It's a "Veeky Forums referring to Greek speaking, Orthodox Christian Monarchies as the Roman Empire" episode

Complete lack of historic knowledge. The idea that Rome was squarely divided to two different states is also a notion created to simplify history. Rome had been divided to bits and pieces before several times because one Emperor was not enough to hold it all together.

Even with the last division, the Eastern Emperor technically was the superior one.

So no, "Otherwise you'd have to admit the Hellenistic states are still "Alexander's Empire", or the various Khanates were still the "Mongol Empire"." is not correct at all.

Hey guys check out this picture

You probably think that the thing on the right is half of an apple, right?

Wrong

It's actually a banana

I know basically every pomologist will tell you that it's an apple, and most laypeople will be able to tell it's an apple too. But I'm going to call it a banana because the idea of it being an apple makes me uncomfortable.

If you had a pepperoni pizza, split it in half, removed the pepperoni, added ham and pineapple, the right part would no longer be a pepperoni pizza.

>Clutching at straws this much.

Do you refer to the Macedonians that ruled Persia as Persians? The Parthians that ruled Persia as Seleucids?

Or Ottoman Turks as Romans?

Byzantines were Greek, not Roman. End of story.

>conquest is the same as legal succession

Face it, stupod shit like ethnicity and religion are just memes, only legal continuity matters.

If the inhabitants of the Hellenic Orthodox Empire wanted to be viewed as the Romans, they would have kept Roman customs. Instead, they chose to adopt a culture and political system that was nothing like the Roman empire. Not to mention Rome not even being a part of it...

Hence the fact that referring to the Hellenic Orthodox Empire as 'the Roman Empire' is just wrong.

>Legal Continuity
>Not Memes
So you honestly believe that Montenegro never ceased to exist, and furthermore, Japan continued to be in a state of war with this state, that no one believed existed for decades?

>Roman Empire starts at 27 BC
Fuck off normalfag.

Not only is it not a meme, it's the only thing that really matters.

Modern America has radically different ethnic makeup, borders and laws than America in the year 1800, yet we still call it America. Why? Because of legal continuity.

As for language, Claudius referred to Latin and Greek as "our two tongues". Roman empire wasn't just Latin empire.

>"empire" having multiple simultaneous emperors
>each having isolated influence
>wars between nominal and de facto rulers
That does not an empire make.

>they chose
Nobody chooses to change their culture. It's a natural process that just happens. They still called themselves Romans. That's as good a reason to refer to them as the Roman Empire as any.

The politics and culture of the Roman Kingdom was nothing like that of the Republic, which was nothing like that of the early Empire, which was nothing like that of the late Empire. By your logic the only people we should call Roman are the people who lived there when it was still a bumfuck tribal village.

>It's a "Veeky Forums calling the Eastern Roman Empire either a successor state or non-roman episode

Customs are fluid. Romans didn't have the same customs in 100 BC as they had in 300 AD either.

>legal continuity
By who's definition?
Taiwan technically still has the legal continuity of being "China", yet 99% of modern nations recognize the PRC as "China". So which is it, user?

t. Voltaire

As far am I concerned they are both China.

quints confirm external conditions over legalities

How do you feel about the Germanic kingdoms established over Western Rome? Were they also the Roman Empire?

Sorry bro, you already lost. Loads of America has legal continuity dating back before 1776.

yep, that's why it's called the Holy Roman Empire. It was indeed holy, Roman and an empire

>I 'm the King of Scotland
>No, I 'm the king of Scotland
>No, it is I.

Literally nothing un-roman about speaking Greek and having a monarchy. The orthodox part I'm not even going to mention

That makes 0 sense. And stop calling me a bro you retard.

it made perfect sense. whether you agree with it or not, that's where your doubt is.

The previous poster challenges the source of legality.

>That makes 0 sense.
I'm sorry you find the legal history of the American states confusing, bro. But parts of the United States have legal continuity with things that aren't the United States, bro. And some parts of those parts have legal continuity with neither those parts, nor the United States, and despite this lack of legal continuity with the United States, they're still a part of the United States, bro.

>And stop calling me a bro you retard.
Sorry Bro, the legal system I'm operating under only recognized you as my bro. I'm sure your family gave you a name, like Michael or something, bro, but that doesn't really matter, because legally, you're my bro.

They were neither Roman nor an Empire. They also weren't holy, also I am not sure they claimed that.

Cuck.

The Roman Republic turned into the Roman Empire on that date

fucking Sheevus Palpatinus

No,, they had no continuity

What about Oadacer's rule in Italy distinguishes it from the "Roman Empire" before it, especially considering he was only de facto ruler and reigned under the guise of both Western and Eastern Roman emperors?

There is no date. It happened over decades of Augustus' rule. There is no one "date" when it turned into an empire. It was never called an empire, empire/emperor are modern terms we use to describe it, although they are not entirely accurate.

Why do people pretend that the Byzantines are still the "Roman Empire"? At least in the traditional sense..
After the western part fell it ushered in the dark ages. You cant ignore that.
The eastern part was technically still the "Roman Empire" because thats where it originated, but it was a completely different culture. Byzantine culture was its own culture.
Also its missing a crucial part; having the capital of Rome.

If "Roman" isnt a people or a culture, then what is it?

>it was a completely different culture
The western Roman Empire had a completely different culture and political system in 395 AD than it did in 53 BC. Does it not qualify as Roman?

City of Rome.
Also in 53 bc Rome was still technically a republic, of course things changed.

Byzantine culture has practically nothing to do with Roman culture. They abandoned polytheism (so did the west I should note), they abandoned Latin, architecture, clothing, government, ect. All changed.

Also genetically they were greek/turk, almost no Roman blood at all.

>If the inhabitants of the Hellenic Orthodox Empire wanted to be viewed as the Romans

They didn't want to be viewed as anything by autistic 21st century manchilds, that's for sure.

>they would have kept Roman customs
Like christanity, monarchy and respect towards greek literature and culture.

>Instead, they chose to adopt a culture and political system that was nothing like the Roman empire

They never did that. All those changes happened when they were romans even by your autistic standards.

>Not to mention Rome not even being a part of it...

They tried to solve this as soon as they had the chance, and succeeded for some time. They always considered Rome to be their city.

None claimed to be the Roman Empire. In fact, they claimed the ERE to be the roman empire, and suzerain of the western kingdoms.

>If "Roman" isnt a people or a culture, then what is it?

A polity.

Irrelevant when talking about an empire, government or state.

>culture and race is irrelevant

t. Angela Merkel

>Greece was never part of the Empire

Holy shit, please stop making this fucking thread every single fucking day. The only possible reason I could imagine anyone regurgitating this shit day in day out is because:

(a) They can't quite think of a justification of the Crusades raping of their erstwhile ally.
Or (b) because they're ashamed of the generally shoddy culture of Europe between 400 and 1100 ad, and its ultimate profiting off of the destruction of a Christian ally.

Anyway, the reasons are these:

> The Byzantines never described themselves as Byzantines. They always considered themselves to be Romans
> Constantinople represented the continuation of Hellenic, classical culture
> Constantinople had been the seat of many Emperors before the destruction of the west, including Constantine, who spoke Greek as his main language.
> It was an empire, ruling a considerable domain, and had multiple dynasties who were unencumbered by the 'divine rule' concept which plagued Europe. So I don't quite understand the monarchy argument.
> They had multiple laws and customs that represented a continuation of Roman law, such as, for example, a very noisy Senate.

But ultimately, there isn't any point to my post is there. You're just going to make another thread tomorrow, or the day after. And where you couldn't beat us in the quality of our posts, you'll thrash us through the quantity of your shitposts.

Constantinople was New Rome.

just like moscow

It was a province, not part of the italian peninsula

But its not Rome

Did Moscow represent a direct continuation of Rome, in a city enlarged and converted into a capital by one of its greatest Emperors, where the population continued multiple laws and customs from Western Rome, etc etc?

>food analogies
Did I wander into /v/?

If my kid preferred reading about the roman empire to the republic, I think I'd disown him/her

>The Roman Empire was ONLY the Italian peninsula

>But its not Rome
It was a part of the Roman Empire. Go on and try to discredit the Constantinian dynasty

Is Constantinople Rome? Is Constantinople on the Italian peninsula?

It happened almost 200 years before that when the Roman Republic became a rival Imperial power with the Carthaginians.

Having a Lingua Franca doesn't suggest being French.

Educated people throughout Europe speak and write English in certain, formal contexts.

Educated people throughout Europe after the fall of the Empire in those regions continued to speak and write in Latin in certain, formal contexts.

The Romans borrowed heavily from the Greeks in most aspects of culture. Language included.

During the Hellenistic Age, Koine Greek was used outside the Empire as well. Koine was a lingua franca in parts of the Middle East prior to the Roman conquest, but the Roman conquest certainly reinforced it.

The New Testament was written entirely in Koine Greek. Does that make the Jews of the time Greek? Or Roman? Or just dudes who used the...

... nevermind, I'm rambling obvious shit and I'm going to sleep.

>i dont understand what provinces are

>mfw greeks trying to be relevant in the common era
>mfw I haven't been anally ravaged by muslims and turks for centuries

Why is having the city of Rome so important? When the wre fell it's capital wasn't even the city of Rome. All having the city of Rome do is add prestige to the Empire but it doesn't change anything legally

>One Emperor was not enough to hold it all together.
>Evidence of several emperors holding it together

>It's "Various European states claiming to be some dead meme Empire" episode.
Funny how WE WUZ is derided but Europeans are the biggest WE WUZes out there.

It's OK when European do it though.

Not even that. By the start of the late 3rd century, there were multiple capitals when we saw the rise of four Emperors acting as pairs of seniors and junior heads of the Imperial college.

No retards, Constantinople was officially named NEW ROME
Even by the Late Antiquity Rome wasn't even the capital of the WRE

T H I S

You're still missing the point...
It's not hard

Didn't the Turks refer to their country as the Sultanate of Rum (meaning Rome) at some point? Following your logic, they were part of the Roman Empire as well.

Turks, unlike Greeks, were not Roman citizens.

Turkroaches btfo

>its an angry turkroach that got btfo on /pol/ comes to Veeky Forums to shitpost his autistic historical revisionism

whats your point then turkroach? I haven't seen anything other than autistic temper tantrum because you're buttmad greeks held the title of romans.

when the Greek army landed on the island of Lesvos and liberated it from the Ottomans. As the army advanced inside the island taking positions a Greek soldier noticed a young local boy who stood by and looked at the Greek soldiers full of curiosity. So the soldier went over to the boy asked him why he was looking at the soldiers like that.

“Because I was told that the Greeks were coming”, said the boy in perfect Greek, “and I wanted to see how you Greeks look like”.

“But you are a Greek too”, said the soldier.

“No”, said the boy. “I’m a Roman”.

>northern great Britain
>Roman-controlled

Nobody cares about scotland senpai.

Byzantium was the rump state of the Roman empire and was politically the entity of that same Roman empire, but was not the Latin people that actually created it.
Politically, they were Roman.
Culturally, they were Greek.

;_;7

Greeks still call themselves romans, or someone who is Greek as "romios", since greek is basically an italian misnomer that comes from Greek mythology.

They cared enough to color them Roman. :^)

They probably believed it was just more England.

They're retarded then.