Why is it so hard for people to accept that Byzantium is the legitimate continuation of the Roman Empire?

Why is it so hard for people to accept that Byzantium is the legitimate continuation of the Roman Empire?

bruh, it goes like this:

Rome Kingdom-Rome Republic-Rome Empire-Byzantine Empire-Ottoman Empire-Turkish Repulic Modern day Rome is Erdogan yo. (Moscow claimed a bit when the ottomans came in, but it all settled out when the revolution happened)

It belongs to the West or the Habsburgs after they sold their crown or their HRE lands were repurposed.

Because then we'd have to accept the Ottomans as the legitimate continuation of the Roman Empire.

Except it wasn't, just like the Ostrogoths weren't a continuation of the Western Roman Empire. Barbarian impostors have no saying in this.

It's only hard for Germans.

not at all, turks are sandniggers

>Barbarian impostors
Right, if someone doesn't even speak latin, clearly they're not Romans.

Sorry bro, they're the legitimate heirs to the Byzantine Empire.

...

No you wouldn't
The Byzantine Empire was literally the Roman State
The last Palaiologos sold the Byzantine crown to the King of Spain

>t. Mehmet

t.Justinian

Because people are uncomfortable with the idea of a Christian Roman Empire which looks aesthetically and culturally very different from the stereotypical depictions of Rome in the media. It's why the later Roman Empire is little discussed here generally. People are obsessed with Scipio and Caesar at the expense of men like Aegidius and Gildo.

Because they didn't possess Rome and no longer considered it culturally, politically or strategically important to do so. The fact that they called themselves Romans and, at least for a little while, spoke the Roman language, should not distract us from the fact that they were a wildly different state from the Roman Empire during the principiate in almost every way. The self-styled Roman Empire after the fifth century was far more different from the Roman Empire before that time than Rome under the principiate had been from the Roman republic.

The real reason why the post-fifth-century Roman Empire is not seen as legitimate is because states derive legitimacy from their ability to rule and administrate their territory. If you lose half your territory to a sister state which then collapses, people are not going to think your state is very legitimate. If you lose half your remaining territory to a bunch of bare assed moon god worshiping barbarians from Fuckholistan, people are definitely not going to think your state is very legitimate. By its end the so-called Roman empire was nothing but a rump state making grand claims about its heritage.

No, the Ottoman Sultan sold the title of Qasr Al-Rum to the Spanish, French, and Russian monarchies as a vanity title. The French and Russians then offed their monarchies.

No fuck off
Andreas Palaiologos sold his claims to the Spanish crown
This is a historical fact

Because it didn't have Rome for most of its existance, and spoke Greek. It literally was still the Roman Empire, if you actually know how it as an entity came into existance I really find it difficult to justify it not being Rome

The Principate ended in 284 AD you idiot, and was succeeded by the dominate.

>The self-styled Roman Empire after the fifth century was far more different from the Roman Empire before that time than Rome under the principiate had been from the Roman republic.

The imperial administration of the Byzantine Empire was pretty much the same as that of Diocletian until the fall of Constantinople by the Franks. Also Codex Justinianus is basically Roman law codified.

Now are you trying to tell me that the Empire Constantine and Theodosius ruled over, was not the Roman Empire?

> If you lose half your remaining territory to a bunch of bare assed moon god worshiping barbarians from Fuckholistan, people are definitely not going to think your state is very legitimate. By its end the so-called Roman empire was nothing but a rump state making grand claims about its heritage.

Completely unrelated to the issue at hand, which is political administration, culture and continuity.

If Rome hadn't made Christianity into the state religion it would have remained a Jewish sect, like gnostics.

Butthurt Western revisionists

If someone kills you, skins you, then makes your face into a mask, does that mean that make them your father?

Ahh, but they did

Doofus Western Europeans thinking that you need control over Rome to be Roman.

That, and only Plebs have this problem. Historians KNOW it is the Eastern Roman Empire. Your average pleb outside the Balkans may not even KNOW what the fuck a Byzantine was.

>hymns at a banquet

Because Byzantium and Rome are different places with different cultures?

>The administrative machinery of Odoacer's kingdom, in essence that of the former Empire, was retained and continued to be staffed exclusively by Romans, such as the articulate and literate Cassiodorus. The Senate continued to function normally and was consulted on civil appointments, and the laws of the Empire were still recognized as ruling the Roman population, though Goths were ruled under their own traditional laws. Indeed, as a subordinate ruler, Theoderic did not possess the right to issue his own laws (leges) in the system of Roman law, but merely edicts (edicta), or clarifications on certain details.

That first part is rather funny considering by after Claudius most senators weren't even from Rome....

>That, and only Plebs have this problem. Historians KNOW it is the Eastern Roman Empire.

Seriously. This idea has been out of vogue for like three centuries, it was only perpetuated by dumb fuck German nationalist historians who as ever have fucked with the historical record to portray themselves in a better light

user do we have to have the "Roman is not an ethnicity" talk again? It might amuse you to know that by the end the empire was run by Italians, much to the anger of the Gallic element of the elite. So much land had been lost by that point that they were the only two groups left.

>if the Cunning of Reason didn't make the obvious happen, when it wouldn't happen