Why do people get so triggered when you call Byzantines Byzantines?

The Byzantines considered themselves Greeks way more than Romans. They spoke Greek and were proud of their Ancient Greek roots. They just called themselves the "Eastern Romans" for continuity's sake.
There's this massive argument on Wikipedia ATM about renaming the article on the Byzantine Empire because Kaldellis, the biggest pusher of the "acktually, they were hellenized Romans" crap has been running his mouth again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire
>someone actually plays the "it's 2024" card as though it's racist to call them Byzantines or something
>not realizing the term "Byzantine Empire" was coined by a Greek BEFORE the fall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laonikos_Chalkokondyles

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The Byzantines considered themselves Greeks way more than Romans
    No. They refer themselves as Romans.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      only to keep continuity with the Roman Empire, as I said.
      They were culturally and linguistically Greek. They thought of themselves as having more in common with Ancient Greece than Rome.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >They were culturally and linguistically Greek. They thought of themselves as having more in common with Ancient Greece than Rome.
        Buddy, Greek was the languages of the Romans too, specifically for elite. Not like that, Romans LITERALLY copied Greco culture early on.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Also "Greeks" or "Hellenes" were considered "Full Romans" since the edict of Caracalla.
          Maybe, even earlier.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >As the land under Roman rule increased from the 4th century BC onwards, Roman citizenship was gradually extended to the various peoples under Roman dominion. Citizenship grants, demographic growth, and settler and military colonies rapidly increased the number of Roman citizens. The increase achieved its peak with Emperor Caracalla's AD 212 Antonine Constitution, which extended citizenship rights to all free inhabitants of the empire. It is for the most part not clear to what extent the majority of Roman citizens in antiquity regarded themselves as being Roman. Most likely, local identities were prominent throughout the Roman Empire due to its vast geographical extent, but Roman identity provided a larger sense of common identity and became important when distinguishing from non-Romans, such as barbarian settlers and invaders.[11][12] Roman culture was far from homogeneous; though there was a predominant Hellenistic-inspired cultural idiom, one of the strengths of the Roman Empire was also its ability to incorporate traditions from other cultures. Rome's cultural flexibility precluded the development of a strong Roman 'core identity' in Italy, but also contributed to the empire's longevity.
          So there was basically no difference between "Latin Romans" and "Hellenic Romans" as far as they were concerned.
          They were basically both "Romans".
          This even reflects in their languages, and religions, just look: >English:Romans
          >Latin: Rōmānī
          >Ancient Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι, Rhōmaîoi
          >Languages of the Roman Empire:
          >Main two: Latin and Classical/Koine Greek, >Other languages
          >Religion of the Roman Empire:
          >Imperial cult, Roman religion,Hellenistic religion, Christianity.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          So basically like i said, there was no difference between the two, to them, they were both "Romans" especially after the edict of Caracalla. So we shouldn't be surprised that the "Byzantines" actually called themselves "Romans" in greek.
          Because they had basically been a fused identity since Caracalla, maybe since earlier.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The Byzantines considered themselves Greeks way more than Romans. They spoke Greek and were proud of their Ancient Greek roots. They just called themselves the "Eastern Romans" for continuity's sake.

        >only to keep continuity with the Roman Empire, as I said.
        Do you have any proof of this
        Because before the 13th century I can't find a single thing like that

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because they did not refer to themselves that way, it's an anachronistic term, they saw themselves as Romans and rightfully so, it's also an attempt by some people to distance the Easter Roman Empire from the rest of Roman history for some reason.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Also, if we're to call the ERE as the "Byzantine Empire" then what should we call the Western Roman Empire then?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Byzantine Empire named after Byzantium
        If only there were some major city in the WRE we could name their Empire after...

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ravenna?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The "Aachenan" Empire.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is a difference between ethnic Romans (essentially the same as Latins) and political Romans. Byzantines were not ethnically Roman, they were Greek, but politically they were Roman.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That difference did not exist for them though, if you adopted Roman culture, you were Roman.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The propagation of the word "Byzantine" was almost exclusively done by western (catholic) intellectuals who were trying to distance the "oriental" and "eastern" (orthodox) and delegitimize them as a successor state to the Roman Empire in opposition to the Holy Roman Empire. This is all larp

      >Because they did not refer to themselves that way
      Yes they did. The city has continuously been called "Byzantium" since it's founding in 657Bc to the present day, and its inhabitants are Byzantines. The inhabitants of this city called the empire that they were part of "Byzantine" as it was the Empire of the city of Byzantium. In the West, we have continuously called this polity "Byzantium" since 657BC because that's what it is. We have to make a distinction between the Dacian LARP state and the actual Roman polity, and this is how it is done in English. If you want to roleplay as a 12th-century court eunuch or something, go find any of the numerous subreddits that are made for that purpose and do so there.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You have not even acknowledged the lion's share of myself and the other anon's argument and that is the FACT that these western "historians" and "intellectuals" had ulterior motives I calling it the Byzantine Empire and that was to deligitimize it

        >th-th-that's just what we call it in English!

        Yeah and if in 1000 years we called the state of Israel the "PeePeePooPoo israelitestan Emirate" because that's what their enemies called it do you really think that would be a good thing?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >muh ulterior motives
          Cope. Your Christcuck rump state lost. It's just as roman as the hre meme or russia and the ottoman empire claiming to be rome

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah but don't you see we call the HRE Roman when it would be more accurately called the Germanic Rape Helldungeon. If you're gonna call the Holy Roman Empire that and the Eastern Roman Empire the Byzantine Empire you are inconsistent and moronic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The ottomans are the real Rome. Cope and seethe michaelos

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The "Holy" "Roman" "Empire" was not Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. The heretic in Rome may have said that it was, but it was never made the legitimate successor to Rome by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, so it was just a Germanic warlord b*rbarian pretender state.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The byzantine empire was never the real Rome. It was a rump state ruled by christcucks who were not legitimize by the patricians descended from the founding families of Rome. They were never blessed by the pontifex maximus and didn't receive the favor of Jupiter or Mars

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The byzantine empire was never the real Rome. It was a rump state ruled by christcucks who were not legitimize by the patricians descended from the founding families of Rome. They were never blessed by the pontifex maximus and didn't receive the favor of Jupiter or Mars

            >The ottomans are the real Rome. Cope and seethe michaelos

            No, I have addressed you directly. It is entirely appropriate to call the Empire centered in the city of Byzantium "the Byzantine Empire". We do this with other states today, like using Beijing as a metonym for the People's Republic of China, or Washington as a metonym for the United States Federal Government. Demanding that we alter our language to suit the political machinations of the Turkish state or the Yabbadabbadoupolis dynasty or whatever else is absurd. It's even more absurd given that we're referring to a state that has been dead for centuries. This obfuscatory hipster LARP is stupid, and that's why you are constantly met with ridicule for suggesting it.

            >This obfuscatory hipster LARP is stupid, and that's why you are constantly met with ridicule for suggesting it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah and yet you still call it the HRE because jo one is gonna know what the frick you're talking about if you say "Oh yeah the great medieval empire of Vienna" or whatever you guys are moronic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Right, and this is why it's called "Byzantium". If you say "the Roman Empire" people are going to think JVPITER OPTIMVS MAXIMVS, Julius Caesar, wenny widdy wikky, AY OH I'M COLLAPSIN' HEAH, and so on in 200AD, not Basilieilius Michaelaolioius Sodmododododmicoloupis having his archeunuch blinded and uncastrated in 1200AD. This is why you refer to it as the "Byzantine Empire" in all uses except when b***hing about how it should AKCTHUYUUYALLY be called the "Roman Empire".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The "Holy" "Roman" "Empire" was not Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. The heretic in Rome may have said that it was, but it was never made the legitimate successor to Rome by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, so it was just a Germanic warlord b*rbarian pretender state.

            You have not even acknowledged the lion's share of myself and the other anon's argument and that is the FACT that these western "historians" and "intellectuals" had ulterior motives I calling it the Byzantine Empire and that was to deligitimize it

            >th-th-that's just what we call it in English!

            Yeah and if in 1000 years we called the state of Israel the "PeePeePooPoo israelitestan Emirate" because that's what their enemies called it do you really think that would be a good thing?

            [...]
            >Because they did not refer to themselves that way
            Yes they did. The city has continuously been called "Byzantium" since it's founding in 657Bc to the present day, and its inhabitants are Byzantines. The inhabitants of this city called the empire that they were part of "Byzantine" as it was the Empire of the city of Byzantium. In the West, we have continuously called this polity "Byzantium" since 657BC because that's what it is. We have to make a distinction between the Dacian LARP state and the actual Roman polity, and this is how it is done in English. If you want to roleplay as a 12th-century court eunuch or something, go find any of the numerous subreddits that are made for that purpose and do so there.

            For reference, all Wikipedia articles either refer to the Byzantine Empire as
            >The Empire that is Byzantine
            Examples: English, Russian, Spanish, German, French, Italian, Basque, Arabic, several languages written in Devangari, and both Greek and Turkish.

            >The Empire of the city in the east that is equivalent to the city of Rome
            Examples: Chinese, Vietnamese, Icelandic, Lithuanian, and Japanese.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >using Wikipedia for anything beyond basic information

            Right, and this is why it's called "Byzantium". If you say "the Roman Empire" people are going to think JVPITER OPTIMVS MAXIMVS, Julius Caesar, wenny widdy wikky, AY OH I'M COLLAPSIN' HEAH, and so on in 200AD, not Basilieilius Michaelaolioius Sodmododododmicoloupis having his archeunuch blinded and uncastrated in 1200AD. This is why you refer to it as the "Byzantine Empire" in all uses except when b***hing about how it should AKCTHUYUUYALLY be called the "Roman Empire".

            Just call it the Eastern Roman Empire or ERE, it's much more accurate, it's shorter, if you traveled back in time the people living in that country would have identified with that name, and it solves all of those problems you listed

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No thanks, I'll just call it by the name that's recognized by 100% of the population: Byzantium. That's the name that the Byzantines identified with historically, and it's the term that everyone uses now. There's no sense in making this more complicated like you're trying to do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you say the Eastern Roman Empire, everyone will know what you mean, it is a term they would have identified with historically, because that is literally what they called it after Constantine split it in half, and the only reason people call it Byzantine now is because their intellectual enemies won a propaganda campaign to delegitimize the state as not being the true heir to the Roman Empire, because of religious differences and political interests.

            Just because you can find one cosmopolitan Greek from the 15th century brainwashed by Italian aristocrats who calls it Byzantine does not mean that it is a term ALL the citizens of that empire would have identified with for 100% of its history.

            Eastern Roman Empire, however, is, because that is what it was

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you say the Eastern Roman Empire, everyone will know what you mean
            They'll think Anatolia and the Levant.

            >b-b-but greece is in the east
            Greece is part of Europe ergo it's in the West.

            >it is a term they would have identified with historically
            No it wasn't.

            >their intellectual enemies
            Of which you are a part of.

            >not being the true heir to the Roman Empire
            They were correct, it's centered in Byzantium ergo it wasn't Roman.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick are you talking about they'll think of Anatolia and the Levant? Why would they ever think of that? They cut the empire in half and then named one the Western Part and the other the Eastern Part. How fricking stupid do you have to be to not understand that.

            >Greece is part of Europe!
            Greece was part of and the primary language of much of the Eastern Roman Empire that doesn't change the fact that most of its land holdings were in Africa and Asia

            >identifying with the term
            Citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire called themselves ROMAOI which means ROMANS in GREEK. They did not call themselves Greek or Byzantines they said Romaoi. Calling them Roman's, Eastern Romans, at any time in their history would have been more comprehensible to them

            >intellectual enemy
            ????

            >not Roman
            Their government, their laws, their aristocracy, their religion, their people, their patterns and networks of trade, their enemies, their art, their architecture all can be traced as a direct continuity to the fully fledged Roman Empire

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why would they ever think of that?
            That's the eastern portion of the Roman Empire, dude.

            >They cut the empire in half and then named one the Western Part and the other the Eastern Part
            You were arguing against this earlier in the thread.

            >Citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire called themselves
            Byzantines. They called themselves Byzantines, anon.

            >Calling them Roman's, Eastern Romans, at any time in their history would have been more comprehensible to them
            It would have been as ludicrous as telling an American that they're a Londoner.

            >Their government, their laws, their aristocracy, their religion, their people, their patterns and networks of trade, their enemies, their art, their architecture all can be traced as a direct continuity to the fully fledged Roman Empire
            Well, no, they can't except through very scant streams of continuity, but you've already said that this is irrelevant so I don't see why you're trying to bring this back up.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you're gonna use Wikipedia to justify your autism then look at this shit you fricking moron. It was the Eastern Empire! They cut it in half! Idk who you were arguing with before

            Your only source for them being called Byzantines is ONE GUY from the 15th century being ruled over by a bunch of fricking Italians. They called themselves Romans and if you aren't going to acknowledge that I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion.

            I have no clue who you were talking to earlier but direct continuity is very important to these kinds of discussions. The modern United Kingdom, despite being a very different place from medieval England, traces direct continuity in all the ways I listed for the Eastern Roman Empire.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >they le cut it in halferinooo!
            Calm down troony. By your logic the ottoman conquest was just a change in government and suleiman really was the kaiser of rome

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He really was thoughever

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >google "eastern roman empire"
            >byzantine empire comes up
            So he was right, then.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Byzantines. They called themselves Byzantines, anon.
            Proof for your statement

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That's the name that the Byzantines identified with historically,
            They called themselves Romans.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople refers to it as the "Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία", and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow refers to it as the "Bизaнтийcкaя импepия" or "Bизaнтия", so I'd say his research is pretty accurate. Maybe you should have looked into this matter before forming an opinion on it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why should we listen to ideologically charged and shifty christcucks who are trying to lend legitimacy to their meme religion? They proclaimed the ottomans as basileus as well

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think that we should but he's arguing that we need to call it the Roman Empire because the Patriarch of Constantinople said that the Republic of Turkey is the Roman Empire, so I'm just pointing out that by his qualifications for what constitutes legitimacy we should be calling it "the Byzantine Empire" as that's what (the people that he alleges are) the sources of legitimacy call it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, I have addressed you directly. It is entirely appropriate to call the Empire centered in the city of Byzantium "the Byzantine Empire". We do this with other states today, like using Beijing as a metonym for the People's Republic of China, or Washington as a metonym for the United States Federal Government. Demanding that we alter our language to suit the political machinations of the Turkish state or the Yabbadabbadoupolis dynasty or whatever else is absurd. It's even more absurd given that we're referring to a state that has been dead for centuries. This obfuscatory hipster LARP is stupid, and that's why you are constantly met with ridicule for suggesting it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And then ?
      Why do you call sassanids sassanids when they called themselves otherwise

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because they didn't larp as the Babylonians and claim they were descendants of gilgamesh

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      By your same logic you should not refer to Greeks as Greeks but rather Hellenes since that's what they call themselves.
      Same can apply to Germans, Finns, Albanians, the Welsh, or even the cities of Belgrade, Prague, Cologne, etc. etc.
      Stop being a gay pseud

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Even then it's still appropriate to call them Byzantines because that's what they called themselves at the time.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Byzantines because that's what they called themselves at the time.
          they called themselves a term made up by renaissance scholars after they ceased to be a state?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >renaissance was kickstarted by gayreeks fleeing the ottoman conquest
            Yes

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The Byzantines considered themselves Greeks way more than Romans.
    No, it's the other way around.
    They considered themselves "Romans",but the west called them "The Greeks":
    >The inhabitants of the empire, now generally termed Byzantines, thought of themselves as Romans (Romaioi). Their Islamic neighbours similarly called their empire the "land of the Romans" (Bilād al-Rūm), but the people of medieval Western Europe preferred to call them "Greeks" (Graeci), a term with connotations of effeminacy and deception.[1] The adjective "Byzantine", which derived from Byzantion (Latinised as Byzantium), the name of the Greek settlement Constantinople was established on, was only used to describe the inhabitants of that city; it never referred to the empire, which they called Romania—"Romanland".

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >state is divided in two administrations; one disappears and suddenly the other half is named differently
    Tell me how this makes sense

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody's saying they didn't refer to their empire as the Roman Empire because they did.
      Nobody calls the Celtic inhabitants of Roman Britain Romans because they were not culturally Roman.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They were callad romano-britons; it has nothing to do with ERE

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Nobody calls the Celtic inhabitants of Roman Britain Romans because they were not culturally Roman.
        But the inhabitants of Eastern Rome most certainly were thoroughly Romanized, you're comparing two very different things here, the Britons were too far away and the Roman control of the island was too short for the inhabitants to be Romanized the way the East was.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the Roman control of the island was too short for the inhabitants to be Romanized the way the East was.
          Rome controlled southern Britain for a longer timespan than the United States has been independent from Britain...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hardly, it was too far away for that "control" to mean anything.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The ERE last for a 1000 years. To presume that it had a solid outlook on things throughout all those 1000 years on anything is moronic. There were those who saw themselves as Romans, those who saw themselves as Hellenes, and those who saw themselves as both. The most sane (through acceptance of the unfortunate reality) is the last group. The second one is arguably the most sane from an ethnonationalist outlook and the first is the most despicable by far
    t. Hellene who would never call himself Roman even as a joke

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What the inhabitants of your little shithole country call themselves now has nothing to do with what the people from the Roman empire called themselves.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >In Byzantine writings up until at least the 12th century, the idea of the Roman "homeland" consistently referred not to Greece or Italy, but to the entire old Roman world.[127][w] Despite this, the Romans of Byzantium were also aware that their present empire was no longer as powerful as it once had been, and that centuries of warfare and strife had left the Roman Empire reduced in territory and somewhat humbled.[129]

    >Given that the rulers of the Byzantine Empire were predominantly Hellenic, and the percentage of the population that was Hellenic became greater as the empire's borders were increasingly reduced, Western Europeans, from as early as the 6th century onwards,[x] often referred to it as a Greek empire, inhabited by Greeks. To the early Byzantines themselves, up until the 11th century or so, terms such as "Hellenes" were seen as offensive, as it downplayed their Roman nature and furthermore associated them with the ancient Pagan Greeks rather than the more recent Christian Romans.[131] The westerners were not unaware of Byzantium's Romanness; when not wishing to distance themselves from the eastern empire, the term Romani was frequently used for soldiers and subjects of the eastern emperors.[106] From the 6th to 8th century, western authors also sometimes employed terms such as res publica or sancta res publica for the Byzantine Empire, still identifying it with the old Roman Republic. Such references ceased as Byzantine control of Italy and Rome itself crumbled and the Papacy began to use the term for their own, much more regional, domain and sphere of influence.[109]
    So they actually though calling themselves "Greeks" or "Hellenes" was actually offensive.
    So they called themselves "Romans" even in their writings and called the west "Franks" /"Frankia".

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The citizens of the Byzantine Empire very much did identify themselves as Roman, their language was just Greek. It's the same as how Americans consider themselves American but speak English; they do not consider themselves English ethnically.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >they do not consider themselves English ethnically.
      Lol wtf? Many Americans identify as ethnically English. They're called WASPS, moron.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, they do not. This would have been considered borderline treason for all of American history. At best, they recognise English ancestry.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >This would have been considered borderline treason for all of American history
          Says who? People can call themselves Irish-American or Mexican-American and no one gives a frick.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yet there were no "Byzantine" empire before Roman one
    Greeks didn't call themselves that(but muh greek man from catholic Athens!)
    Strangely enough you don't want to call them "Greek empire" either

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I hope the Wiki edit war over there it's as exciting as the Austria-Hungary Flag edit war.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do people get so triggered when you call Byzantines Byzantines?
    >a thread that provides no answers but proves OP right anyway

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It didn't prove op correct, though.
      In fact it proved the opossite.
      OP was clearly wrong and if you actually knew anything about the historeography of the "Byzantines" you would realize that.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >getting hysterically triggered
        >proving OP wrong

        kek. Soon you'll be saying "calling the Byzantines Greek is like calling Ancient Egyptians black", even though DNA evidence proves the Byzantines were ethnically Greek

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They didn't call themselves "Greek", though.
          In fact they hated that, and the only ones thst called them "Greek" was the west.
          See this for more information on that:

          >The Byzantines considered themselves Greeks way more than Romans.
          No, it's the other way around.
          They considered themselves "Romans",but the west called them "The Greeks":
          >The inhabitants of the empire, now generally termed Byzantines, thought of themselves as Romans (Romaioi). Their Islamic neighbours similarly called their empire the "land of the Romans" (Bilād al-Rūm), but the people of medieval Western Europe preferred to call them "Greeks" (Graeci), a term with connotations of effeminacy and deception.[1] The adjective "Byzantine", which derived from Byzantion (Latinised as Byzantium), the name of the Greek settlement Constantinople was established on, was only used to describe the inhabitants of that city; it never referred to the empire, which they called Romania—"Romanland".

          >In Byzantine writings up until at least the 12th century, the idea of the Roman "homeland" consistently referred not to Greece or Italy, but to the entire old Roman world.[127][w] Despite this, the Romans of Byzantium were also aware that their present empire was no longer as powerful as it once had been, and that centuries of warfare and strife had left the Roman Empire reduced in territory and somewhat humbled.[129]

          >Given that the rulers of the Byzantine Empire were predominantly Hellenic, and the percentage of the population that was Hellenic became greater as the empire's borders were increasingly reduced, Western Europeans, from as early as the 6th century onwards,[x] often referred to it as a Greek empire, inhabited by Greeks. To the early Byzantines themselves, up until the 11th century or so, terms such as "Hellenes" were seen as offensive, as it downplayed their Roman nature and furthermore associated them with the ancient Pagan Greeks rather than the more recent Christian Romans.[131] The westerners were not unaware of Byzantium's Romanness; when not wishing to distance themselves from the eastern empire, the term Romani was frequently used for soldiers and subjects of the eastern emperors.[106] From the 6th to 8th century, western authors also sometimes employed terms such as res publica or sancta res publica for the Byzantine Empire, still identifying it with the old Roman Republic. Such references ceased as Byzantine control of Italy and Rome itself crumbled and the Papacy began to use the term for their own, much more regional, domain and sphere of influence.[109]
          So they actually though calling themselves "Greeks" or "Hellenes" was actually offensive.
          So they called themselves "Romans" even in their writings and called the west "Franks" /"Frankia".

          >As the land under Roman rule increased from the 4th century BC onwards, Roman citizenship was gradually extended to the various peoples under Roman dominion. Citizenship grants, demographic growth, and settler and military colonies rapidly increased the number of Roman citizens. The increase achieved its peak with Emperor Caracalla's AD 212 Antonine Constitution, which extended citizenship rights to all free inhabitants of the empire. It is for the most part not clear to what extent the majority of Roman citizens in antiquity regarded themselves as being Roman. Most likely, local identities were prominent throughout the Roman Empire due to its vast geographical extent, but Roman identity provided a larger sense of common identity and became important when distinguishing from non-Romans, such as barbarian settlers and invaders.[11][12] Roman culture was far from homogeneous; though there was a predominant Hellenistic-inspired cultural idiom, one of the strengths of the Roman Empire was also its ability to incorporate traditions from other cultures. Rome's cultural flexibility precluded the development of a strong Roman 'core identity' in Italy, but also contributed to the empire's longevity.
          So there was basically no difference between "Latin Romans" and "Hellenic Romans" as far as they were concerned.
          They were basically both "Romans".
          This even reflects in their languages, and religions, just look: >English:Romans
          >Latin: Rōmānī
          >Ancient Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι, Rhōmaîoi
          >Languages of the Roman Empire:
          >Main two: Latin and Classical/Koine Greek, >Other languages
          >Religion of the Roman Empire:
          >Imperial cult, Roman religion,Hellenistic religion, Christianity.

          So basically like i said, there was no difference between the two, to them, they were both "Romans" especially after the edict of Caracalla. So we shouldn't be surprised that the "Byzantines" actually called themselves "Romans" in greek.
          Because they had basically been a fused identity since Caracalla, maybe since earlier.

          So the "Byzantines" were romans, called themselves romans, and their main rivals (Persia) called them Romans, so they were Romans.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's a troony tier larp by mentally ill christcucks. You'll never hear about ancient romaboos crying about people saying that the empire is culturally and politically different from the republic.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The idea of the Eastern Roman Empire as somehow fundamentally "Greek" only emerged when a bunch of meddling European powers decided to retroactively invent the idea of a Greek state into existence with the declining power of the Turks. Then "Greek intellectuals," finding themsleves in a totally artificial euromutt bastard nation looked to history to justify their nation's existence. In just the same way you will find Armenian Nationalists who claim the Byzantine Empire as fundamentally Armenian due to many of their leaders claiming Greek ancestry. This is all just nationalistic larping.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Frick I meant to say Armenian ancestry

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I’ll give an actual answer
    People want to feel smart and stroke their egos by calling the Byzantine empire Romans or the Roman Empire
    Yes, the Byzantines called themselves Roman and viewed their state as the Roman Empire
    But quite frankly, who gives a shit?
    The term Byzantine Empire is a good historiographic term to differentiate it between the earlier Roman Empire
    They’re dead now anyways so who cares what they wanted to be called. Anyways, exonyms are a perfectly standard practice outside of this Byzantine Empire naming shit.
    The Chinese don’t call themselves Chinese or use the word China
    The Japanese use the word Nippon for their country
    The Dutch don’t call themselves Dutch
    The Aleuts don’t call themselves Aleuts in their own language (although in that example some do embrace the term Aleut because it’s simpler and more known than Unanagan)

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The propagation of the word "Byzantine" was almost exclusively done by western (catholic) intellectuals who were trying to distance the "oriental" and "eastern" (orthodox) and delegitimize them as a successor state to the Roman Empire in opposition to the Holy Roman Empire. This is all larp

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Same thing with "Ottoman empire", it's literally just the Roman Empire with a different religion.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. Mehmet is just as legitimate as Constantine palaiologos since he also wanted to restore the glory of Rome but with islam

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Ottoman Caliph was also declared Roman Emperor and the leader of all of Christendom by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the President of Turkey is declared these things by him today. So, really, the Republic of Turkey is the legitimate successor to Rome, and should in fact be called "the Roman Empire".

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We should call it the "Byzantine Era" of the "Eastern Roman Empire". And then you can shorter it to the Byzantine Era. Starts from 636 by the way. The Gibbon view is a really terrible way of analysing late Antiquity.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "Eastern Roman Empire" is a bullshit term itself, it's just the Roman Empire.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're not wrong.

  18. 1 month ago
    ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

    >The Byzantines considered themselves Greeks way more than Romans.

    IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT THEY CONSIDERED THEMSELVES, NOR IS THE FACTOR THEIR BEING HELLENIC; THERE WERE HELLENIC ROMANS, LIKE THERE WERE ITALIC ROMANS, HISPANIC ROMANS, GALLIC ROMANS, ET ALII; IT IS NOT AN ETHNOIDENTITARIAN DIFFERENCE, BUT A POLITICAL ONE.

    THE BYZANTINE STATE WAS NOT ROME, BUT A POSTROMAN MONARCHY, DUE TO THE FACT OF HAVING BEEN FOUNDED AFTER THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE; CONTINUITY ENTAILS INTERRUPTION; WHAT CONTINUED AFTER THE INTERRUPTION IS A DIFFERENT STATE.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do people get so triggered when you call Byzantines Byzantines?
    Nobody gets triggered
    >The Byzantines considered themselves Greeks way more than Romans.
    Source?

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lol, I actually had Kaldellis as a professor for a course on late Roman history. Pretty autistic but a great professor

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Greek hillbillies still call themselves "Romanoi" to this day
    "Greekification" and larping as ancient Athens and Sparta or whatever was a top-down project inotiated by the germanic royalty imported after independence from the Ottoman dynasty (ironically enough a successor state to Rome)

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >and were proud of their Ancient Greek roots
    The rest of your post has been argued to death but I heavily dispute this part in particular. Medieval Greeks explicitly distanced themselves from their classical pagan ancestors in favor of the emergent Christianity-based culture of the late Roman Empire which had continued under Byzantine rule.
    This would be the case until the late 18th and early 19th century, when rising nationalist sentiments that would lead to the Greek Revolution made a point of identifying with Classical Greece due in part to Western Romanticism influencing many of the early revolutionary groups.
    A Greek citizen from 1850 would care way more about Thermopylae than his Byzantine ancestor from 1050

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's a sort of black legend; it's not exactly false, but it attempts to (not too subtly) imply that all traces of Hellenism were gone or that Hellenic and Roman consciousness were always at odds with each other through the later stages of ERE which is false
      A famous letter of a Greek rebel leader states that they are Hellenes and that they cannot surrender a city he is besieged in because their king (Constantine XI) didnt surrender either when fighting

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    .

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