Daily reminder that the Byzantines spoke Greek, practised Orthodox Christianity and were living under a Monarchy...

Nah, he's right, rome was founded and thrived as a polytheist, latin speaking, republic. The greek speaking, christian, monarchy that succeeded them in the former roman eastern provinces cannot be considered a valid successor in anything other then political terms.

>Nah, he's right, rome was founded and thrived as a polytheist, latin speaking, republic. The greek speaking, christian, monarchy that succeeded them in the former roman eastern provinces
the majority of romans to have ever lived spoke Greek you mongoloid. The height of Rome was achieved under the empire so that's a completely dogs hit argument as well. Your only real argument is that they were christian but societies change over hundreds of years. Doesn't mean it isn't the same country. By your logic England stopped being the same country when it stopped being majority christian.
>cannot be considered a valid successor in anything other then political terms.
so the only ones that actually matter?

t. brainwashed fat ignorant american who doesn't know anything about the roman empire

>some faggot doesn't understand what goes on in the West after Christianity took hold

>New Rome was a name given by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great in 330 AD to his new imperial capital at the city on the European coast of the Bosporus strait

Something something

HOL UP

YOU MEAN THAT THEY WERE HOLY, AND AN EMPIRE?

>Your only real argument is that they were christian
Not really, the roman empire was a christian empire after Constantine. Christianity is a Roman religion.

>the majority of romans to have ever lived spoke Greek you mongoloid
They were bilingual latin speakers who also spoke greek.

>>The height of Rome was achieved under the empire so that's a completely dogs hit argument as well.
None of the emperors that were actually liked or were good in anyway acted like kings. All the best of the imperators paid due respect to the republican traditions of rome.

>>Your only real argument is that they were christian but societies change over hundreds of years.
They turned their back on the gods that the legions of the republic and the caesars marched under and betrayed the ideas of valor and strength under which the empire flourished. I'm not going to say that christianity destroyed the remnants of rome as such, but it didn't help much or at all really.

>>Your only real argument is that they were christian but societies change over hundreds of years.
Firstly, most british people still identify as being some form of christian, even if only culturally so.
Secondly, the British empire reached the height of it's wealth and power as christianity became increasingly irrelevant in the 19th century.

Byzantium wasn't roman, they were greeks with delusions of grandeur.

>ignoring the next 2-3 sentences where I refute the line of thought
really?

>Byzantium wasn't roman, they were greeks with delusions of grandeur.
No user, it was Roman-Greek mixed shit.

You mean the decline and collapse of the western empire? Not saying that christianity was the sole cause mind you, but you are kinda begging the question here.

Try only after bloody and vicious persecutions of polytheists and the destruction/conversion of most of their religious temples and other things associated with those faiths. This started in the time of theodosius, and probably took about a hundred years to complete and even then there were holdouts here and there.

You are 100% retrojecting literally your own personal view from the 21st century onto the past.

Since this is one of the first things you are taught not to do when learning history I can only conclude that you aren't very well educated.

>You mean the decline and collapse of the western empire?
You mean the collapse and getting back up, and dusting itself off.

>Try only after bloody and vicious persecutions of polytheists and the destruction/conversion of most of their religious temples and other things associated with those faiths. This started in the time of theodosius, and probably took about a hundred years to complete and even then there were holdouts here and there.

so? a new roman religion replaced the old. rome and it's legacy is christian now, despite the fact that the only thing you know about rome is julious caesar and mars/jupiter worship.

You didn't refute shit

Non daily reminder that a daily reminder is not daily if you dont make it daily.

Oh really? Because most of europe didn't consider byzantium to be roman by the time the turks conquered it. My views aren't anything new, and plenty of people share them.

Finally calling me uneducated doesn't make you right.

>catholics didn't recognise orthodox as legitimate
no shit, next you'll tell me shias and sunnis hate eachother

>Catholics have Rome
>Orthodox has nothing
Yeah, no shit they wouldn't view them as Roman.

>a new roman religion replaced the old
Christianity isn't a roman religion. It's jewish concepts mixed with greek philosophy.

>rome and it's legacy is christian now
To you maybe, not to me and not to plenty of other people.

>Because most of europe didn't consider byzantium to be roman by the time the turks conquered it
Europeans didn't have a critical method for evaluating history until not all that long ago either.

>and plenty of people share them.
no credible roman scholar does though so....

Are you that one idiot who thinks PIE language didn't exist and everything is based on Latin?

>Christianity isn't a roman religion
Judea wasn't a Roman Providence?

>They were bilingual latin speakers who also spoke greek.
past 212 the majority of "Romans" didn't speak Latin as a first language and Greek would've been more attractive to them anyway as a language of trade, culture and general 'progress'

>None of the emperors that were actually liked or were good in anyway acted like kings. All the best of the imperators paid due respect to the republican traditions of rome.
means nothing, a monarch is a monarch whether he gloats and wags his cock in the senate's face or no

>They turned their back on the gods that the legions of the republic and the caesars marched under
which gods? Greco-Roman? Mithra? Sol Invictus? various local cults that individual soldiers would have worshipped from their homelands? ridiculous

>I'm not going to say that christianity destroyed the remnants of rome as such, but it didn't help much or at all really.
in what way
also how did other religions "help", how could they? did the Roman Empire collapse in your eyes because Jupiter wasn't supplying them with his thunder bolts or because Mars fucked with the crops and stuck his foot out in front of the legions?

>Byzantium wasn't roman, they were greeks with delusions of grandeur.
point out any time pre-1453/61 that the link was broken

>To you maybe, not to me and not to plenty of other people.
That's because you're american or some other colonial untermench

New Rome(Constantinople) was more important than Old Rome, which was mostly a village by the middle ages.

Jews were a subject people and their religion did not acknowledge the roman gods. Plus I believe you mean province here.

> None of the emperors that were actually liked or were good in anyway acted like kings. All the best of the imperators paid due respect to the republican traditions of rome.
Now this is bullshit, see Diocletian and the Dominate period he started. Eastern Romans didn't lapsed back to Hellenic Monarchy overnight in 476, Roman Empire was in a process of becoming one since Augustus.

>New Rome(Constantinople) was more important than Old Rome
If you lived in the Balkans.
>Jews were a subject people and their religion did not acknowledge the roman gods
Still lived on the land.
>Plus I believe you mean province here
Tomato Tomato.

>If you lived in the Balkans.
No, if you lived anywhere in the Empire. Rome was a deserted ruin, Milano was the capital of the western roman empire.

>No, if you lived anywhere in the Empire. Rome was a deserted ruin, Milano was the capital of the western roman empire.
So that's why Byzantium had so much influence on the west?

constantinople predates theodosius and the split

What exactly is your argument here?

>He doesn't know about Byzantine refuges who started the Renaissance

Byzantium/Byzantion was the original Greek colony on the site that Constantinople was built on

>>past 212 the majority of "Romans" didn't speak Latin as a first language and Greek would've been more attractive to them anyway as a language of trade, culture and general 'progress'
>>past 212
So you mean past when the empire had started to decline and gradually begin to change into something else.

>>means nothing
No actually, it does mean something because there is a difference between an enlightened despot who acknowledges the ideals of the past as being worth living up to, and someone who discards reverence for those ideals for whatever reason.

>>which gods? Greco-Roman? Mithra? Sol Invictus? various local cults that individual soldiers would have worshipped from their homelands? ridiculous
All of them. When theodosius outlawed any other faith then christianity and judaism he made the people of rome turn their back upon the ideals and religions of their forefathers.

>>In what way
christianity as the only legal religion increased internal strife and infighting at a time when rome could least afford such infighting.

>>also how did other religions "help", how could they? did the Roman Empire collapse in your eyes because Jupiter wasn't supplying them with his thunder bolts or because Mars fucked with the crops and stuck his foot out in front of the legions?
I don't believe in the supernatural, I do however recognize the value of religious pluralism and that was something polytheist rome had in spades.

>>point out any time pre-1453/61 that the link was broken
Oh you mean you don't remember the fourth crusade? That was when even the so called "new rome" was lost to angry hairy frankish types.

That said the cultural and religious metamorphosis was probably completed when the title of Basileus started being used.

>So you mean past when the empire had started to decline and gradually begin to change into something else.
and when did the empire begin to decline according to you?
I don't like Gibbon but
>we shouldn't ask why the Roman Empire fell, but how it lasted so long

>No actually, it does mean something because there is a difference between an enlightened despot who acknowledges the ideals of the past as being worth living up to, and someone who discards reverence for those ideals for whatever reason.
there isn't
they both wield the same power, one who you call "enlightened" is essentially one that doesn't spit on the Senate and ignore whatever trivial cordialities payed them as a memory of the past

>All of them.
so a disjointed many that the Caesar's apparently marched under

>When theodosius outlawed any other faith then christianity and judaism he made the people of rome turn their back upon the ideals and religions of their forefathers.
so smashing some temples and banning some holidays changed completely the fabric of the Roman Empire so as to not make it "Roman" anymore?
how does that follow

you're correct about disharmony and tension after the edicts of theodosius though, especially right after the crisis of the third century

>Oh you mean you don't remember the fourth crusade? That was when even the so called "new rome" was lost to angry hairy frankish types.
losing an urban center that was later reclaimed smashes the link?
Empire of Nicaea was still the ERE, ruled by an Emperor who was even raised to the throne in Constantinople before it fell to the Crusaders
how is this breaking the link to you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rome_(537–38)

not like it even matters, Rome lost almost all importance after the fall to where less than 30,000 people lived in the city. But to be fair, East Rome did come back for it in 537 and held it until 754.

The Renaissance began at least a century before the Byzantines fell.

Bottom left is totally a black guy

W

HE

So its not Rome after Augustus...

Lets also ignore that Christianity was almost entirely a borrowed pagan religion as well.

>they both wield the same power, one who you call "enlightened" is essentially one that doesn't spit on the Senate and ignore whatever trivial cordialities payed them as a memory of the past
>>entire provinces given to the senate by Augustus
>>trivial cordialities.
lol

>>so smashing some temples and banning some holidays changed completely the fabric of the Roman Empire so as to not make it "Roman" anymore?
Oh it was much more then that and you are deliberately downplaying what was done. Any and all non-christian religion was oppressed and murdered out of the empire basically starting with Theodosius (although some oppression occurred before this he was the one who really got going on it).

>>and when did the empire begin to decline according to you?
Personally? Probably after commodus died and there was no one of any real quality who succeeded him and could last for long enough to stabilize things.

Julius Caesar also said Latin is a more beautiful language then Greek and crucified his own Greek tutor.

>>they both wield the same power, one who you call "enlightened" is essentially one that doesn't spit on the Senate and ignore whatever trivial cordialities payed them as a memory of the past
>>>entire provinces given to the senate by Augustus
>>>trivial cordialities.
>lol
lol

>Oh it was much more then that and you are deliberately downplaying what was done.
and you are deliberately over-hyping what was done to fit your narrative
you've not shown how it contributed to the fall of Rome, so tell me how

Greek was to the Romans what French was to the Russian Aristocracy of the 19th century

They'd have been speaking it exclusively if it didn't make them cucks

>beginning in the 11th century
They never "started practicing orthodox christianity".

>reminder it's catholicism that created the schism

>Be Byzantine Historian PhD fag
>Mfw reading this thread

>>over-hyping
Bullshit.
I already explained this, internal strife and infighting weakens a state and the roman empire couldn't afford to be weakened in the late 4th early 5th centuries.

infighting where?
weakened how?
there were no major revolts, just disharmony and tension as temples were looted and destroyed

>crucified his own Greek tutor

The absolute insanire hominem.

Post citations and evidence.

As expected of a man of the plebs.

He's not wrong. Latin is more beautiful than Greek.

>t. Maximus Plebus

Greek is an ugly language.

Seriously though Greek doesn't flow off the tongue nearly as well. It's harsher.

Do you even know Attic Greek?

>>there were no major revolts therefore there was no infighting
Stupid as fuck. Oppressing your own citizens is infighting too genius, minor revolts are still revolts and infighting and it is weakening for self-evident reasons. Any time, money and manpower spent killing or oppressing roman citizens for not being christian is time money and manpower not spent defending the empire from foreign threats, be they germans from across the rhine or the sassykids getting uppity.

Also ugly sounding. Greek vs Latin is like comparing Arabic to French.

How do you know though?
Nobody speaks latin anymore and those who do speaks it wildly different to how it would be originally.

>Nobody speaks latin anymore and those who do speaks it wildly different to how it would be originally.
how so? although along the centuries some sounds changed, we have a pretty good idea of how words were pronounced. After all, like italian, latin is pretty much pronounced as it's written

Barring some extreme changes in phonetic expression I don't see how Greek becomes less scratchy than Latin.

Who died in Rome?

>greek
Which was romes other accepted language and culture
>orthodox christianity
Based off chalcedonian christianity established by romans
>monarchy
I mean if you consider what byzantium did then julius caesar is a monarch in every way shape and form.

what's your opinion on the topic?

>minor revolts
not even in the sense of armed uprising either though
seriously, find me one
one pagan armed uprising that came about as a result of the Theodosian Edicts

>Any time, money and manpower spent killing or oppressing roman citizens for not being christian is time money and manpower not spent defending the empire from foreign threats,
what?
they didn't have to redirect any funds from the army to deal with anything major happening as a result of the Edicts

Latin is boring, m8. One of the most robotic languages in history.

Dude, there was a war between Theodosius and Eugenius + Arbogastes and religious tolerance was a major sticking point for Theodosius, the guy was an insane fanatic.

>>they didn't have to redirect any funds from the army to deal with anything major happening as a result of the Edicts
That doesn't refute what I said genius.

Latin has more influence:

>Vulgar Latin
>Italian
>Spanish
>French
>Romanian
>Portuguese

Even English is hugely influenced by Latin.

>English is hugely influenced by Latin
French.

Sounds like the late Roman Empire to me retard.

1/3rd of English is basically Latin loan words.
And 1/3rd again is from French.

Which is also hugely influenced by Latin.

>Arabic
>Ugly

>By your logic England stopped being the same country when it stopped being majority christian.

I was with you up until that point

>>By your logic England stopped being the same country when it stopped being majority christian.
>I was with you up until that point
Part of his argument was that it was no longer Roman because Rome was a pagan and not a Christain state.

Maybe not the best example but by that logic you can say the same about any country that experiences a demographic shift. Probably a better example would be when england left the catholic church. It didn't become a different country when it became majority protestant.

Romans were Latin. If you aren't Latin, you're only a Roman fuck toy if you claim to be Roman but aren't Latin.
>inb4 but political title
If we're going by that I'd say the HRE and Carolingian Dynasty were Roman, but clearly, that's not the case.

>spoke Greek

Roman History was pretty much in bed with Greek language and culture for a large part of its history.

>practiced Orthodox Christianity

Leaving aside the sectarian Christianity splits, being Christian does not disqualify them as Roman since the Roman Empire was pretty much Christian by the end anyways.

>living under a monarchy

And what would you call the Roman Emperors which ruled Rome for hundreds of years?

in b4 Voltaire comes in with

>eastern
>roman
>empire

It probably already happened but I haven't really browsed over this thread.

Daily reminder that the late Roman Empire spoke late latin, practiced Christianity, and were living under a Monarchy, so they were pretty much the antithesis of Romans.
That is all

>Orthodox Christianity

Actually they practiced Chalcedonian Christianity, which incidentally, so did the west! The Great Schism starts with the middle ages. By that time you've seen Romans get cucked by Germans and Persians and come back at the last minute against the Persians only for both of them to get cucked by the Arabs, and for the Arabs to both Rise and Fall, and Turks move in.

In the time period most of you seem to be describing, most of this shit hasn't happened yet.

I don't like to speak from "authority" so don't assume I do. But What is factual is that they did called themselves Romans and see themselves as Romans. Our autistic opinions about how much roman they truly were are irrelevant. You can of course discuss the elements of "Roman Culture, Statesmanship" but to call it Roman-Not Roman, meh who cares. As you said, It basically comes down to your opinion on the matter.

Another thing I find weird is that people seem to obsess about calling them "Roman Empire" correcting people who say "Byzantine" While in academia people use byzantine-eastern roman etc interchangeably.

There were clear differences between eastern and western theology before the fall of the western empire, they just didn't schism over it until much latter

Not him but can you give some examples? I'm not trying to debate you and prove you wrong, I'm really curious

For instance in western Europe and some other places, the idea that the pope was in charge was already taking hold. You see in some of the councils where the west would object to something or the east would push something through when the popes reps were absent. You also had people like Augustine who were loved in the west but never caught on it the east.

Its true the divisions only grew with time, but they were there already, besides the were other regional variations in Christianity throughout the period.

"The Latin critics were themselves fully conscious of the broad distinction in character between their own language and the Greek. Seneca dwells upon the stately and dignified movement of the Latin period, and uses for Cicero the happy epithet of gradarius. He allows to the Greeks gratia, but claims potentia for his own countrymen. Quintilian (xii. ro. 27 seq.) concedes to Greek more euphony and variety both of vocalization and of accent; he admits that Latin words are harsher in sound, and often less happily adapted to the expression of varying shades of meaning. But he too claims "power” as the distinguishing mark of his own language. Feeble thought may be carried off by the exquisite harmony and subtleness of Greek diction; his countrymen must aim at fulness and weight of ideas if they are not to be beaten off the field. The Greek authors are like lightly moving skiffs; the Romans spread wider sails and are wafted by stronger breezes; hence the deeper waters suit them."

>Another thing I find weird is that people seem to obsess about calling them "Roman Empire" correcting people who say "Byzantine"
This is what irks me the most about byzzaboos. They seem to think that by claiming or 'proving' the Roman-ness of the Byzantines they are justified in adding the historical prestige or splendor of Ancient Rome to their favorite rump-state. This is reaching nearly wewuz levels of autism on their behalf and it's completely fucking moot.

Why should we call the ERE "Byzantine Empire" but insist on calling the Barbaric German Federation "Roman"?

remainder that pic related was the only worthy succesor of rome

Has there ever even been a time when the Holy Roman Empire controlled Rome. They come off as glorified mercenaries of the papacy, of whom the latter would often turn on the moment they got too big for their britches, which was often.

Plus, by that logic we would probably have to discount the entirety of Constantine's reign (and presumably his successors), since he principally spoke greek and reigned from Constantinople. I don't know about his siblings, but I also know for a fact that Julian the Apostate preferred greek as well. And Marcus Aurelius certainly wasn't writing his meditations in base Latin.

The HRE did control Rome - Otto III even made it his capital for a short time.

Constantine's first language was Latin - he was from Niš, in Latin speaking Illyricum. Eusebius notes that his Greek was not that great.

But the Byzantine empire was the Roman empire. The only reason academics use the term Byzantium is for convenience, to describe the ERE from the 7th century onwards - when it emerges from the crisis of Heraclian's reign.