman's (East Rome) no one is disputing the impact the Franks, or Holy Roman Empire had in Europe, but if we speak about who (in terms of lineages) was the true rome, then that can only be the one that's the same state as rome, so the East romans, and not the franks.
            The holy Roman empire was good, but it was not "Literally rome" in the way the east romans were, and its important to acknowledge that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not as straight forward as that because the "state" of Rome stopped being important with the end of the Republic. In the end the Pope, not even the Emperor, was the most powerful authority of the Roman Empire and therefore the translatio imperii is the most legitamate succession of the imperial powers of the Roman Empire itself.

            The only way to argue is to say Rome ended when Ceaser crushed the republic and there is no successor. If you want to talk only about the remnants of the Roman Empire then the only continuous aspect of it which still exists to this day is the power of the Pope to crown the Roman Emperor.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not as straight forward as that because the "state" of Rome stopped being important with the end of the Republic. In the end the Pope, not even the Emperor, was the most powerful authority of the Roman Empire and therefore the translatio imperii is the most legitamate succession of the imperial powers of the Roman Empire itself.

            The only way to argue is to say Rome ended when Ceaser crushed the republic and there is no successor. If you want to talk only about the remnants of the Roman Empire then the only continuous aspect of it which still exists to this day is the power of the Pope to crown the Roman Emperor.

            Also to be clear I'm not disputing your point in general. The question is the same as "who is the true Korea, North or South?" ultimately the answer is that stalled conflicts are gay and should never be allowed to happen.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I agree on the korea thing.
            But its not really comprable to the Rome-East rome case.
            The thing about that, is that the east romans can trace back their state to the republic/kingdom.
            So to Ceasar, Augustus, or Constantine.
            The Franks can't do that, apart from some royal families of VERY distant Gallo-Roman origins.
            So their state was a new one, Based on the roman empire, but not the Roman's themselves.
            Since the Roman's still existed.....
            In the East.
            That's the difference between the two.
            The East romans can prove there's state is the same state that Ceasar or Constantine had.
            The Holy Romans germanics can't do that, since the evidence proves to actually being a New State, not the same one, but a succesor state.
            Thats the difference between the Franks (HRE) and Actual Rome (East Rome).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Their state is not the same state which Caesar had. Augustus' principiate has genuinely modified the constitution.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why isn't then the empire considered a different state to Ceasars republic, then?
            By that logic we sould do that, and give them a new name like "Agustintene"
            See what i did there?
            Why do we only apply the "They are not actually the same state" to the so called "Byzantines"?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because there was an institutional continuation between the state of Augustus and the Roman republic. The Roman senate was still in office and the Roman Pontificate was still in office. What Roman republican institutions were found in the East?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There was also a institutional continuation between Constantine's rome and Hereclitus rome, as well.
            So i don't get your logic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But to my knowledge there is no institutional connection between the republic and the late Byzantine Empire. The republic was the most genuine expression of the Roman spirit before it got corrupted by influences of eastern despotism (deification of the Emperor, cultural import). For a Roman state it does not suffice to draw traditional lines which follow a cultural import into Roman culture.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah but i dont care about so called "Roman spirit" "Eastern depotism" all im saying, is that if you look at it objectively, there's is no arguments to be had that the East romans we're not LITERALLY the same state as Rome.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't care that the only thing connecting your LARP with the actual thing is a cultural import from Babylon/Egypt/Persia
            Fair enough, but don't expect me to take seriously what you have to say.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Didn't follow any of the Roman institutions "
            What?
            Senate, contiuation of religion from Constantine, statues, roman calendar, magister millitum, are you insane?
            How did they not follow any roman institutions?????

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They had a senate, but it was not the Roman senate.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also Constantine office is a cultural import and the magister militum is a military office founded by this cultural import and has nothing to do the republic at all.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nta, but saying that there is no istitutional connections is disingenuous; there is unquestionable continuity of the roman state from the early republic to the "byzantine" state

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What instituion is it then?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The senate, consulships, administration etc; you are making the dumb argument that the early form of the empire is roman vecause it has continuity with the republic; but magically that same empire becomes something else despite it being the direct continuation of the previous one

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >senate, consulships, administration
            But here is the thing: in the east these Institutions are not linked to the city of Rome at all. Imagine setting up a new city council and just saying: yeah we are the city council of New York now. And when somebody asks about legitmacy you say: the king of America gave us the authority.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But "Constantinople" literally meant "NOVA ROMA" to the Eastern Romans.
            So this "You need rome, to be rome" is just moronic, when they had rome, its called new rome, Constantinople.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But "Axewound" literally meant "NOVA VULVA" to the Eastern Discords.
            +You are misusing the word literally.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the east these Institutions are not linked to the city of Rome at all.
            How are they not related? A senate made in the way of the one in rome by a roman emperor with senators coming and goingfrom the two ; also what about consulships? The military ranks, administration? Those are directly liked to rome not to mention that the imperial institution itself is directly linked with the one in the west. You are just grasping at nothing

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What Roman republican institutions were found in the East?
            The Senate
            Praetors
            'Tribes' within Constantinople
            The Legal system

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The Senate
            not the Roman senate
            >Praetors
            not Roman praetors
            >'Tribes' within Constantinople
            clearly not Roman either.
            Would you equate Syracuse with Corinth as well?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The thing about that, is that the east romans can trace back their state to the republic/kingdom.
            >So to Ceasar, Augustus, or Constantine.
            >The Franks can't do that, apart from some royal families of VERY distant Gallo-Roman origins.
            >So their state was a new one, Based on the roman empire, but not the Roman's themselves.
            Do you mean geaneologically? Salian law is not a Roman law unless you want to call the HRE Roman here. Patrilinear descent was never a required for becoming an Emperor in the original Roman Empire.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No i dont mean genealocly, i mean there state was the SAME state that Augustus Ceasar Trajan or Constantine had, lived, created, changed, and where emperor's in.
            It just lost territory and survived in the east.
            But they were the same state as Constantine's rome had, just with less territories.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No i dont mean genealocly, i mean there state was the SAME state that Augustus Ceasar Trajan or Constantine had, lived, created, changed, and where emperor's in.
            Yes, and so is Western Rome.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Which "western rome"?
            The one that collapsed?
            Or the HRE, a new state in Europe after "West rome"?
            Because those are different things.
            Regardless because there was no "west rome" anymore, and the Eastern roman provinces survived, they therefore are the same state as the Roman's, just without the Western territories.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I still the Pontifex Maximus in a continuous line dating back to (alledgedly) St Peter and definetely to Ceasar.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The emperor was Pontifex Maximus, the pope just took the title for himself

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Emperors held this office for a couple of centuries, but it has existed before them and after them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The one that collapsed?
            >Or the HRE, a new state in Europe after "West rome"?
            They're the same state.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "There the same state"
            Oh are you sure?
            Then why the frick did the pope have to crown Charlemagne and give him the title "Emperor of the Romans", if they were already the same state?
            Are you moronic?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Charlemagne
            >HRE

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Charlemagne is proto HRE idiot.
            I know the name came later, but you went to pick that detail instead of addressing the my actual argument.
            Idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The real argument is: anyone claiming that the HRE actually is the same state as the classical Roman Empire is actually baiting and you're taking it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know whos baiting or not baiting.
            I just respond to the idiots going "muh hre" because i know some people are actually like that, actually believe that, understand now idiot?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he's regularly falling for bait
            If calling me idiot helps you coping, I'm not mad at you

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because the title of Pontifex Maximus was siezed by Stephen II in civil war. Therefore this was an internal continuation of Rome, much like how Ceasar took power from the Republic. There was no concept Salian law before, well, Salian introduced it. Which is why is any of the arguments concerning geneology is hilariously and stupidly ironic.

            The Eastern colonies were no more or less Roman than the Frankish provinces were. But Rome itself had the truest continuation in transitioning into the HRE and restoring order to the Empire.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But i dont even care about Salian law.
            Im not operating within that logic.
            If your state can't prove linage to rome, then you are not rome.
            The hre is not roman because it was created after actual "West rome" fell.
            The Eastern Romans are romans, because they are the provinces that survived the fracturation of the roman empire.
            Understand now?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But i dont even care about Salian law.
            >can't prove linage

            Fricking idiot. Lineage IS Salian law. Ancient Romans didn't have a notion like that for heads of state.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because its not Salian law,what im using, because im not using the Salian definition of lineage idiot.
            The definition im using is :Provinces are roman, stay roman for the fracturation of rome, and survive, therfore they are the true rome.
            Thats it, noting Salian about that.
            So shut up you idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >even if the city of Rome stops being Roman the provinces still remain Roman

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes?
            It actually makes sense.
            This "you need rome to be rome" is just moronic logic.
            If the Roman's eastern provinces survived, they are the true rome.
            What, do you NOT fricking understand about that?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wasted quads moron Byzanboo. The empire is a farce and the title of Emperor is inherently not Roman, but an oriental import. Rome=Rome. Period. It is a city one of whose colonies (Constantinople) claims to be the actual Rome. And this claim is laughable.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Provinces are roman,
            Including the Roman province controlled by the Frankish governers.
            >stay roman for the fracturation of rome, and survive, therfore they are the true rome.
            The East didn't stay Roman. They started speaking Greek again and had nothing in common with Ancient Rome.
            >Thats it, noting Salian about that.
            Then there is no "lineage", because your only argument of that is blood related. The East was not in Rome therefore it was not Roman. Simple as.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But the east was roman since the Roman's conquered Greece.
            Those provinces then break off, the west, but they continue with they own emperor's.
            So why are you still saying that they are not "roman"??????

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also "Muh why they speak dirty greek" is moronic.
            Greek was spoken in the roman empire, since Rome conquered Greece, dude.
            You think they were speaking latin in Greece in the 1st Century?
            No they were speaking greek not latin.
            So this "you need latin to be rome" is just moronic idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't understand Rome at all. Greece was NOT part of Rome after its conquest during the republican time. Rome was defined as that part of the world where Roman soldiers are only allowed during a triumph. Greece was a part of the Imperium which meant: ruled over by Rome.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And the imperial power of the Roman empire or the Imperium Romanum got transferred from Rome to Constantinople, to the east by Constantine.
            Since construction of Constantinople was literally meant to show the switch of power from the west to the east, to "nova roma", or to its more well know name "Constantinople".
            Your point?????

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The concept of the Emperor is not Roman but oriental. So the holder of an office which is not inherently Roman is able to define what Rome is. Why have you stopped deboonking my precious post?

            Ok let me break it down:
            -Syracuse is a colony of the city of Corinth
            -Constantinople is a colony of the city of Rome
            If Syracuse claimed to be the real Corinth, under what circumstances would I have to accept this premise?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You think Constantine didn't have to have the senate agree on such a important thing, like a new capital in the empire?
            Im sure some senators disagreed with him, but you can't tell me that he didn't have at least some senators backing the transfer of power, from rome to the east.
            So you are wrong and your idea of what rome was is actually moronic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No your idea that Rome is not Rome is moronic.
            +speculation about senators disagreeing without any evidence of a consultation on this issue.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah and?
            You actually fricking think Constantine didn't have at least a few senators backing his new capital????????
            You are moronic if you think that.
            Based on your posts, it makes me think that you think "Eastern despots" did everything themselves without atleast talking to the senate about it.
            Do you realize the senate was still there even in eastern rome?
            It was less relevant, sure bu you can't tell me Constantinople was created just because Constantine wanted it without any consultation of the senate in rome.
            Don't you think such a decision would have made him dead, had he did it whiout consulting the senate in rome????
            They would have killed him.
            So shut up you idiot.
            Your idea of Roman Emperor-Senate relations is beyond moronic, and you should just shut up. Ok?
            Fricking moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Roman senate was not there in eastern Rome, this was the senate of Constantine (or Byzantine senate if you wanna use the previous name of the town where it was fricking seated). And of course it's a flex move of the Emperor to just move the capital away from the unruly Rome into another town which has been picked for geographical reasons. Of course this move serves to reduce the power of the urban elite and the Latin landowners who have been dominant since the time of the republic. I don't know how the senate was involved in this move and you don't know neither.
            Even if the assembly of Corith would have agreed that we'll have to call Syracuse Corinth from now on it would not make Syracuse fricking Corinth.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "???????""
            The roman senate was absolutely there in eastern rome, the senatorial families that were in rome went to Constantinople when rome was sacked 3 times and ultimately fell.
            You are a moron if you dont get that the Eastern Romans senate was the same senate from the city of rome, the same senatorial familes.. Etc...
            There was 2 emperor's that ruled the empire in late Antiquity and the western ones were deposed while the Eastern ones continued to hold their positions.
            So i don't fricking get why you don't get, that the Eastern Romans, from Constantinople where the same romans, that survived, or fled to the Eastern provinces.
            The Eastern Romans were the same state as Rome.
            So shut up you idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I promise we're just the same as the city state on the other side of the known world
            >yeah we're real real Romans, the city we live in is a colony of the city of Rome
            >the council which is held here is the same as the council of our mother town

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, because Constantinople was considered a kind of "New rome".
            Why don't you understand that they were romans?
            Just because they didn't have rome?
            Why is that important?
            Rome had lost power as a city since diocletian.
            So i don't know why having a "new capital" means its now "Not roman"
            It's stupid and it doesn't make any sense.
            It's just drawing a line, just to draw a line.
            A line that doesn't even reflect reality.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Constantinople was a fricking colony founded by the holder of an office, which has been imported from oriental cultures. Rome is a city and used to be a city state which ruled over the mediteranian. One day this city state has lost its relevance and only this bastard child of an "Empire" which had nothing to do with Rome has been left. Frick your new capital. Frick your new Rome. Constantinopole will never be Rome but will always be a reminder of its decay.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "One day this city state has lost its relevance and only this bastard child of an "Empire" which has nothing to do with Rome has been left"
            You are wrong.
            That "Bastard child of an empire" you hate, is in fact Rome.
            Its ironic that you seem to love the highs of rome, but when the state still exists in the east, you try to destroy their connection to the rome you love.
            So cope you idiot, that "bastrd child of an Empire" is in fact the rome you love, brought to its limit as a state and you will never get the rome that you love again.
            So all you can do is see, the so called "Byzantines" and hate them.
            Its ironic, and pathetic for you to do that.
            When you could appreciate it for what they were.
            Actual romans that survived in the east.
            But you are a moron that is crying because his image of rome, is not there anymore.
            "Muh rome, that conquered the med, that's not my rome waaaa" "Muh frick your new capital" "muh your Constantinople will never be rome waaaaa"
            Pathetic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yoi go ahead and enjoy Transrome.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Go ahead and go cry now that your "Muh republican rome" "Muh senate" is not there anymore you moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And your Transrome has been ACKed by some turban perderasts. But that wasn't too bad I guess because by that time your "Romans" had nothing to do with the city of Rome and were turban pederasts as well. So now I can finally see your cope.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This wretch of a Sultan has besieged our city up to now for fifty seven days with all his engines and strength; he has relaxed the blockade neither day nor night, but, by the grace of Christ, our Lord, who sees all things, the enemy has often been repelled, up to now, from our walls with shame and dishonour. Yet now too, my brothers, feel no cowardice, even if small parts of our fortifications have collapsed from the explosions and engine missiles, as you can see, we made all possible, necessary repairs. We are placing all hope in the irresistible glory of God. Some have faith in armament, others in cavalry, might and numbers but we believe in the name of our Lord, our God and Saviour, and second, in our arms and strength granted to us by divine power.

            I know the countless hordes of the impious will advance against us, according to their custom, violently, confidently and with great courage and force in order to overwhelm and wear out our few defenders with hardship. They attempt to frighten us with loud yells and innumerable battle cries. But you are all familiar with their chattering and I need say no more about it. For a long time they will continue so and will also release over us countless rocks, all sorts of arrows and missiles, like the sand of the sea. But I hope that such things will not harm us; I see, greatly rejoice, and nourish with hopes in my mind that even if we are few, you are all experienced and seasoned warriors – courageous, brave, and well prepared. Protect your heads with shields in combat and battle. Keep your right hand, armed with the sword, extended in front of you at all times. Your helmets, breastplates and suits of armour are fully sufficient together with your other weapons and will prove very effective in battle. Our enemies have none and use no such weapons. You are protected inside the walls, while they will advance without cover and with toil.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            For these reasons, my fellow soldiers, prepare yourselves, be firm, and remain valiant, for the pity of God. Take your example from the few elephants of the Carthaginians and how they dispersed the numerous cavalry of the Romans with their noise and appearance. If one dumb beast put another to flight, we, the masters of horses and animals, can surely even do better against our advancing enemies, since they are dumb animals, worse even than pigs. Present your shield, swords, arrows, and spears to them, imagining that you are a hunting party after wild boars, so that the impious may learn that they are dealing not with dumb animals but with their lords and masters, the descendants of the Greeks and the Romans.

            You are well aware that this irreligious Sultan, the enemy of our holy faith, violated for no good reason the peace treaty we had with him and disregarded his numerous oaths without a second thought. Suddenly, he appeared and built his castle in the straights of Asomatosso so he might be able to inflict daily harm on us. Then he put our farms, gardens, parks, and houses to the torch, while he killed and enslaved as many of our Christian brothers as he found; he broke the treaty of friendship. He befriended the inhabitants of Galata, the wretches rejoice over this, as they are unaware of the parable of the farmer’s son who was roasting snails and said, ‘Oh stupid creature,’ etc.

            Well my brothers, since he started the siege and the blockade, every day he opens his fathomless mouth and is seeking an opportunity to devour us and this city, which thrice-blessed Constantine the Great founded and dedicated to the all holy most chaste Mother of God, our lady, Mary the eternal virgin. She became the Queen of Cities, the shield and aid of our homeland, the shelter of Christians, the hope and joy of all wishes to destroy this city, which was once proud and blooming like a rose of the field.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I can tell you that this city mastered the entire universe; She placed beneath her feet Pontus, Armenia, Paphlagonia, The Amazonian lands, Cappadocia, Galatia, Media, Georgian Colchis, Bosphoros, Albania, Syria, Cilicia, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Palestine, Arabia, Judea, Bactria, Scythia, Macedonia, Thessaly, Boeotia, Locris, Aetolia, Arcarnania, Achaea, the Peloponnese, Epirus, Illyria, Lykhnites, the Adriatic, Italy, Tuscany, the Celts, and Galatian Celts, Spain up to Cadiz, Libya, Mauritania, Ethiopia, Beledes, Scude, Numidia, Africa and Egypt.

            Now he wants to enslave her and throw the yoke upon the Mistress of Cities, our holy churches, where the Holy Trinity was worshiped, where the Holy Spirit was glorified in hymns, where angels were heard praising in chant the deity of and the incarnation of God’s word, he wants to turn into shrines of his blasphemy, shrines of the mad and false Prophet, Mohammed, as well as into stables for his horses and camels.

            Consider then, my brothers and comrades in arms, how the commemoration of our death, our memory, fame and freedom can be rendered eternal.”
            So cope, you idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And also one big difference: it's not "Roman" if it owns Rome. How can something be something it owns? Or how can something be something it doesn't own? You act like the important thing for an entity is to own Rome, but the important thing is for it to be Rome. The fact that you even think about something being Roman for owning Rome is truly barbaric.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t get how you people don’t understand that reality doesn’t exist in a permanent stasis

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's just a term for medieval rome
    it's really no different than calling egypt or persia with their dynastic names or even european kingdoms like elizabethan england
    acting like it's some kind of crazy revelation just shows that people didn't pay attention to their 9th grade history

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is great Britain the same as England?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        from the act of union until modern devolution, yeah pretty much

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So they are two different entities with different political structures? Do the people in England now follow the same values as they did under the British empire?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            previous poster didn't even claim the continuation beyon devolution

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Here's the main difference between the West and the East: the West evolved, it finally realised the Ancients were wrong about most things, then it built empires several times bigger than Ancient Romans could ever dream of. Around the same time Western Europe stopped speaking Latin the Enlightenment happened and old Roman laws were finally abandoned, Newton and Leibniz alone gave the world something far better and more powerful than every single Ancient philosopher and mathemtician combined.

    Byzaboos and Romanboos are both the same cloth of cuck. Obsessed about an old culture like the Scholastics were; and equally wrong about everything. Putin is a Scholastic cuck because his mindset is stuck in the low medieval ages, trying to appeal to Ancients to save him from the moronic moves he made.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The men who built those empires would kick you square in the nuts for insulting the Greco-Roman world like this.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Incorrect. Maximillian I and Charles V were the considered the first proto-Enlightenment rulers.

        The Ancients themselves would be disgusted by the Scholastics and marveled at the achievements of the successors.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is schizo tier revisionism. Charles V didn't hack Martin Luther to pieces with a broadsword when he had the chance and now fedoras think he's an apostolic father of their enlightenment religion. Atrocious.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Enlightenment has nothing to do with religious schisms.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            kek you don't even know your own history

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >your
            It's everyone's history because the Enligthenment was spread throughout the entirety of Western Europe through the men of letters and all modern states were in turn built either directly by or in the image of Western European states.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WTF i love third rome now westoids btfo

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Remember, the only reason we call it Byzantine is because of one man, even its western enemies when it existed didn't call it "Byzantine", they called it the Greek Empire. I don't hate the term byzantine, I think it's a pretty swell word but I still find it crazy that a single historian can wonder how people view it.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When people say "Rome" they think of the based classical polity not the failed greek shithole
    Simple as

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    My point is: the Emperor is not a genuinely Roman institution but a cultural import. He can't just relocate Rome to somewhere else.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You are already moving goalposts; you said it didn't have any continuation with the previous state

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        False I've said this:

        >doesn't care that the only thing connecting your LARP with the actual thing is a cultural import from Babylon/Egypt/Persia
        Fair enough, but don't expect me to take seriously what you have to say.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the roman empire isn't roman
          Whatever

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You call it Roman. I don't. Just realize that the Emperorship is not genuinly Roman. (not to be confused with the republican Imperium which is a property of certain Roman offices)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And it is absurd but you can have your fanfic

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No more substance left?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You just ignored it because it didn't fit your fanfic

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dude follow up the line of posts. All you'll find is you claiming me to move the goalposts, which I refuted and further downstream you'll end up with a post which you have deleted. So yes: no more substance.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >which I refuted and further downstream
            You didn't
            you'll end up with a post which you have deleted
            Corrrected typos; it was reposted
            You haven't touched the administration; military and political ranks; because it wouldn't fit your headcanon

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you haven't touched the administration; military and political ranks
            So basically each of Alexander's succesor states is literally Macedon?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Very moronic False equivalent.
            Alexander empire was essentially fragmeted when he died, and the diadochi essentially created their own state's from it, its a complite creation of new states its not the same state that Alexander had.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Has there been a major change in administration; military and political ranks?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Let's put it this way.
            Alexander was the last king of Macedonia.
            Everything else is post-madedonian royal dynasties, like the Ptolemeic royal line, which has nothing to do with Ancient Macedonia anymore, or the Seluchia royal line which has also nothing to do with Ancient Macedonia anymore.
            Understand now?
            They were new states, that had nothing to do with Macedon.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Absolutely correct and similarities in questions like military and political ranks or administration which these Diadoch states share with Macedon does not make them Macedon at all.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok republican genius.
            By your logic nothing past diocletian should be considered roman, because he became a dominus to the people and reduced "Muh senate" "Muh republican institutions" "muh emperorship is not roman" "Muh republic".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Pontifex Maximus remained relevant throughout history.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you a catholic?
            Why do you focus so much on "muh pontifex maximus", when the Eastern Romans were orthodox, with their own patriarchs in Constantinople, Antioch and other cities.
            Why is the "pontifex maximus" so important to you?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No I'm not Catholic, but the Pontifex Maximus is the only Roman institution which is still in office today

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, but what does that prove?
            Are you going to say, the typical thing people say, that being "Charlemagne was crowned by a pope, therfore HRE equal roman"?
            Because if you say that, then you aren't necessarily wrong, but it dosent disprove the idea that the Eastern Romans were the same state as the Roman's.
            While the HRE didn't have that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Of course the HRE was not the same state as Rome. But the HRE has been declared Roman by the only remaining continuous Roman institution.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, and?
            It still was not originally roman, it had to be given that title, while the Eastern Romans were always rome since the start.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            see:

            >The Senate
            not the Roman senate
            >Praetors
            not Roman praetors
            >'Tribes' within Constantinople
            clearly not Roman either.
            Would you equate Syracuse with Corinth as well?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They changed in the different centuries, yes...
            But they still were romans since the start.
            How else do you explain their existence???
            Im curious if you can try to explain them without saying "Because they (East Rome) were actually rome" which is the correct answer.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So it's fair to say that Syracuse could be considered the real Corinth if it was significantly more influencial and they claimed to be so?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *and claimed to be the real Corinth, just to be clear

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No its because the east was romanized since the Roman's conquered Greece, the east lost the western territories, but they kept the new capital(Constantinople) the religion, the culture, the emperor (Basileus) wars with persia, the greek and a bit of Latin that they lost with the centuries, and the daily life was similar enough to daily life in Christian rome (Like Constantine's rome).
            So why do you not get it?
            Why do you not get that they were absolutely Romans?
            The actual romans that survived in the east a 1000 years after the west fell?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok let me break it down:
            -Syracuse is a colony of the city of Corinth
            -Constantinople is a colony of the city of Rome
            If Syracuse claimed to be the real Corinth, under what circumstances would I have to accept this premise?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Eastern Romans were not the same state as the Romans, they did not even speak Latin. It's an Orthodox state.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "MUH LATIN"
            Did most Franks speak latin, or their own local languages?
            Why is the "Latin Greek" thing so important, if barely any franks, could read latin.
            Did you know charlemagne, couldn't even read, he barely read the bible, in latin, he was mostly illiterate his whole life.
            At least the East Romans were literate, even with greek and not latin.
            The franks could barely read "muh latin" lol.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Did most Franks speak latin, or their own local languages?
            Yes. All rulers and courtiers had to speak Latin. You were considered illiterate if you could only read/write in your native language, but not in Latin.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            anything past sulla is a homosexual and anti-roman

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Go kiss sulla's corpse ass you moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Based Republic enjoyer! Look into the concept of oriental despotism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Caesarism
            >oriental despotism

            What did whiteoids mean by this?

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's the point in arguing about eastern rome when in the end the ottoman sultan took the empire anyways
    Rightful this rightful that, the only right is the right of conquest and both parts of rome were conquered.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not only was Byzantium culturally Greek, they also adopted cringe oriental customs like having eunuchs and women run the country.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > they also adopted cringe oriental customs like having eunuchs and women run the country.
      That shit was happening in the west too, with women running Rome stretching back to Agrippina, Julia Vita and several members of the Theodosian family.

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Last emperor of the romans speech:
    Most noble leader, illustrious tribunes, generals, most courageous fellow soldiers and all loyal honest citizens! You know well that the hour has come: the enemy of our faith wishes to oppress us even more closely by sea and land with all his engines and skill to attack us with the entire strength of this siege force, as a snake about to spew its venom; he is in a hurry to devour us, like a savage lion. For this reason I am imploring you to fight like men with brave souls, as you have done from the beginning up to this day, against the enemy of our faith. I hand over to you my glorious, famous, respected, noble city, the shining Queen of Cities, our homeland. You know well, my brothers, that we have four obligations in common, which force us to prefer death over survival: first our faith and piety; second our homeland; third, the emperor anointed by the Lord, and fourth; our relatives and friends.

    Well, my brothers, if we must fight for one of these obligations, we will be even more liable under the command strength of all four; as you can clearly understand. If God grants victory to the impious because of my own sins, we will endanger our lives for our holy faith, which Christ gave us with his own blood. This is most important of all. Even if one gains the entire world but loses his soul in the process, what will be the benefit! Second, we will be deprived of such famous homeland and of our liberty. Third, our empire, renowned in the past but presently humbled, low and exhausted, will be ruled by a tyrant and an impious man. Fourth, we will be separated from our dearest children, wives and relatives.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    TLDR homosexual, don't VGH too much

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Then that means you are an moron, that can't even read a speech.
      Enjoy you non existent "Muh rome republic" "muh senate" moron.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I can only enjoy things that are alive right now
        you're VGHing again

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How else i would respond to your stupidity?
          You don't like the "Byzantines" because they don't fit your moronic image of rome you made (For some idiotic reason) in your mind.
          You are absolutely insane, and i hope you get the help you need, with your brain, because rigth now, all you posted is beyond moronic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And evenstill Rome is a city.

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This interview showed how Putin's a IQfytorian given absolute power, and it's going exactly as one would expect.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *