I cant stand the recent habit in Reddit, vidyas nerds and channels like Kings and Generals of calling the “Byzantine Empire” as "Easter Roman Empire", or even "Roman Empire"
There is a reason why in accademics proper roman history and byzantine historiy belong to complete differently accademics branches: even if the latter had a “succession” continuity with the former, it grew so different it was as different from classical Rome as were pretty much all the other medieval societies
By calling them “romans” you are not only dismissing what made the proper classical age Rome an unique civilization, but also deny the Byzantine society the right to be considered an indipendent society with an indipendent history of it's own, and force it to be considered the “not so glorious” sequel of Rome. Not to mention is borderline cultural appropriation from the greek people history, that always consider byzantium as more greek than roman
I know byzantine fanboys in video games like AOE 2 or Total War always rejected the term “byzantine” as a label and prefered “romans”. But “byzantine” is still an universally accepted accademic term, and should be used more often
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It’s a way of countersignaling the West/Latin Church/HRE/wypipo which redditors love to do for obvious reasons.
No they unironically think byzos were a full blow continuation of the roman history. I know it sound ridicolous but they legit think as such
They were the ones than back in the Medieval 2 times, screenched against CA for daring calling their beloved Roman Empire as "byzantines", to the point they wrote entire mods to turn them into romans, including the anacronistic habits to put two-headed eagles as banners in any playable timeframe before the rise of the Palailogos
>No they unironically think byzos were a full blow continuation of the roman history.
They were.
Indeed they were.
OP is a gay
>reddit reddit reddit reddit
i dont care, go back there
and claiming something that is universal knowledge (that byzantine was made up by a german a century after the actual country fell so he could seperate it from his HRE) makes me a byzboo?
>AoE
the byzantines in aoe2 build fricking mosques as temples, thats a much bigger concern than the name
holy shit this post, modders for a game that came out in 2006 make you seethe this hard that your butthurt redditor self felt the need to make this thread
and the mods that DO fix the name also tend to make this the case for every faction - every faction name is what they'd call themselves in that period. you fricking idiot
>the byzantines in aoe2 build fricking mosques as temples, thats a much bigger concern than the name
>he thinks Orthodox Churches are mosques because they have domes
HURR DE DURR DURR
this is easily one of the most moronic things I've ever read on LULZ
no, i know what im talking about
be blessed that you didn't touch that overrated pile of shit game worshiped by nostalgic imbeciles, or at least don't know that this is what their buildings looked like in the release
>t. cant sub 15m fast castle
Its a massive cope for the fall of rome. They know the western civilization shares many similarities to the downfall of rome. And they know it is because of the degeneration of the values that made us big. So they deny the fall existed, and project a healthy continuation of a multi cultured eastern rome society.
>a healthy continuation
being slowly chipped away until your empire consists of a well defended city while being an irl version of game of thrones is in no way healthy
That doesnt matter right now, what matters is that the narrative of the fall of rome is broken. The fall of constantinople can then be attributed to the church, who sacked the city and destroyed it. Sadly you have got to see these fanatics acting in a political manner, just like pol.
Byzantine is used because it is a historical term. It was also used in their histography not necessarily because it was true. Some prominent Byzantinists just refused to use the term Byzantine and only called them Roman. Even in the modern study the term Roman is used. People acknowledge Byzantine as a term of convenience, not because you can separate the Rome of antiquity from the Medieval Byzantine Empire.
The study of the Early Byzantine Empire is just clumped into Late Antiquity because it isn't really different at all from the Late Roman Empire and the term Byzantine is a rather pointless one because there was no change or shift in the rule of the state and creates meaningless separation. It was not a separate entity from Late Rome. You cannot look at the Byzantine Empire from an independent view and disconnect it from Rome. You cannot look towards the Greek states before Rome to model or help understand Byzantium with because it wouldn't make any sense. Legal, military and ceremonial practice came from the Late Romans and it has to be seen from that lens to understand it better.
In my country late antiquity is a strange beast that is often overlooked. Many roman history teachers are classicalboos that refuse to considered the roman history post Costantine as proper roman history and activelly stop their lesson around that timeframe, while Byzantine history teachers teach the late roman phase only as a prelude to their subject of interest, IE the proper greek empire from Heraclius onwards
Empire of the Greeks indeed
>the proper greek empire from Heraclius onwards
I don't get how it becomes a Greek Empire. They didn't suddenly just disband every Roman institution. Even with the Ecloga of Leo III was still disseminated with Latin. Heraclius was not a reformer. He was not an actor of great change within the Empire, he did not reform military, legal or administrative matters. Even his 'change' of title to Basileus was just an add on to his titles he already had. Imperator was still used well into the 10th century.
It's something that appeals to midwits.
>Reddlt
>Midwit haven
This is the correct answer.
OP yoiu're unironically a moronic fanboy who thinks somehow magically the roman empire turned from (your) republican free ideals to a despotic state overnight in 395/313.
Your knowledge on rome is so shallow you don't realize that already by the third century it was the same kind of despotic pseudo feudal state that the byzantine empire was
Your academic merits are so slim you seethe about videos on youtube not living up to some imaginary standard
Go watch gladiator and dilate
Kek look how the byzcels of the board immediately entered into butthurt mode. You hate me, because i told you the truth
Ok, prove my statements wrong.
Real academics consider roman and byzos separate fields. If ancient frence and medieval/modern french history are not splitted, this mean academics consider the history of France as a whole an unicum
If instead roman and byzantine history are completely separated, academic consesus consider them two different histories/subjects
I trust more the opinion of serious academics, rather than anonymoys byzos fanboys on a tibetan ironworks board who played too much AOE 2 and Medieval 2 Total War during their childhood
>Appeal to authority
Not an argument. What academics? What did these academics say? Your argument is worthless anyway considering there is such thing as Roman and Byzantine studies. The same there is Byzantine and Ottoman studies. It implies nothing.
>there is such thing as Roman and Byzantine studies
In the american "academics" at best, and americans shouldnt be allowed put their claws on any history field outside their own national history
I dont care if some of the byzos video-game fanboys in muttland managed to become lectors and impose their fanatical conviction than Rome and Byzantium are the same thing.
So you have no argument.
LoL thats you not even making the argument you think you are. Modern France is still considered the same country as medeivel france even if the formal subject of study in academia is different. You cant be a PHD on a piece of history that large you wouldnt be an expert.
>Haha, I can INSTANTLY WIN any INTERNET ARGUMENT by just stating my opponents are MAD! This is so EASY!
You're a failed troll. Everyone will remember you as an academic-wiener sucking gay that rages about cultural appropriation on fricking LULZ.
Proceed with your seething.
They more or less admitted to the LARP when they changed the official language to Greek
Greek was always the official language of the Roman empire
No it wasn't. It literally took until Theodosius II until the verdicts of courts could be given in Greek. This doesn't change that the entire court proceeding legally, had to be done in Latin.
Greek was a prestige language for Roman society and aristocracy which already had a heavily hellenized society and was the majority of the ERE courtesy of the Diadochi, Ptolemies, Athens, etc. So why the frick would they not change it to the official language when Latin kept getting vulgarized? Its not even tied to the continuation of the roman state.
Latin was never "vulgarized". Classical Latin was a literary language, common people have always spoken a more "vulgarized" version of the language of the elites. It doesn't matter if it was in Rome, Constantinople or Athens, this was same everywhere and continues to be the case.
>force it to be considered the “not so glorious” sequel of Rome
It was a hundred times more glorious than Old Rome in every aspect
>Not to mention is borderline cultural appropriation from the greek
Saw this line, refuse to read further.
Op is massive homosexual
>~~*academics*~~
Academics are homosexuals. The Roman Empire lasted from 27 BC to AD 1453. Cope, seethe, and dilate.
>triphomosexual
>accousing others of being dick suckers
Very bold from you
no one cares, g*rmoid
Frick off. On one side you have academics, than call Byzanties as such. on the other side you have Reddit, that exactly like you consider the Byzos romans. Which side do you choose, self proclaimed "based anons"?
>I'm right because I've made a claim and refuse to elaborate or provide evidence for it
Saying academics say so isn't an argument. You can show an Academics argument, but you don't. You just say 'Academics say so' which is about as meaningful as saying your friend said so. You provide no evidence and no argument besides saying that you're right and insulting everyone else.
There was never a single leader or citizen of the Roman Empire in the 1400s who called themselves "Byzantine". No such place by that name existed, because the line of succession in the Roman Empire wasn't interrupted.
>b-but some homosexual said
no
Not a single greek ever called himself greek, they always called themselves "hellenes". Why we use "greek" them?
Also it was interrupted. The throne was vacant during the reign of Irenes of Athens, a woman, and the line was interrupted again in 1204. One can say Palailogos were a simply successor state of the Empire
>Why we use "greek" them?
*do
*then
Yes, sorry for the mistakes
>they always called themselves "hellenes"
They literally called themselves Romans until the 20rh century. "Hellene" is a 19th century concept.
>The secular use of Hellene revived in the 9th century, after paganism had been eclipsed and was no longer a threat to Christianity's dominance
>Accounts from the 11th century onward (from Anna Komnene, Michael Psellos, John III Vatatzes, George Gemistos Plethon and several others) prove that the revival of the term Hellene (as a potential replacement for ethnic terms like Graikos and Romaios) did occur. For example, Anna Komnene writes of her contemporaries as Hellenes, but does not use the word as a synonym for a pagan worshiper
>After the fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders, Greek nationalism accentuated. Niketas Choniates insisted on using the name "Hellenes", stressing the outrages of the "Latins" against the "Hellenes" in the Peloponnese and how the Alfeios River might carry the news to the barbarians in Sicily, the Normans.[69] Nikephoros Blemmydes referred to the Byzantine emperors as Hellenes,[70] and Theodore Alanias wrote in a letter to his brother that "the homeland may have been captured, but Hellas still exists within every wise man"
>George Gemistos Plethon pointed out to Constantine XI Palaiologos that the people he leads are "Hellenes, as their race and language and education testifies",[77] while Laonicus Chalcondyles was a proponent of completely substituting "Roman" terminology for "Greek" terminology.[78] Constantine Palaiologos himself in the end proclaimed Constantinople the "refuge for Christians, hope and delight of all Hellenes".
More lies spreaded by the Byzcels. Thei considered their empire the legal continuation of Rome, but themselves as ethnically hellenic
cont.
>"Overall, the foreign borrowed name (Romans) had a more political than national meaning, which went hand in hand with the universalizing ideology of Rome that aspired to encompass all nations of the world under one true God"
Romans was synonymous with universalist ambitions to rule the entire World as vicary of God. It had nothing to do with ethnicity, because they tought the owner of the universal imperial title was not tied to this or that race. Costantinople was the Second Rome, so they tought God elected the hellenes as the new romans, after old Rome fell
didn't read
see
On 8 October 1912, during the First Balkan War, Lemnos became part of Greece. Some of the children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. ‘‘What are you looking at?’’ one of them asked. ‘‘At Hellenes,’’ the children replied. ‘‘Are you not Hellenes yourselves?’’ a soldier retorted. ‘‘No, we are Romans." the children replied.
>Slaves of the Ottomans continued to believe they were romans because Turks wanted to keep believing they defeated the might romans
So, it still proves my point? Thanks. I already explained why anatolian greeks after 1453 called themselves romans
Not him but the modern split between Hellene and Romioi as a demonym for Greeks came about during the Greek Revolution, when the ethnicity became divided about what course of action to take. The Western Party opted to call themselves Hellene, became the revolutionaries, in reference to the Classical period and associations with freedom, while the Eastern Party, favoured acting as a pressure group within the Ottoman Empire to secure better living conditions for the Greeks, and achieve what the Hungarians would in the Austrian Empire decades later. The Eastern Party kept calling themselves Romioi, and after the war established Greece as an independent state, Hellene came to mean any Greek within Greece.
The use of the term Hellene by the 11th century writers cannot necessarily be seen as a proof of ethnic identity. In Roman learned society to be a 'Hellene' was to be well learned in the Greek classics. Cicero was referred to as such but that does not make his ethnic identity Greek. He was a diehard Roman patriot. The earlier Constantine VII viewed the people who called themselves as Hellene's to be a weird sideshow, because as he says 'They are descended from the ancient Romans', he didn't understand why they would have a Hellene identity because as far as he saw they were Romans.
>The historian Attaleiates wrote a long comparrison between 'The ancient Romans' and his own 'Romans' to show that they did not live up to their ancestors.
>From Attaleiates 'History'
>The ninth century monk Euodios wrote on the martyrdom of forty-two military martyrs of Amorion killed by the Muslims who took the city in 838 and in his story had one of the saints speak 'To the Romans of old, who conquered the entire world'
>From Euodios' 'Fourty-Two Martyrs of Amorion'
>In the life of the Saint Elias the younger he is made to admonish an imperial general to restrain his men and to persaude him cites the examples of ancient generals including Scipio 'Who was also a Roman General'
>From 'Life of Saint Elias the Younger'
>In 589 the Bishop of Antioch Gregorios restored order to an army by addressing them as Roman men and to prove they are not 'illegitmate children' of their ancestors which included Romans from the Republic such as Manlius Torquatus.
>From Euagrious' 'Ecclesiastical history'
>Manuel Komnenos warned the German king Conrad not to pick a fight with the Romans as his own people whose ancient ancestors had conquered a large part of the globe.
>From Kinnamos' history
>A church liturgy for fallen soldiers dating probably from the tenth century and produced in the provinces, refers to the sanctifed heroes as the "offspring of Rome" calling them also the foundation of the patris and the entire genos.
>From Ketorakis and Mossay 'Un Office inedit'
>A hostile source reports when the Emperor Theophilios was going bald and decreed that "No Roman" should wear hair longer than below the neck; for this he invoked the practice of "the Roman ancestors, who wore their hair in this way."
>From Theophanes 'Continuatus'
>Constantine VII wrote that the Emperors after Heraclius 'Used Greek to an even greater degree and cast off their ancestral Roman language.'
>From Constantine VII's 'On the Themes'
Yea, but they thought they were Greek n shit.
Even if some of them called themselves romans, it was all LARPing. Everything of their society, culture, language, faith and so one was completelly different from what Rome was
If we should recognize and respect the denomination ancient cultures used for themselves, then we should called as "romans" even the people of the Holy Roman Empire, Russian Empire, and Ottoman Empire. All of them claimed they were romans too
Why we dont? Because in history you define previous civilizations with specific terms to split each others
If you think about classical Rome, you think about consuls, gods statues, legionaries, and so on
If you think about Byzantium, you think about purple robes, crosses, giant churches and bearded priests
Are they the same? No, and would disrespect them to claim as such
I don't know why you're still arguing when you already conceded.
>Everything of their society, culture, language, faith and so one was completelly different from what Rome was
Constantinople had a circus maximus, did it not? They were Christians, were they not? The Roman upper classes spoke Greek at home, did they not? Love how you have the double-think of "Greco-Roman culture" but when it's the Eastern Roman Empire "noooooo, it's totally different!11".
ERE carried on the Roman Empire's culture and institutions. WRE didn't. That they evolved in 1000 years is not an argument.
All things familiar to the junior western half of the empire before its fall. Its almost like something that lasts more than a thousand years changes. Americans today dont dress like george washington much less talk like him. Modern brits wouldnt be able to understand chaucer in conversation, and he is considered the father of english.
>Even if some of them called themselves romans
The sources I presented were not just wank of scholars. Why would a rural church liturgy refer to themselves as the 'Offspring of Rome'? Why would a Bishop appeal to a large mass of soldiers by referring to the Republican Roman figures and calling them their ancestors? Why would a law be made to the entire city of Constantinople and be justify the law by stating that they should follow the example of their Roman ancestors? These are appeals to a mass crowd of people and used to represent the majority of the population.
>even the people of the Holy Roman Empire, Russian Empire, and Ottoman Empire. All of them claimed they were romans too
No they didn't. The people in the HRE referred to themselves mostly by local identities like Bavarian, German and so on. Not Roman. The Russian Empire claimed to be the successor to the Roman state not that they were Romans. Neither did the Ottoman Empire, most people called themselves Ottomans.
>If you think about Byzantium, you think about purple robes, crosses, giant churches and bearded priests
All of which originated in the Late Roman Empire.
All culture is "LARPing" to some degree, the term has basically lost all meaning at this point
>If you think about classical Rome, you think about consuls, gods statues, legionaries, and so on
>If you think about Byzantium, you think about purple robes, crosses, giant churches and bearded priests
The popular image of Revolutionary era America and modern America are quite different. So lets say imagine that the United States partially collapsed, and before it did, the capital had been moved from Washington DC to California which had become the economic centre of the country. Then the country was administratively split into east and west with the eastern union falling apart not long after, but you still had an entity calling itself the United States of America based around California and the western states. Would that not be the legitimate USA because its different from George Washington's America?
>So lets say imagine that the United States partially collapsed, and before it did, the capital had been moved from Washington DC to California which had become the economic centre of the country. Then the country was administratively split into east and west with the eastern union falling apart not long after, but you still had an entity calling itself the United States of America based around California and the western states.
kek chicano feudal technocracy when?
No i would say the empire fragmented into two different empires.
>Holy Roman Empire, Russian Empire, and Ottoman Empire
non of those called themselves romans, they claimed to be roman successors( and with that I mean some individuals dared to dream up such a thing)
>If you think about classical Rome, you think about consuls, gods statues, legionaries, and so on
Oh yeah, theme park, popculture version of Rome
byzaboos BTFO
>anyone who doesn't defer to the authority of liberal academics is a redditor
Behold, the latin coper.
Seethe more, it was the Roman Empire and Greeks called themselves Romans until the 20th century.
Anatolian slaves of the Ottomans called themselves as such, becase Ottomans wanted to LARP into existence their false believe they destroyed the roman empire
Mainland greeks always called themselves greeks, and even Turks recognized they were "something" else from the anatolian greeks, hence why they were usually called "Yunans" (from "ionians")
cope
I didnt said they didnt used "roman". I simply state it was a religious/political identification, not a ethnic one. All citiziens of the Empire were considered romans, regardless of their race
>it was a religious/political identification
>All citiziens of the Empire were considered romans, regardless of their race
I'm glad you agree that the Roman Empire lasted from 27 BC to AD 1453.
Just like any citizien of the HRE was considered Roman. Which of the two empires had that right?
>Just like any citizien of the HRE was considered Roman.
Yet they referred to themselves as "Deutsche"
HRE wasnt even used for the first few centuries of its existence, they thought of themselves either as their individual states people, like brandenburg, or austria. Or earlier it was east francia, and eventually they were germans, deutsche
Then why did they call their language "the Roman language" (or more like "Romanese", in Greek)?
All of modern Greece was slave to the Ottomans you dumbass. That some were slaves for an extra 100 years is irrelevant. Even now Balkan Turkey is called Rumelia, reflecting its Roman origins. The Turks called the "Byzantine Empire" Rum.
And at least "Roman" is historically attested. Read Maurice's Strategikon or any other Eastern Romance works (pic related), where it is called the Roman Empire and Roman Emperor. When did they ever call themselves "Byzantine"?
>Laonicus Chalcondyles was a proponent of completely substituting "Roman" terminology for "Greek" terminology
This substitution implies that the "Roman" terminology was the standard. You just defeated your own non-argument
When the Western Roman Empire fell was when Roman history ended.
The east are just Greeks who larp as Romans.
>By calling them “romans” you are not only dismissing what made the proper classical age Rome an unique civilization, but also deny the Byzantine society the right to be considered an indipendent society with an indipendent history of it's own, and force it to be considered the “not so glorious” sequel of Rome.
First of all, they called themselves Romans. Secondly, that which is to be labeled Roman is only labeled as such because it is/was something common or unique among Roman society. An apple can be described as apple flavored because we call that fruit apple and said fruit has a flavor particular to itself. Apples wouldn’t suddenly change flavor just because people started calling them pears, nor vice versa. Just the same, Romans do not cease being Roman just because you start calling them Byzantines. You’re operating on the assumption that it’s the label that defines a Roman. It is the exact opposite, as the Roman is himself no matter how he is labeled. Playing such word games is intellectually dishonest. Sure, you can choose to focus on and attach labels to a specific period of Rome that you consider to best match a PVRE ideal, but attempting to completely delegitimize 7-9 centuries of Rome just because it doesn’t match up properly with your PVRE idealized vision of that which is Roman is childish. The eastern Roman Empire was Roman.
Tell me the similarities between August age Rome and post Heraclius "Rome". I will wait
Tell me similarities between Alfred's England and post-Elizabethan England I'll wait
Clearly they can't be the same country because they had the particularities of their time, clearly it can't be the Roman Empire because they weren't going around in togas
You missed my point. The similarities and dissimilarities between the Rome of the early 1st century and the Rome of the early 8th century don't matter when it comes to attaching a label to them. What matters is both are equally Roman, as both periods of time are marked by the existence of a Roman people living as Romans. What defines a Roman is whatever a Roman is, not what some early modern enlightenment thinker or some 21st century college professor says.
>What matters is both are equally Roman, as both periods of time are marked by the existence of a Roman people living as Romans. What defines a Roman is whatever a Roman is, not what some early modern enlightenment thinker or some 21st century college professor says.
You dont make any sense. If you cant define what it means to be roman, your whole statement is worthless.
>If you cant define what it means to be roman, your whole statement is worthless.
Welcome to being a grown up. Talking about past cultures, states, and civilizations as if they were real life entities and not like they're some sperg's d&d faction is difficult.
>Tell me how the roman empire is roman? They considered all these foreigners and slave rape babies roman through citizenship. It doesnt fit into my view of roman so therefore rome ended after the kingdom.
Civic and economic life was centered around the forum in cities, the empire was viewed as a Res Publica rather than a propertarian monarchy, the emperor required the support of the army, the senate, and the people, the country was governed by a bureaucracy of magistrates appointed by the emperor, the empire had a professional standing army, with many units dating back to the late Roman army, patronage was the foundation of society, villa plantations (latifundia) persisted in the countryside, etc.
Do you need more?
Because it was primitive...
...right?
I never said they were primitive. Simply that pretending they were just a continuation of roman history harm both Rome and Byzantium unique legacies
"Byzantium" is a made up term that they never used. If you went back to that era and talked to them about the "Byzantine Empire" they would look at you like you were nuts.
Same goes traveling in 7th Century Germany and call them "germans". This make them less german somehow?
No. French history as a whole is a unique subject in academics. This because France as an nation existed since the late antiquity.
>Same people
>Same faith
>Same land
>Same self-identification
>Same tounge, althought it changed a lot
>Considered part of the same subject in academias
Notices, Rome and Byzantium dont share any of these, aside the same court (so not even people's one) language (latin) for few centuries
No one has a PHD in france spanning West Francia to The Fifth Republic.
>Same goes traveling in 7th Century Germany and call them "germans". This make them less german somehow?
What is the point you are trying to make?
"German" is an exonym you doofus. And yes anyone speaking Latin would know who you were referring to by "Germans". If you went back and called them "Deutsche" the locals would actually understand.
>Same people
>Same faith
>Same land
>Same self-identification
>Same tounge, althought it changed a lot
Literally all true of the medieval Roman Empire
>Considered part of the same subject in academias
Yes ancient history and medieval history are different subjects, what is your point?
>france as a nation existed since late antiquity
Dumbest thing i've ever read on this board bar holocaust denial
>Rome and Byzantium unique legacies
Byzantium as a Roman legal system, a Roman military, a Roman idea of Empire, Roman ceremonies, a Roman administration, Roman architecture and a church formed by the Roman state. But none of these were actually Roman right.
>Roman legal system
Which one? Rome itself changed it countless time. Byzantime legal system was a frankestein collection of different laws used in different centuries. It was never the "Legal System" of any roman society before him
>Roman military
Oh yes, that 9th Century legionary and centurions on lorica segmentate and foederati auxilliares that helped Nikephoros and Johannes to conquer the east, sure
>Roman ceremonies
Yes, i remember Augustus being crowded by the Orthoxod Pope in the great Basilica of Rome
>Roman administration
Yes sure. I remember reading that the strategikons of the eastern themes helped Vespasianus conquering rome
>Roman architecture
You cant tell me with a straight face than a Byzantine basilica was build on the same style of the Ara Pacis or the Senate palace
>Church formed by the Roman State
Same goes for the Papacy. But they arent roman, despite being the last existing roman institution created by an Emperor, right?
>Oh yes, that 9th Century legionary and centurions on lorica segmentate and foederati auxilliares that helped Nikephoros and Johannes to conquer the east, sure
That's like saying WW2 England isn't the same as medieval England because they don't use knights and longbows lmao
English knights and longbows=ancestors of English WW1 trench soldiers
Roman legionaries from Italy=not the ancestors of greeks and armenians spearmens
Is it that hard to conceive?
so where do you draw the line in imperial expansions? During the height of the empire and even before during the social war. Citizenship in the empire was constantly expanded as a right.
>Roman legionaries from Italy=not the ancestors of greeks and armenians spearmens
>muh ancestors
Weren't you yourself saying that "Roman" is not an ethnicity? Not how it works btw, French aren't the descendants of Franks yet they bear their name. Bulgarians aren't the descendants of Bulgars yet they bear their name. Cope.
>9th Century
*10th Century, my bad
>strategikons
strategos
>It has to be classical Roman or it isn't Roman
Have you literally ever heard of the Late Roman Empire?
early medieval barbaric kingdoms preserved the roman imperial church, as well as their prefecture and governorship system (merovingians litterally used the bureucratic machine of the Gallic prefecture as their own chancellery). Were they romans too?
>early medieval barbaric kingdoms preserved the roman imperial church, as well as their prefecture and governorship system
No they didn't. The Prefectures and governorships had ceased to exist in the West by the time the Franks conquered Gaul. The Prefectures were larger than any of the barbarian kingdoms and dealt with the logistic functions of the military and state while the governors were separated into Diocese's and the Prefecture handled by the Fiscal and Judicial departments of the administration, neither of which existed under any of the barbarian kingdoms.
>a frankestein collection of different laws used in different centuries.
Making new laws does not change the legal system used. The Romans used Judges employed by the state who were educated in the law and were expected to be able to interpret and use flexibility with the law, had professional lawyers to represent clients. All united under the judicial arm of the Imperial administration. The Byzantines used the same exact system.
>Oh yes, that 9th Century legionary and centurions on lorica segmentate and foederati auxilliares that helped Nikephoros and Johannes to conquer the east, sure
See: Tagma
>Yes, i remember Augustus being crowded by the Orthoxod Pope in the great Basilica of Rome
It was a Late Roman practice.
>Yes sure. I remember reading that the strategikons of the eastern themes helped Vespasianus conquering rome
The provincial system of Augustus was already gone by the 3rd century. Diocletian had completely replaced it and it survived into the 7th century. The themes weren't even administrative until a later date, they still used the system created by Diocletian with the Diocese's and Praetorian prefectures especially in the Western provinces. An administrative reform does not change where it was derived from, it was still based off of Diocletian's principles.
>You cant tell me with a straight face than a Byzantine basilica was build on the same style of the Ara Pacis or the Senate palace
Roman engineering and architectural styles did survive into Byzantium. Domes being the foremost form used by the Romans and unsurprisingly by the Byzantines as well.
>Same goes for the Papacy
The Papacy and Orthodox church were still the same Church officially until the 11th century at the earliest. The one church was formed by the Romans, just because they split over 500 years after the fact doesn't mean both weren't created by them.
Why do you think literally nothing can change over 700 years or else it isn't Roman anymore?
>Oh yes, that 9th Century legionary and centurions on lorica segmentate and foederati auxilliares
Do you think that the only Roman military to exist was between 14 BC and 120 AD? The Theme system resembled the roman republic’s citizen soldier army more than anything else, and the equipment of the Byzantine army is basically the same as the late roman army of Constantine or Diocletian’s day. You’re going to have a real problem if you only call the first 100 years of the empire “roman”
this thread is a anti roman circlejerk thread, the empire ended in 1453
That's what it called itself though. That's what everyone at the time knew it as. The term "Byzantine Empire" is a neologism invented by historians.
Shouldn't it be called Constantinoplian? Or Istanbulish? Why choose the old name?
Romanians called themselves Roman
"Aromanians" (Rămăni) called themselves Roman
Greeks called themselves Roman
The only difference is, after 19th century nationalism, Greeks stopped calling themselves Roman.
And also that the Byzantines Greeks had unbroken institutional succession of the Roman state
Could someone explain 4 to me?
Andronikos Komnenos a demagogue that stole the Throne claiming the city latin minority was helping the mother of the previous emperor (a latin princesse) in corrupting the Greek culture (latins were the scapegoat of all problems in the city, like israelites in the west). So an angry mob lynched thousands of them
The massare happened around 20 years before 1204, so crusaders stacked the city so hard also in retaliation of that massacre
Interesting.
I honestly didn't knew there was that sense of "unity" among latins (French, Italians, Venetians, etc) when they were outside their countries, I tought the only thing holding them together was Roman Catholisism and Crusades.
>there was that sense of "unity"
There wasn't, the Italians alone were notable and repeatedly punished by the Emperor for attacking each other's (Venetians, Pisans, Genoese) quarters in Constantinople
The majority of those targeted were Italian merchants, who were despised for monopolistic trading practices that impoverished locals and their businesses, calling them 'scapegoat' is your sign that that guy is rather mad about it
And the Fourth Crusade wasn't really in retaliation for this, except in that the Venetians owed might have wanted it, but they would have pushed for it regardless and ultimately this event isn't called back to much in sources, its importance is overexaggerated by Catholics in the modern day, the Crusaders (predominantly French, German) didn't care about the massacre but the previous Byzantine reluctance to support Crusades
Interesting, ill look into it
both israelites and latins deserved medieval pogroms
They didn't speak the same language
They didn't have the same culture
They didn't have the same people
They are a different thing i can't comprehend human capacity to keep coping
the Byzantine term is correct simple as
late western roman empire had more in common with early eastern roman empire than with early roman republic, yet you consider the republic related but the eastern romans not?
stfu moron. cringe thread
Had more in common with late byzantine Empire than the republic kek
>There is a reason why in accademics proper roman history and byzantine historiy belong to complete differently accademics branches
When Academics proper use "byzantine" they use it as a chronological marker. They know its still the Eastern Roman Empire.
Also that's just Western historians. In Asia- especially in the Middle East- they outright call the Byzantcucks "Romans."
100+ replies and still not a good argument to why the ERE isnt just Rome evolving and then decaying after centuries of invasions
But Anon… they referred to themselves as Romans
seethe harder
> located in Greece and Greek Anatolia
> Spoke the Greek language
> Practiced the Greek culture
> Were ethnically Greek.
Ψε Ψυζζ Ρομανς!
>Greek Anatolia
a forced process that was replaced with Turkification. Greeks aren't native to Anatolia
They referred to their language as Romekia or 'language of the Romans' and they can't have Greek culture if they don't believe it was Greek. The same as French culture isn't actually Australian Aboriginal culture, they don't believe it is so it cannot be. All cultures and ethnicities depend on the beliefs of that group and they believed they were Romans, descended and culturally.
You're literally using the exact same logic as trannies. They believe they are women, therefore they're women.
I didn't realize you were born with a culture. How the frick is a biological constant the same as a social construct?
LARPing as Romans doesn't make you Roman.
Literally every culture and ethnicity is a LARP than.
If you are a man and pretend to be a woman, you are still a man.
If you are a Greek and pretend to be a Roman, you are still a Greek.
>ethnicity
>the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
They believed they were Romans, therefore they were Romans. That's how ethnicity is defined, they had a common national and cultural tradition which they believed to be Roman which makes them ethnic Romans.
itt: OP doesn't understand that things can change
>and force it to be considered the “not so glorious” sequel of Rome.
Only if you are a context-blind moron.
Just completed my family tree and found out i'm a direct descendant of Charlemagne, so I take back everything I said about Byz*ntines being the real Romans. French, as well as their superior progeny the British, are the real Romans.
Okey homosexual, tell us when Roman Empire ends and Byzantine one starts
When Constantine VI was usurped and mothered by his mother Irene. It lost all of it's legitimacy then and was replaced on Christmas Day AD 800 by Charlemagne.
The Byzantine Emperor was not the owner of the Empire. You can't own the public affairs of the Romans.
I cant stand the recent habit in Reddit, vidyas nerds and channels like Kings and Generals of calling the “Parisian State” as "Republic of France", or even "France"
There is a reason why in accademics proper french history and parisian state history belong to complete differently accademics branches: even if the latter had a “succession” continuity with the former, it grew so different it was as different from medieval France as were pretty much all the other post-industrial societies
By calling them “French” you are not only dismissing what made the proper medieval age France an unique civilization, but also deny the Parisian society the right to be considered an indipendent society with an indipendent history of it's own, and force it to be considered the “not so glorious” sequel of France. Not to mention is borderline cultural appropriation from the latin people history, that always consider parisium as more latin than germanic
I know parisian fanboys in video games like AOE 2 or Total War always rejected the term “parisian” as a label and prefered “french”. But “parisian” is still an universally accepted accademic term, and should be used more often