Why do people say that this wasn't the Roman Empire?

It actually is user. When the city was built it was called Nova Roma, New Rome. It was only after Constantine the Great died that people started calling it The City of Constantine, Constantinople which took time for people to adopt.

Where is it now?

>During the Principate the population was 40,000 in 200 AD; when the city became capital of the Western Roman Empire under emperor Maximian (r. 286-305), the population rose to 100,000 people and thus Milan became one of the largest cities in Roman Italy

Why do people say Roman Empire when it was actually the Milanese Empire?

You can see on the picture that Rome isn't the capital city anymore.

>Why do people say that this wasn't the Roman Empire?
Pretty much everyone does though. Shitposters on Veeky Forums are not "people"

The rebellion of phokas brought the legitimate Eastern Roman Empire to an end and lead to the creation of the byzantine empire

> he is assuming that the world study the French and English point of view of history

You cannot deny the fact the medieval times period as it is defined is very western-europe-centric.

>Pretty much everyone does though
Many historians don't consiredered it as Roman, user. Will Durant for example

Byzantines were not "Roman". They were Greek. Deal with it.

Of course it is, if you study in Europe.
I'm Italian and I honestly don't know shit about England history until 18th century, more about France cause was a lot more related to the Italian history.

The fact that England and France were out from the territories reconquered by the Eastern Roman Empire influence the opinion of the French and English students about that period, not of the entire world

But everyone does though, bar buttmad Törkposters that for some reason think they are more Roman or G*rman/n*rdicuck faggots that were never part of Rome in the first place.
>american historian

Rome hadn't been the capital of even the WRE for centuries you pleb

"Roman" is just a term used to describe the Greco-Latin speaking urban-based European empire of antiquity. just like "American" describes the US even though "America" can include all of NA and SA

Even the Romans weren't "Roman." Rome had dozens of Syrian, North African, Germanic, etc. emperors. It was not as if every citizen was a toga-wearing senator. It was a giant, heterogenous polity.

>Replying to BlackTürk

Roman was not an ethnicity.
Just like you can be American today.

The ordeal is with holding Rome, not having it as your capital.
The entire empire traces its roots back to that founding city.
I cant think of another empire in history in a similar situation so there is nothing to compare it to.

Rome is important to being a Roman empire because it was the city that started everything. It doesnt need to be the capital or the most important.

Roman was a Latin-dominant empire. Byzantine was a Greek-dominant empire

> just like "American" describes the US even though "America" can include all of NA and SA

No. "The Americas" includes "North America" and "South America". "North America" includes Canada, America (a.k.a USA), and Mexico.

It's True.

France and Anglosphere is still dominant in influencing culture worldwide.

(France less so nowadays)

Latin and Greek are ethnic identities.

Roman is a nationality.

ITT: Brainlet thinking.

The roman empire at its peak was dominated by two main parts which were later the basis for division. When it was whole, greek and latin culture were in symbiosis. And both were equally important. Literally any man of status, education or power knew greek. This is the EMPIRE,. that controlled a fuckton of LAND. Not the Roman Republic.

Now, what is "Roman"? It's obviously a city in the Italian peninsula. But the Roman Empire and legacy are a complex structure that is FAR beyond just being citizen of the city. It evolved into something more.

That ancient structure at its peak controlled virtually every important thing, the religion, the state, the law. After its decline, Europe has been in constant state of fragmentation, and it has NEVER been so power centralized as then. You can say that the Pope, thus the vatican are the succesors to the Caesars. You could say Rome the city is. Was it Musolini and gang? Modern Italy? HRE? The franks? The russians? The greeks? Fucking Napoleon?

WELL ALL OF THOSE ANSWERS ARE FUCKING RIGHT, AND WRONG AT THE SAME TIME.
As a rightful continuity of the kingdom/state structure of the empire, there is no denying that 1(one) aspect of the empire died in 1453. The cultural and spiritual legacy hasn't died. It's immortal for humanity. The empire created the world you live in.

I'm not sure what you and the other user are talking about.
The anglosphere is culturally dominant? I would rather say that it's just the US the one that is culture dominant.
But even in this case, what should be the relation with what you study in school or learn about history?
I can kinda get what you mean for the last century, but ancient, medieval and modern history? What's their "dominant position"?

Everywhere people know what's related to their country history, not what is relevant for England or France.

This.
Even Roman myth styled to themselves as Latin mongrels

Because the byzantine empire was completely different from the roman empire, culturally, religiously, linguistically, etc. It may be the political heir, but that doesn't mean a lot. It would be like asking why historians don't consider the ottoman empire the same thing as the byzantine empire, and since rome and byzantine are the same, turks are basically romans.

The "Byzantine" Empire was literally a direct continuation of the Roman Empire. It inherited its language, religion, customs, laws, etc. Yes, it evolved over time, but so did the unified Roman empire before the western half fell.

The Ottomans can claim none of that.

>culturally
Literally the same culture, Roman culture did not leave the world the second that the Latin sphere fell.
>religiously
literally the same religion, Rome has been Christian since the 4th century.
>linguistically
Greek had always been a major language in the empire, the bible was Greek before it was Latin.

>It would be like asking why historians don't consider the ottoman empire the same thing as the byzantine empire, and since rome and byzantine are the same, turks are basically romans.
Except conquering Rome doesn't make you Roman, being in the Roman empire makes you Roman you fucking spastic

How much of a brainlet do you have to be to deny the Byzantines any relation to Rome? It literally confounds me, pic related.

...

...

t. brainlet.

The senate and consul existed well into the middle ages for example. TIMES CHANGE. Culture changes, yes. Do you realize this is centuries we are talking about here, right? 100s of years

The fact that it eventually evolved to something quite different, doesn't mean that it isn't legitimate continuity.

It was the same fucking empire, that's not even a debate. At its peak it was essentially Rome with a moved capital. They never got it back. Roman legacy isn't reserved to a city anymore. It's a vast fucking civilization.

Both Byzaboos and Turk-roachs are cancerous

Also, wanna talk religion?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils

According to those councils, which were the basis of unified Christianity in the roman world, canonically;
"The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome." (declared in 381ad)

Byzaboos don't do nearly as much shitposting as anyone else.

The answer, as always, is the Eternal T*rk.

What do underage memesters mean by "Byzaboo"? Saying the Byzantine Empire was Roman is basic history not some bizarre controversial thing and it doesn't mean who somehow worship or even sympathize that state.
This isn't football teams or video game platforms, you fucking autists.

>Except conquering Rome doesn't make you Roman, being in the Roman empire makes you Roman you fucking spastic

Except Justinian literally said hes the heir of rome, because he conquered rome.

e.g. everything can be everything if you just move the goalposts far enough.

So was the HRE also "rome"? Some continuity doesn't mean its the same thing.

Isn't it obvious? Weeaboos think that Japan is the coolest country in the history of the world and airbrush the more unfortunate parts of Japanese culture, Byzaboos do the same with the Byzantine Empire.

And what does that have to do with the subject? Why strawman everywhere as a "boo" thing?

The Classical Roman Empire wasn't "the same" at various point in its history. Most countries today aren't "the same" as they were 100 years ago.

as a baptized orthodox christian from the balkans i am part of byzantine(eastern roman) legacy/culture.

So I guess I am selfboo?

>Byzaboo calling anyone underage
lmao

Oh boy, wait until you tell these people about China.

Which changed and varied so much from dynasty to dynasty, that it can't be fit into historical eras..

Here you go retards
Google>you

...

Christianity saved Rome - don't listen to the Latins.

...

Nation of Rûm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum_Millet
Ironically enough the Ottomans recognized this to some extent while Westerners didn't

only redditors think Byzantine Empire was Roman. It was a GREEK empire. Not Roman.

Rome was the city of Rome ruling over a vast empire. Everything else is a successor to various degrees to that empire.

Rome's identity was SPQR - the senate and the people of Rome. The emperors were considered embodiments of the roman people, so this identity was still upheld when the republic ended and the empire began.

This identity ended when christianity took over in rome, and shortly after that the whole empire collapsed.

Since christianity was much more important in eastern rome, it really isn't that much more of a successor of the original SPQR-Rome, then most other states that emerged on roman soil.

only redditors think the Ottoman Empire was Turkish. It was an ARABIC empire. Not Turanic.

No the ottomans were turks

Nice try Ottomutt

>new York city is new york

Arabs fucked pseudo-romans up so i have no problems with them.

Whatever you say my armenian lovechild, the reality is, Only Greece is the heir to the Ottoman Empire.

>When Byzaboo loses its mind
s.mh senpai

>when a kurd thinks he can build an empire
Fuck outta here fake ottomutt. I bet your cracka subhuman ancestors were genocided by the based Greco--Slavo-Armeno-Georgian elites of the REAL Ottoman empire. Arabic T*rds are NOT Ottoman

t. Papadopoulos

romans copied pretty much everything from the greeks. You can see why greeks thought of themselves as romans

>Except Justinian literally said hes the heir of rome, because he conquered rome.

And yet not once did Justinian claim that he was something other than Roman.

>This identity ended when christianity took over in rome
How? The senate still existed when the empire was Christian and the whole empire didn't collapse, it continued in the east.

*BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPS*
*BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPS*
*plops*
oh damn that was entertaining
*muffled sound in the ass intensifies*

Wtf is this shit nigga you ruined it BOOOOOO

Reminder for contrarians.

...

I don't think he meant the history ofnthe countries of France and England. He meant user was assuming most historians worldwide adopt the same biases and views as French and English academics traditionally have (i.e. that "Rome" ended when the "medieval" period began and that the "Byzantines" thus aren't Roman. That view is of course influenced by the fact that for western Europe/France/England there was in fact a sharp change with the fall of the Roman Empire in the west.

...

>not shitposting
>posts a pre Heraclius map

Congrats on all the replies

>Roman Empire with no Rome, speaking a different language from the Romans

>Romans didn't speak other languages apart from latin
>Rome wasn't Rome when Milan was the capital
'tard

>Why do people say that this wasn't the Roman Empire?

Nobody other than armchair historians on the internet say this, Byzantine is used to specify you're talking about the medieval period of the Eastern Roman Empire, in an academic environment nobody will bat an eye if you use one term or the other when talking about the ERE in general.

The more I read about this shit the more it seems like the Muslims were just Zerg rushing the byzzies 80% of the time after Khalid bin Walid died

>when i see a Byzaboo post

>when i see a Byzaboo post

HA!

>USAian education

>capital, regime, traditions are different
>b-but they're Romans
the Roman Empire fell with Rome and the Eastern Roman Empire was a successor state, it's obvious and you're in denial

That's wrong though
>b-but i-it's not
What is evolution brainlet

this

>Byzantine Empire was Roman

This. It’s nice and easy to make te argument that “Rome fell then it was he DARK ages where people were POOR and slept in their own shit” when you argue that Rome fell in the 5th century

Roman Empire = Empire of the Romans

Byzantine Empire = Empire of Byzantium

Why do people on Veeky Forums give so much of a shit if they're called Roman or not Roman as if the word itself is magical and somehow changes anything.

In istanbul

Gr*eks BTFO

Give wh*Tes a break senpai

The real reason is because Rome was awesome and relevant and the Byzantines have little to no direct bearing on the way the modern world is organized, especially compared to the WRE.

REAL roman empire coming through

Unironically more Roman than Peasantines