If anyone can give me a good argument as to why the Byzantines should not be considered Roman/an extension of Rome...

If anyone can give me a good argument as to why the Byzantines should not be considered Roman/an extension of Rome, I will give them a virtual high five.

capital wasn't Rome

The city of Rome stopped being the capital of the Empire long before the west fell

Constantinople was made capital of Rome until the East/West divide.

Was anything I said wrong?
Do you think I consider any empire where the capital isn't Rome "Roman". As soon as the capital stopped being Rome the empire stopped being roman.

they were greeks
they spoke greek
they ruled from greece

Western Roman Empire Capital was Ravenna for over 300 years

None of this counts as evidence because the Edict of Caracalla extended Roman citizenship and identity far beyond the Italian peninsula. Roman identity at that point became purely nominal, someone born in Italy was just as Roman as someone born in Greece.

Because they didn't mean anything about Emperors and Senates when they called themselves Romans, let alone the Latin city. It's anachronistic propaganda to think they were Napoleonesque civic nationalists when even the classical "Romans" were always classified by their home countries/tribes first and foremost. Byzantium was the new Rome, Byzantine Emperors were Roman Emperors, but everything else was no more Roman than Roman Catholicism.

I am Roman and not Greek
I speak the language of the late roman empire (Greek)
My people (The Romans) ruled from Italy and then Greece

This is blatantly false. A sense of Roman identity as a progenitor to later civil nationalism isn't unfounded in the slightest. As mentioned before, the Edict of Caracalla was monumental in changing how the people of the empire viewed the relationship between themselves and those who had at once subjugated them. It created a sense of shared political and legal identity as part of a larger body.

When the Germanic hordes began to famously spill over the borders of the empire, what's key to understand is that often they wished to BE a part of the empire. They wished to live within the borders and be afforded recognition of Roman identity. This is not to say that they still clung to their own internal autonomy.

Different capital
Different language
Different religion
Its more difficult to argue that theyre the same

>Different capital
Again, the capital of Rome changed often towards the end of the WRE. Prior to the East/West split Constantinople itself was the capital of the entirety of the empire.
>Different language
I hardly see this as worthy evidence seeing as how the Greek language had a significant presence throughout Rome since the beginning. Moreover, Roman citizens outside of Italy (and depending on the period, even IN Italy) typically stuck to their respective language.
>Different religion
How does this matter? Rome's state religion fluctuated wildly throughout its existence, and had done so for centuries before the East/West split. They were fucking Christians, a religion completely foreign to traditional Roman/Latin religion to begin with.

Are you dense? I said that I don't consider them as roman. So let me rephrase myself. Anything after east-west divide is not roman or barely roman. Byzantines cannot be roman only roman larpers

So was Commodus not Roman since he renamed the city of Rome?

>different capital at the end of WRE

just off urself for throwing a 1000 years of roman history down the drain

>they were christian

One of the reasons it fell

>They were Greeks
Italians were Etruscan, Ligurian, Umbri, Latin, and Picentes
>Spoke Greek
Everyone with an IQ above room temperature spoke Greek
>Ruled from Greece
So the Roman Empire ended in 283 AD? Fucking hell

>just off urself for throwing a 1000 years of roman history down the drain
What are you trying to say you nigger
>One of the reasons it fell was christianity
Ayyo is this Eddy Gibbon I'm speaking to

Renaming a city changes it completely now lmao. Oh wait Istanbul says hi

That doesn't sound any different from the history of Arabs outside Arabia and within it. Or China or India or any other example.

I said nothing blatantly false. Greek "Romans" didn't accept anyone as "Roman" who was not Eastern Orthodox, that doesn't sound like civic nationalism to me, neither does it suggest they considered Cicero and Caesar the 'fathers of their country' for that matter.

Holy fuck

So you mean...the Byzantine Empire didn’t end until the 20th century?

Trying to say that roman history didnt begin with the empire and neither with its split. Roman history ended with the start of greek larping.

It never started to begin with.

You seriously think I was claiming Rome didn't EXIST until the Eastern portion of the empire broke off?

Because you're precisely correct. Rome prior to Constantine is a fabrication.

>Byzantine didn't start
what is going on in this thread

>mentions Constantine

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The battle against greek larp

Are you the guy that was in the Theodosius thread talking about Christianity

No

The capital moved from Rome to Milan during the 200's and never moved back, long before the East West split. Are you saying the Roman Empire ended in the mid 200's?

They were Greeks, their country was the Roman Empire. They were ethnically Greek, their nationality was Roman. The polity in which they lived, governed by Constantinople, was the exact same state "founded" by Augustus.

Nobody is arguing that they weren't really different from classical Rome in terms of ethnic makeup, territorial makeup, popular culture, internal and external politics, having a completely different capital city. The Byzantines were a very different people from the inhabitants of the empire at its peak, no one ever said otherwise, and one could certainly say, that because of all these changes that took place over the centuries, that the Byzantines and Romans were completely different nations.

But it was still the exact same state, and the people within it were Roman citizens. To deny this is to deny that the country we today call the United States isn't actually the same state that was founded in 1776, because its so different in terms of ethnic makeup, territorial makeup, popular culture, internal and external politics and having a completely different capital city and that modern "Americans" are just larping, because everything about this country is pretty much the complete opposite of what it was when it began.

fatality

Yes, from then on it was only decline

Civic nationalism is bad and if u want to believe that go ahead. The greeks destroyed their part of the empire by being bitches to other nations and so to effectively call them roman is to insult the original romans. If usa population would be replaced by majority muslims and blacks I think the notion of american would not apply anymore

how old are you

The late romans of the western part were also degenerate larpers

20

That's actually correct. True Romans would never tolerate any non-Republican form of government. Rome died with Cato.

So did they decline or cease to exist? Do you even know what you are trying to say you sour roach?

The Roman Empire ended with the Principate. The Byzantine empire and the Dominate has far more in common with the eastern empires than it does with anything Roman.

My personal opinion (feel free to disagree if you want) is that they effectively stopped being Roman after Justinian. When Heraclius changed officially the administrative and court languages from Latin to Roman, and Justinian being the last ethnic Roman who natively spoke Latin, ceased, the Eastern Roman Empire stopped being "Roman" in my eyes. Add in the schism due to iconoclasm between the East and West churches, and that was the final nail in the coffin. Some people also use the argument that Constantinople not being Rome doesn't disqualify the Byzantines as Roman since its true factually that several times in the 4th and 5th centuries the WRE's capital moved to places like Ravenna. But all the same, those were still in Italy.

They aren't genetically latin.

The edict of Caracalla dictated that all free men in the Empire were Roman citizens, being Genetically Latin is irrelevant.

But the Principate died a long slow death. From Septimius Severus (and before, really) all the way to Carinus the Imperial system was becoming more and more overtly autocratic, and the senate lost the last vestiges of its power in stages across the third century, so there is no real dividing point between the Principate and Dominate. You can't really say that Diocletian was the first "Dominate-esque" emperor because Aurelian was addressed as Dominus et Deus and even further back when people like Maximinus Thrax completely ignored the senate and relied solely on the army.

By this logic Rome stopped being Roman the moment Etruscans/Umbrians/Sabines/Greeks/Celts were assimilated into Latin culture.

ITT: Wh*toid Gayreeks praising their ancestors for LARPing as Romans

Rome was a great empire, then constantine had to go and be a nigger.