2018

>make no mention of Rome itself, the city
>goes on a tangent about it
Literally a strawman. Sudoku yourself at once, Greekboo.

That was literally the first point addressed.

How does it feel to be a brainlet?

>>no permanent control of Italy after the 7th century
The republic didn't fully control Italy until 218bc, guess they weren't true Romans either, really makes you think
>>speak Greek, not Latin
>>last ethnic/native Roman emperor who fluently and natively spoke Latin was Justinian
Greek was the lingua franca of the elite, latin was considered pedestrian, senators would often switch to speaking Greek mid oration just to prove they could, and at other times orations were done completely in Greek, not to mention that some of the most iconic latin phrases and works were actually done in Greek, like Caesar's "the die is cast" and Marcus Aurelius' Meditations (a book ment purely for himself, which means he was more familiar with Greek than Latin)
>>separation from the Papal authority in Rome
Nothing to do with being Roman
>>no Pontifex Maximus ever in ERE
what the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

Italy was crucial to controlling the Mediterranean, the backbone of the Roman Empire. Arguably more important than the borders.

This is how these threads always go. The first few replies are the same tired list of reasons why people continue to spout this bullshit which are subsequently shot down, sending the pseudo-Romaboos into hiding until the next relevant thread where they continue claiming the same shit.

>Not latin
Fun fact: being Roman has nothing to do with being Latin
Fun fact: the very legend of the foundation of Rome shows that Rome is multi-ethnic
Fun fact: Multiple of the legendary kings of Rome were of Greek origin
>Didnt speak latin
Greek was the lingua franca of the elite, latin was considered pedestrian, senators would often switch to speaking Greek mid oration just to prove they could, and at other times orations were done completely in Greek, not to mention that some of the most iconic latin phrases and works were actually done in Greek, like Caesar's "the die is cast" and Marcus Aurelius' Meditations (a book ment purely for himself, which means he was more familiar with Greek than Latin). So unless you want to say Romans weren't Roman from the beginning of their state, you are wrong
>Weren't pagan
The only valid point, but highly debatable because cultures are not static anyway
>Rome isn't capital
Rome wasn't the Roman capital since 286 AD, does that mean it's not true Rome?

No Italy, no Rome, no Romans, no Roman Empire.
Ya do realize the geographic location of the peninsula in the medi is what enabled the empire right

I'll take "Things change" for $500 please.

You are literally retarded.

wrong again

So what about the periods they did control Rome? Were they Roman then? But not immediately before or after?

Not an argument. It really ain't.

He literally talked about Rome not being the capital of the Roman empire in the later years you mongoloid

You seem to confuse the city of Rome with romans.

I never said anything about Rome specifically you troglodyte piss-ant.

>"The sky isn't green."
>"Are you saying it isn't blue?"
This is how dumb you are.
Nope.

>guy claims Roman identity requires city of Rome to be capital
>explain to him how by this logic, not even the WRE was Roman and why the city of Rome itself is unimportant to this discussion

It's really cute that you're trying to pick apart arguments with baby's first copy of logical fallacies for dummies. Keep trying idiot.

>>Still no respectable and compelling argument that the Byzantines should not be considered a continuation of the Roman state
You're right, it wasn't a continuation. It WAS the Roman State,

My only problem is when people like Constantine XI are called Romans.
Just feels like some cringey we wuzery.
I imagine if you showed romans from around 10BC they wouldn't consider him Roman at all.

I mean in all honesty if you showed a Roman from 500 BC a scene from the empire of 220 AD he'd be pretty confused as to what the fuck was going on, and who were these people claiming to be Romans.

I imagine if you showed a 6th century Roman 10bc Rome (let alone the Italian peninsula) he’d have a fit. Cultures change over time mate, of course 10bc Rome would be different from 1453 Rome.

>I imagine if you showed romans from around 10BC they wouldn't consider him Roman at all.
This is how we know that you're a brainlet.
If you showed a roman from 600BCE Julius Caesar he wouldn't consider him a roman either.

Yeah and if you showed Shaq to George Washington and told him this nigger was an american citizen his head would probably explode

You absolute dingus.

guys stop bullying him

PAY DEBT, GREEKLINGS

People should take atleast a second to think about their arguments if they don't want to get mocked.

Or what you'll shot laser beams at my city?

Neck yourself you dumb cunt
Here's your last (you)

YES

>no argument
Nice concession.
You first (You) sub-human.

Rome was a Latin state (look up the definition of a state). The Byzantine Empire was by nature a Greek state. Rome was never a nation-state and that was never the question.

They also had many Caesars of Semitic, Egyptian, Illyrian, and Carthaginian origin that does not as Rome was still a Latin state that was expansive.

>Greek was the lingua franca of the elite, latin was considered pedestrian, senators would often switch to speaking Greek mid oration just to prove they could, and at other times orations were done completely in Greek,
This changed widely over time period.

They could be speaking completely in Greek in 180 but be speaking purely in Latin in 410.

At the end of western Rome they and all client states were using Latin as their main language.

>Rome wasn't the Roman capital since 286 AD, does that mean it's not true Rome?
Rome still held the senate which was still an existent organization with some power in both the WRE and the ERE (which made its own when they failed to reconquer the WRE), it did not however have the Augustus who moved to Mediolanum.

Byzantine claim as a Roman continuation state is just as valid as an Ottoman claim to Rome.

Rome was a predominantly Latin state for much of its existence, but as discussed throughout this thread what it meant to be Latin/Roman was subject to change as is natural with any group of people given enough time. As Rome expanded and experienced Afro-Eurasian cultural syncretism, there was a severing between Roman identity and a strict adherence to cultural values and characteristics perceived to be truly, untarnished Latin culture. You could argue this ended even earlier with the subjugation of Italy and the accompanying assimilation of other Italian peoples. How Latin were the Latins when they were fighting in Greek hoplite fashion, how Latin were they when other Italian tribes had been subdued and agreed to provide a voluntary contribution of manpower which served as the bulk of the Roman army? How Latin were they when they adopted the maniple formation from the Samnites? This is looking at things through a military lens, but it still underscores the main point; Roman identity was a fluctuating thing that had been incorporating non-Latin cultural attributes as soon as the Romans dared to set foot from outside the town of Rome. By the time of Caracalla, Roman identity became an entirely nominal thing. Someone from Brittania was just as Roman as someone from Italy, or someone from Syria or Illyria. With this in mind, the Byzantine Empire, predominantly Greek in culture or not, was doubtlessly Roman - which they would have agreed with themselves.

>Byzantine claim as a Roman continuation state is just as valid as an Ottoman claim to Rome.

This is flatly untrue. The Byzantines literally were the Roman state, split apart from the West for the sole purpose of easing administrative duties. They were not a foreign people with no actual ties to the Roman government or place in Roman history who conquered their respective stake of Roman land the way the Ottomans did.

if the fact that Rome stopped being the administrative center/capital matters then why is the end of the western empire considered to be in 476 when Rome and the last emperor were conquered?

This is the widely recognized fact, but the truth of the matter is that the WRE's actual fall is a matter of contention. There were a few rump states set up outside of Italy that considered themselves still Rome, there were a litany of emperors leading up to Romulus Augustulus that some historians all each give credence to as "the last emperor". Point is that the fall of the WRE isn't tied down to a specific date or time ubiquitously agreed upon.

This.

Out of the last handful of emperors, a good deal of them were puppet-figures put on the throne by the German Ricimer, and if I recall correctly, others were propped up as "emperor of the West" by the eastern portion of the Empire. WRE lost its true autonomy long before 476.

The emperor didn't control Rome in 476, Romulus was deposed in Ravenna.

>Byzantine claim as a Roman continuation state is just as valid as an Ottoman claim to Rome.
This meme again.
Are brainlets still struggling with the concept of succession after all these years? Or are you just being a contrarian?
There's areason why Byzantium is considered by every single self-respecting historian to be the continuation of Rome while the Ostrogoths for example aren't, despite conquering the Western Empire.

Kek

They were, there's no arguing about it.

They were just like a really, really, REALLY bad sequel of a great movie.

My uni professor advocates this position.

In what ways?

Will Durant called it Greek Empire in his book.

Adrian Goldsworthy called it a lesser successor.

damn they never recovered from losing Syria :(

Imagine a world with now Justinian Plague and no Pope. What a world we could live in.

The Roman Empire took it's name from it's capital, Rome. The day the capital was moved the Roman Empire ceased to be the Roman Empire. It became the (insert capital name here) Empire.

so the Roman Empire ended in 286?

Yes

...

>brainlets still think wojaks phase people with brain cells

...

>They were not a foreign people with no actual ties to the Roman government or place in Roman history who conquered their respective stake of Roman land the way the Ottomans did.
And yet so were the Latins, Gauls, Greeks and Britons before they adopted aspects of Roman culture. While the Turks never adopted to the same degree as these peoples, their elite's titles, methods administrative and to some degree culture all adopted "Roman" norms after the conquest of Constantinople.
If a decree from the Emperor was enough to make you "Roman," I think it's ridiculous to say that Mehmed wasn't a Roman Emperor when he took up the mantle. It's not like taking the throne through conquest was a foreign idea to the Roman Empire, in fact provincials were at least attempting to become Emperor since Nero's time.

>And yet so were the Latins, Gauls, Greeks and Britons before they adopted aspects of Roman culture
Who had done so and lived among Roman rule for centuries, experiencing varying degrees of cultural syncretism and mutual coexistence long before the Turks had even came across the Altai mountains . Rome and Greece first began a series of cultural exchange and growing familiarity with each other while the Turkic people were still nomads inhabiting central Asia. To compare a group of people that posthumously adopted the customs and administrative practices upon arriving in a foreign land and undergoing a period of conquest to Greeks who had been a part of the Roman state for over a millennium is just downright fallacious.

So while Commodus was emperor the Roman empire changed to the Colonia Lucia Annia Commodiana Empire?

>Rome was a Latin [...]. The Byzantine Empire was by nature a Greek state.
What are you trying do here, semantically prove your point? There has never been a Byzantine Empire. That's just a name given to the late ERE by outsiders.

>Rome still held the senate which was still an existent organization with some power in both the WRE and the ERE (which made its own when they failed to reconquer the WRE)
What are you on about? Constantine made a Constantinopolitian senate. Why would the sole ruler of the Roman Empire try to reconquer an unlost part of it?

>Byzantine claim as a Roman continuation state is just as valid as an Ottoman claim to Rome.
Don't embarrass yourself.

This has to be one of the most stupid comments I've ever seen on Veeky Forums.

Low quality bait.

Ethnicity of the Roman Emperors:

-Augustus - Roman Italian (born at Velitrae, southeast of Rome)
-Tiberius - Roman Italian
-Gaius "Caligula" - Roman Italian (born at Antium)
-Claudius - Roman Italian (born at Lugdunum in Gaul)
-Nero - Roman Italian (born at Antium)
-Galba - Roman Italian
-Otho - Etruscan
-Vitellius - unknown, presumably Italian
-Vespasian - Sabine
-Titus - Sabine
-Domitian - Sabine
-Nerva - Italian or Cisalpine Gaulish (born at Narnia)
-Trajan - Spanish. Possibly some distant Italian ancestry.
-Hadrian - Spanish
-Antoninus Pius - Gaulish (born in Latium)
-Marcus Aurelius - Gaulish and Spanish
-Commodus - Gaulish and Spanish (born in Rome)
-Pertinax - unknown (family of slave origins)
-Julianus - unknown, probably Roman Italian
-Albinus - Italian
-Pescennius Niger - Roman Italian
-Septimius Severus - Carthaginian and Celtic
-Caracalla - Carthaginian, Celtic, and Syrian
-Macrinus - Italian (family had settled in Punic Africa)
-Elagabalus - Syrian
-Severus Alexander - Syrian
-Maximinus Thrax - probably Dacian (supposedly Thracian and Sarmatian)
-The Gordiani - unknown (probably mixed Italian, African, and Asian)
-Philip the Arab - Mesopotamian or Syrian Arab
-Decius - Illyrian or Pannonian (born at Budalia near Sirmium)
-Trebonianus Gallus - Perusian Etruscan
-Aemilian - Mauretanian
-Valerian - unknown
-Gallienus - unknown
-Claudius Gothicus - Illyrian
-Aurelian - Moesian
-Tacitus and Florian - unknown, possibly Italian or Danubian
-Probus - Illyrian or Pannonian (born at Sirmium)
-Carus - probably Gaulish and Greek (born at Narbo)
-Carinus and Numerian - probably Gaulish and Greek
-Diocletian - Dalmatian Illyrian
-Maximian - probably Illyrian or Pannonian
-Carausius - Menapian Gaul
-Constantius Chlorus - Moesian or Dacian
-Galerius - Dacian
-Severus II - Danubian
-Maxentius - Danubian and Syrian
-Constantine I and his sons - Moesian

>To compare a group of people that posthumously adopted the customs and administrative practices upon arriving in a foreign land and undergoing a period of conquest to Greeks who had been a part of the Roman state for over a millennium is just downright fallacious.
No, I think that your method of recognising what constitutes a Roman is arbitrary. As long as they acted Roman as a result of direct cultural interchange through conquest and imitation, then time and place is rather superfluous. Was there really that much of a difference between a Romanised Gaulic Nobleman and a "Roman" Nobleman in Gaul after they were granted citizenship? To think so is ridiculous.
>posthumously
Do you think that the Byzantine Romans suddenly disappeared or fled to Italy the moment that their Empire was conquered? The Patriarch himself made Mehmed the new Emperor of the Romans.

>As long as they acted Roman as a result of direct cultural interchange through conquest and imitation, then time and place is rather superfluous.

so i guess Every single Germanic kingdom established in the lands of the empire was Roman because a vast majority of the population remained static and continued with traditions and cultural affinity to the ones they had during the empire

>The Patriarch himself made Mehmed the new Emperor of the Romans.

the title of emperor is such a fucking pointless thing, not even the Romans themselves respected it. Way i see it, the emperor was only a valid manifestation of "Romanhood" and thus true heritage when there was some degree of popular and political acclaim, as it was until halfway into the Principate period. A defacto ruler doesn't represent anything.

You're missing the point. The ottomans were conquerors of the roman state while the greeks were subjects and part of the roman state.

If they declared themselves Roman and ruled in a Roman manner, then they would be Roman states by same principle that the divided Roman Empires were.
Also the entire second half of your post is complete and utter gibberish. Do you think that the Emperor lost all power less than halfway through the history of the Emperor?

Again, where they're from is an arbitrary measurement of "Romanness." The Greeks acted like Romans just like the Ottomans, both of their claims are equally legitimate. It's just that the Ottomans happened to push their claim by force.

>>If they declared themselves Roman and ruled in a Roman manner, then they would be Roman states by same principle that the divided Roman Empires were.

so fake it till you make it, right. I guess Americans saying America is the new Rome just need more fasces in their statues.

>Also the entire second half of your post is complete and utter gibberish. Do you think that the Emperor lost all power less than halfway through the history of the Emperor?

not power, but they weren't a manifestation of this weird substance that makes things 'Roman' or not. They were just rulers, like the ancient Etruscan kings.

>so fake it till you make it, right
Wrong. There's a big difference between a building Roman (Republican) government from scratch and taking over an government that was ruled by the Romans themselves, as the Ottomans did.

>ITT: greek larpers vs turk larpers

>There's a big difference between a building Roman (Republican) government from scratch and taking over an government that was ruled by the Romans themselves, as the Ottomans did.

Institutions aren't solid things, they aren't the buildings, they aren't the people, and they aren't the function, they're all three conjointly, if you take it over, you destroy them by the simple fact that you did.

This doesn't detract from the point that such institutions served a real appreciable identity and primitive form of nation. The nation disipated and went away when it's basic elements did. What remained was a replacement.

>Institutions aren't solid things, they aren't the buildings, they aren't the people, and they aren't the function, they're all three conjointly, if you take it over, you destroy them by the simple fact that you did.
What is an occupation? The Ottomans used the Byzantine institutions that were already in place to run their Empire while also adding some Turkish/Muslim factors to their way of governance.
> The nation disipated and went away when it's basic elements did. What remained was a replacement.
The Romans didn't disappear when Mehmed made himself their new Emperor.

>The Ottomans used the Byzantine institutions that were already in place to run their Empire while also adding some Turkish/Muslim factors to their way of governance.

and they used it to run the Ottoman empire, not the Byzantine empire, so they lost their original purpose and were replaced with another.

>The Romans didn't disappear when Mehmed made himself their new Emperor.

they weren't allowed to continue being Romans, they weren't a subject kingdom for a monarch holding several crowns. Those people were effectively turned Ottoman.

When the Americans used Japanese Institutions to run their Occupation Government, the state of Japan did not suddenly cease to exist because McArthur was the one calling the shots.
>they weren't allowed to continue being Romans
How so? Other than the introduction of the Jizya tax, life didn't change that much for the Romans. Also the Roman state religion changed numerous times in Rome's history, the transformation from Christianity to Islam was as natural as the transformation from Paganism to Christianity.
>Those people were effectively turned Ottoman
Then as the definition of "Romans" changed from Ethnic Latins to Romanised Greeks, when the Ottomans became Emperor the definition of Roman slowly changed to mean Ottoman Turks. That's how nations change over time.

>When the Americans used Japanese Institutions to run their Occupation Government, the state of Japan did not suddenly cease to exist because McArthur was the one calling the shots.

because Japan wasn't annexed and it resumed self-rule, you could argue it lost it's continuity with the thousands of years of independence prior.

>How so? Other than the introduction of the Jizya tax, life didn't change that much for the Romans. Also the Roman state religion changed numerous times in Rome's history, the transformation from Christianity to Islam was as natural as the transformation from Paganism to Christianity.

because they were not the Roman kingdom under the Ottoman Sultanate or whatever. They were not recognized as political, cultural or even demographic body and just blended in to something else.

If they remained Roman under absolute Ottoman rule then fuck, i guess Rome didn't exist since the first patricians were still the children of Sabine women.

>Then as the definition of "Romans" changed from Ethnic Latins to Romanised Greeks, when the Ottomans became Emperor the definition of Roman slowly changed to mean Ottoman Turks.

but the process was kickstarted and irreversible once they were conquered so that's the only sensible landmark to place the end of Rome.

Sop basically, what you're saying is that you can only be a people if you belong to a certain state.
To which I raise the Jews, Gypsies and hundreds of thousands of unorganised migratory peoples across history.
Trying to argue that the Ottomans were not Romans is like trying to argue that the Byzantines were not Romans. The only objections are personal and politically motivated.

Wrong.

The byzantines abandoned both the religion of rome(and the religious pluralism and tolerance that war part and parcel of that religious ideology) and even the slightest respect for the idea that Caesar was a first citizen and not a king or tyrant.

They spat upon the legacy of Augustus Caesar and they will never be roman in my eyes.

>>(and the religious pluralism and tolerance that was part and parcel of that religious ideology)
fixed.

Nice try Turk, but the Seljuks and Ottomans claiming to be Rum is more akin Odoacer taking control of Italy (in the Emperor's name of course wink wink) than any legitimate succession of the Roman Empire. Having said that, it's no better or worse than the >>> claiming to be Rome either

boy do you need to study your post-Principate Roman History

you are full of shit and never in your life read anything professional about the romans

Yes I know that the concept of a first citizen as leader was gradually dying before the byzantines. That doesn't excuse calling yourself a king and actually expecting to be considered Roman in any reasonable sense of the term.

>be Greek
>larped as Roman
>can't pay debt
>got his ass kicked by a blind oldman
>1000 years later
>still not pay debt

>where they're from is an arbitrary measurement of "Romanness."
It absolutely isn't. One is from a roman state while the other isn't.
The ottomans didn't act like the romans just because they claimed a bunch of their titles.
>both of their claims are equally legitimate.
You clearly do not understand what legitimate mean.

The pillaged Italy under Justinian.

...

>the transformation from Christianity to Islam was as natural as the transformation from Paganism to Christianity.
Don't be daft. The former was imposed by a foreign occupier while the latter was an internal change that took decades if not centuries.

>the definition of Roman slowly changed to mean Ottoman Turks
This never happened though. Up untill nationalism started to dominate european thought the greeks under ottoman rule refered to themselves as romans. After the fall of Constantinopolis being roman meant being a christian greek.

>even the slightest respect for the idea that Caesar was a first citizen and not a king or tyrant
You can't blame the byzantines for ol' cabbage-fucker's preferences.

Wait are you actually saying that the roman kingdom wasn't roman?

>implying you aren't retarded
>implying that makes any sense
>implying you shouldn't kill yourself

>no arguments
thanks for being a dumbass and strengthening my position

Better be a moron who wastes his time posting shit like this on Veeky Forums then.

The Byzantines were a literal continuation of Rome, they gained autonomy for the purpose of easing the administrative and political burden on an empire set on cannibalizing itself. There was no "acting" Roman because they were fucking Roman, they had a sense of shared political identity and an actual connection to the state. "It's just that the Ottomans happened to push their claim by force" is a statement unbelievably asinine as they were a people entirely foreign with no past connection to Rome in any way. Mehmed proclaiming that he was Caesar was an entirely symbolic gesture.

>Do you think that the Byzantine Romans suddenly disappeared or fled to Italy the moment that their Empire was conquered?
Actually yes, a good deal of Romans fled to Europe - this is well-documented and has ties to the beginning of the Renaissance.