After loss of Syria and Egypt only a middle-sized average country with no real power, not any "empire"

kek

>"Roman Empire" with no Rome

Also an Orthodox Monarchy that spoke Greek. Pretty much the antithesis of Roman culture. The HRE was more Roman than the Greek Empire was.

>implying Roman noblemen didn't speak Greek
>implying it wasn't a literal direct continuation of the Roman government

Well, they kinda spent most of the time fighting pretty much everyone, and i give them credits for that.

Only culturally influencing the Slavs? Please, what about Muslims or Venetians?

You do know that a major factor in the Renaisansse explosion in Italy were Byzantine immigrants right?

But Greek wasn't the main language of Rome. That's like saying Canadians and French people are the same because French is the second language of Canada.

It may have initially been a continuation of the Roman government, but the power of the Byzantine senate kept being devolved.

Obviously you have to be completely ignorant to not acknowledge Roman influence on the empire, but to literally refer to it as 'the Roman Empire' is just absurd. Culturally they were nothing like the Romans.

Link related.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_scholars_in_the_Renaissance

>the power of the Byzantine senate kept being devolved
By 395 AD, the Roman senate in both East and West was nothing more than a ceremonial rich-men's club that got to sort-of govern a city when the Emperor either let them or wasn't able to tell them what to do.

It was around for 1000 years after the fall of the West, of course the culture would evolve and change, as all cultures do.

Guys I think we should ask the Republic of Ireland to change their name. They started speaking English in the 1850s, they have NO RIGHT to the name Ireland.

France doesn't speak Old German either, what the fuck is up with that. Fucking posers.

Fuck off REE

It is A Roman Empire, but it's not THE Roman Empire

Yep. But the cultures of England, France, Spain and the many states in Germany and Italy all directly came from the Romans. The culture in the Byzantine Empire was Greek.

>the cultures of England, France, Spain and the many states in Germany and Italy
Not really, England spoke a Germanic language, was ruled primarily by Germanic peoples, and inhabited by Germanic peoples. Same with Germany.

Byzantine culture was a Hellenized version of Roman culture that further evolved along those lines. It was a direct evolution of Roman culture, just as much as anything in Spain, France, and Italy was. In fact, probably moreso, because Roman economic, political, and military relations were maintained.

Samefagging because I just thought of this.

That said, I think it ceased being Roman before 1453. I think 1204 with the depopulation of Constantinople is a good date for that, because Constantinople's large population really helps seal the continuity of Roman imperial structure.

Sorry that was Austria-Hungary wog

Yes the great austo-hungarian empire during the years 650 to 1450?

I think you have them mixed up with Gondor

Tolken said Gondor was based on them.

Austria-Hungary existed for like twenty years, but hungary and later austria contained the ottomans til their collapse while the Byzantines all converted to islam

?????
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire#Religion

what the fuck is your problem you fucking retard?
Yes, towards the end of the Byzantine empire the Hungarian kingdowm was under Ottoman pressure but we are talking about the age not before the 1350s.
Hungarians were literally apes on trees during most of the period of Byzantine Empire so I really do not understand where you are coming from.

Yeah and sejuks were some mongols with horses and they still lost. Byzatines couldn't even protect themselves from islam, let alone all of europe. Their existence is irrelevant since the HRE and France existed with actual success against muslims, I''m sure hungary would have successfully defeated the muslims then too

the "ancient" past does not revolve around your favorite years, in this case somewhere between the 14th to 16th. If you would like to put forth an argument as to why the Byzantine Empire had little to do with muslim advance into Europe you have to take into account the very real and eventful years of 650-1300. Otherwise, just stop posting please or mention explicitly to what period you are referring.

>Europe's shield
>Moors and Arabs conquer Spain/Portugal, large parts of France, and even breach into Scility and the Italian islands for hundreds of years
Good job shielding, dingus.

The issue a lot of historians and academics have with labeling post-Heraculis ERE as "Roman" is because the Latin character of the empire was gone. Greek was the common tongue by the end of the 7th century, they have no connection militarily to Italy after Justinian's failure to take it back permanently, and the Schism further divided it from the Latin West.

Thesis: Byzantines lead to europes rise because they stopped islamic invasions from 650-1300
My Antithesis:
Byzantines had no effect on the invasion of spain and muslim defeat there by france shows other european power capable of defeating islamic invasions

Muslim rule wasn't even detrimental culturally and scientifically in spain and only had faults in its splintered nature, nothing that would stop europe's rise

Muslim organization in asia minor was pathetic and didn't even exist in 650, if anything the Byzantines helped islam rise to power by giving them and easily conquered and converted imperial state to rule from

The English are literally the mongrels of Europe, so I'm not sure what you mean by this, different user by the way.

>be Celtic
>get throughly Romanized
>Roman Britain takes on its own character from the assimilated Celtics merging with Roman settlers and colonias in England and Wales
>Anglo-Saxons repulsed a couple times after the fall of Rome
>Eventually Anglo-Saxons are able to replace Latin with Anglish, a Germanic language but they are assimilated into the Romano-Celtic society
>English takes on a Germanic character in both language and partially culture

How were they Europe's shield when Muslim armies and invasion forces raided Italy, and held Iberia for nearly 1000 years and were only reversed once Tours went down?

>Roman Britain takes on its own character from the assimilated Celtics merging with Roman settlers and colonias in England and Wales
>Anglo-Saxons repulsed a couple times after the fall of Rome

A- there was no roman settlers
B- The saxons were invited
C- You are baselessly speculating on assimilation and racemixing in history you don't know

>>"There exists another history, more absurd [ridicule] than the history of Rome since the time of Tacitus: it is the history of Byzantium. This worthless collection contains nothing but declamations and miracles. It is a disgrace to the human mind."

the absolute madman

>Curved swords
>roman

pick one

>there was no Roman settlers
Wrong.
>The Saxons were invited
Wrong.
>*snip for more ad naseum bullshit*
Retard.

>There were no roman settlers (in Roman Britain)
>The Saxons were invited

Hispania Gladius wasn't invented by Romans either, so I guess Republican Rome wasn't Roman either.

Whatever you say Olaf.

>curved
>swords

That is a terrible analogy friend.

>Romans
>borrowers
Pick 2.

What's the HRE then?

Let's say you get a banana and try so hatd to explain to others that it's an apple even though it isn't.

That's the
>H
>R
>E

The britons invited saxons post romans for protection then they eventually seized power. There was no multiple repulsed invasions by long boat or whatever the fuck dilettantes are imagining

No they didn't.

Curved swords!

I would agree to this logic

Fag on the right looks better desu fampai. That crown is dapper as fuck

spotted the nigger lover

Why does the guy on the left have a baby hanging off of him?

Hey now, that's uncalled for. That guy's outfit is Veeky Forums as fuck.

>Byzantines had no effect on the invasion of spain and muslim defeat there by france shows other european power capable of defeating islamic invasions
The Franks defended Western Europe while the Byzantines protected Eastern Europe, it's not hard to see that both did their parts in protecting Europe. What pisses me off is the western centricism on how the Franks are glorified while the Byzantines are ignored despite facing larger pressure from the muslims. The muslims during the Battle of Tours were merely a raiding party compared to shit the Byzantines fought against.

Asia minor isn't europe, you're effectively stating turkey is europe. Only hungary and later austria actually stopped a muslim invasion into europe

>pre-Turkish Anatolia is Turkey
Okay

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(674–678)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(717–718)

Educate yourself, dumbfuck.

Europe used to go until Georgia and Armenia...

Georgia was traditionally a province of Greater Iran until the Qajars, so no it wasn't.

*traditionally viewed as

Historians have no issue calling it Roman
The only people who do are fat neckbeards on the internet

Please show me proof of a universal consensus of treating the Byzantines as Roman.

No
Find a historian refusing to call them romans

My tenured professor with a doctorate in ancient history for one. And I asked you for PROOF of a consensus universally in academia. That burden is on you.

Nope
I'm right you're wrong
Simple as that

Oh please, the eastern provinces of the Empire had always been more Hellenic in character than Latin, in so far that Latin had always been the lingua franca of the west and greek that of the east. This was true at the time of Augustus as well. All Roman nobles were fluent in both anyway.

Georgia and armenia are orthdox, your definition of europe has no racial, geographic, or religious basis and I really want to know whats behind its fluid nature

Greek was ALWAYS the most spoken tongue in the Empire

Where is the great Byzantine art and literature compared to that of the medieval West? Did they have any culture besides the Bible?

I agree that they are Romans, but, I mean, come on, that shit is easy. Peter Heather.

>"In 476, the Eastern Roman Empire survived the collapse of its Western counterpart, and it continued to thrive, to all appearances, throughout the next century. Under the Emperor Justinian I (527-65), it even mounted and expansionary programme of conquest in the Western Mediterranean that destroyed the Vandal and Ostrogothic kingdoms of North Africa and Italy and captured part of Southern Spain from the Visigoths. Gibbon concluded that the Roman Empire survived in the eastern Mediterranean for virtually a millennium, dating its fall to the Ottoman capture of Constantinople in 1453. To my mind, however, the rise of Islam in the seventh century caused a decisive break in east Mediterranean Romanness. It robbed Justinian's state of three-quarters of its revenues and prompted institutional and cultural restructuring on a massive scale. Even thought the rulers of Constantinople continued to be called 'Emperors of the Romans' long after the year 700, they were actually ruling an entity best understood as a successor state rather than a proper continuation of the Roman Empire. But even by my reckoning, a fully Roman state survived in the eastern Mediterranean for more than a century and a half after the deposition of Romulus Augustulus."

Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Page 431.

the Bible 2: Christ's Reckoning

not available internationally though

>where is the great Byzantine art and literature compared to that of the Medieval West?

In their gigantic city. You have incredible architecture and histories in Constantinople alone.

Do you think that during the sack there were many original works of literature that were destroyed?

Most likely, but even so, a lot still survives: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_literature

So no proof? Concession accepted then, friendo.

No it wasn't. Just in the Roman East. Most common tongue in the Empire was actually Latin given how Iberians and Gaulics as well as Roman Britains were added to the Latin speaking communities.

there were far more people in the East, and the entire noble elite spoke Greek

You don't see art of this caliber until the likes of Giotto in Europe.

This is from the Hagia Sophia

... and this is the Hagia Sophia

cool towers bro

Greek was always seen as the language of the intellectuals

They really are tho

Roman emperors were pedophiles

Not really no. There were more Latin speakers alone in Italy, Iberia, and Gaul then the Greek speakers in the Roman East. Also bullshit, many nobles and Patricians hated Greeks for being viewed as degenerate Orientalists.

the forces the franks faced were considerable the difference was that the caliphates were right next door to the byzantines so they got hit with more frequency

The whole 'defending Europe' argument never made much sense for either of them. Who defended the rest of Europe from the Franks and Byzantines themselves, who just did the same thing as the Arabs and Turks?

>gaul and iberia
these provinces were less populated and poorer than anything from the southern balkans all the way through asia minor. add to that the levant all the way to egypt and you definately have more people than in the west. there are no statistical evidence from the ancient world but the countless archeological evidence (both excavations and surveys) and the countless written recorded events, wars, controversies etc and the fact that the highest ranking emperor in times of division always was set in the east all lead to the conclusion that the east was definately bigger.

>nobels and patricians hating greek
on what period are you talking about? late republic ? the administrative center of the empire moved into the heart of the greek world in 330

btw this argument is put forward with way more detail in fergus millars 'a greek roman empire' which mainly focuses on the period of theodosius ii.

Jesus Christ this thread is a trainwreck. but to refute your points.

>after loss of Syria and Egypt only a middle-sized average country with no real power, not any "empire"

The Byzantines were the only power capable of even having a standing professional army in Europe, with trained professional soldiers who defeated European knights time and again.

you can look up the Norman invasion of the Byzantine Empire for that.

Not even gonna describe how much money and riches flowed through the city of Constantinople alone, that much is a given to the Empire's power.

>didn't influence anyone besides shitty slavs so no cultural importance at all.

aside from the blatant prejudice, I would say the slavs that broke Europe's greatest powers in Napoleonic France and the Third Reich earned the right of respect.

and Byzantine culture exists everywhere in Western Society, from the food of Greece to mosaic art to Civil Law.

>terrible military, losing every single important war

What are the Byzantine-Persian wars? what are the conquests of the Ostrogoths and the Vandals? What is the conquest of the Bulgars? beating back 11 sieges of Constantinople? it goes on.

>ugly and uninteresting art and architecture

that's just, like, your opinion man.

>"Roman Empire" with no Rome - that's some fucking joke

Rome was retaken by Belisarius and Narses, and was held for over 200 years until finally given to the Pope to improve church relations. don't be stupid.

>no contribution to science

they re-imagined architecture with the pendentive dome and vaulted ceiling, as well as the mathematics to make such feats possible.

>the only important even in it's history is Sack of Constantinople

Half of all humanity owes their civil law code to the Corpus Juris Civilis. The Byzantines 1000 year empire have shaped the entire world in much the same way as they shaped both Western and Eastern society.

>Gaul
>less populated
>than anything from the southern balkans
Stop making shit up you fucking retard. Gaul was a hugely fortified, colonized, and one of the most popular settlements for the Romans besides Hispania.

>Byzantine-Persian Wars
Aside from the final Byzantine/Roman-Perso War of 602-628/629 AD, the Byzantines frequently tended to lose or pay off the Persians to end the prior major wars; Lazic Wars, Iberian War, Anastasian War, etc...

Not really the best example but point taken somewhat.

>Gaul
What are you talking about? Gaul was the most preferred province in the Roman Empire for veteran and ex-Roman soldiers to be settled in colonias and frontier towns. It was the most Romanized territory in the empire besides Hispania and the whole of Iberia in the first place, the closest to Rome physically, and had a huge development as the leftover networks of highways and roads and what not.

Gaul was huge manpower reserve for the Roman Empire because both Romanized Gauls/Celtics and colonial Romans were a mainstay there.

He's retarded and has no knowledge of Byzantine history. The Byzantines called themselves Roman, used Roman law, and were culturally Roman. Your professor is a fool who is discounting an entire civilisation, one we owe quite a lot to, to suit his personal narrative. He's the issue with modern academia, and the type of person who keeps Byzantine studies and knowledge of Byzantium down.

And yet the WRE was unable to raise an army to rival then ERE's in either size or quality. Those troops they did have, they had trouble paying. The WRE's power came mainly from Italy and Africa, the only two provinces the ERE thought worthy of fighting to regain.

>Serbia gets rekt
>Hungary gets rekt
>Austria almost gets rekt
>Poland saves Austria
>Poland and Venice beat back the turks
>Austria partitions Poland
>after Napoleon falls Austria annexes Venice
>as Austria gets a stable boarder they import Serbs and assign them to protect their boarder
>when Serbia becomes a state they do everything in their power to influence it
>attack Serbia
Austrians are ungrateful perfidious assholes
Bulwark of Europe my ass.
Just get Serbs, Hungarians, Poles and Venetians to do the work