Would you consider the Byzantine Empire to be a proper continuation of the Roman Empire...

Would you consider the Byzantine Empire to be a proper continuation of the Roman Empire? Not only did they think so themselves, but were referred to throughout the world as Romans. They were culturally, economically, politically, and judicially almost the same people. The only thing that speaks against this view seems to be their gradual Hellenization. Some have also argued, although seldom very convincingly, that if the Byzantine Empire was indeed the Roman Empire, then we should also consider the Ottoman Empire to be part of the continuation.

Did Rome, republic and empire, really last between approximately 509 BC and 1453 AD?

It is not a continuation, it is the Roman Empire. The empire itself was called the Roman Empire when it still existed. Some inbred swampnigger who claimed that he wuz Roman 'n shiet proposed to call them "Byzantines".

>Some have also argued, although seldom very convincingly, that if the Byzantine Empire was indeed the Roman Empire, then we should also consider the Ottoman Empire to be part of the continuation.

No, but Ottoman Empire is genuinely the successor state to the Roman Empire, as Mehmed II was of Roman nobility himself and was crowned the Caesar of Rome by the Orthodox Patriarch himself. As sad as this sounds T*rkey remains the sole successor to Rome.

>As sad as this sounds T*rkey remains the sole successor to Rome.

Not counting the Catholic Church, of course?

The Eastern Roman Empire is indeed still the Roman Empire, it's as much the Roman Empire in 330 as it was in 1450. The citizens still called themselves Roman until the very end and the Emperors still bore the title of Καῖσαρ, or Caesar.

The reason for the split is because the Late Roman Empire had little influence over Western Europe like France and Germany, who insisted that the Holy Roman Emperor was the true "king of the Romans" as ordained by the Pope.

>Did Rome, republic and empire, really last between approximately 509 BC and 1453 AD?

If you count the Roman Kingdom born in 738 BC, along with the Republic and Empire, a Roman state has existed for 2191 years, existing for nearly half of the history of human writing.

>If you count the Roman Kingdom born in 738 BC, along with the Republic and Empire, a Roman state has existed for 2191 years, existing for nearly half of the history of human writing.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Fascinating.

And Chinese state exists for atleast 3500 years.

Romaboos rekt.

>Would you consider the Byzantine Empire to be a proper continuation of the Roman Empire?

Yes. The Byzantine Empire WAS the Roman Empire: the term 'Byzantine' is itself only used to refer to the Roman Empire's Medieval iteration.

No, because they spoke Greek, were Orthodox Christian and the empire was a Monarchy. So, culturally, they weren't Roman, at all. It's like saying that the Ottoman Empire was also a successor to Rome because it occupied pretty much all of the eastern territories.

Also, the city of Rome itself not being part of the Empire is a large factor in the objective answer being 'no.'

The Byzaboos who call it the Roman Empire are probably the same people who make jokes about the HRE.

It WAS the Eastern Roman state, however Ancient Roman CIVILIZATION died with the Western Empire.

The Byzantine Empire was neither Roman nor an empire.

"Chinese" "state"

>Roman Catholic Germanics aren't Roman!
>Orthodox Greeks are Roman though

It's not only to do with religion is it? But culture in general. Architecture, their rule of law, and so on.

It was the Eastern Roman Empire, this is a simple fact.
>Some have also argued, although seldom very convincingly, that if the Byzantine Empire was indeed the Roman Empire, then we should also consider the Ottoman Empire to be part of the continuation.
Ottomans were a foreign culture that disposed the emperor by force. Their empire was as roman as the HRE.

yeah compare that to the mighty roman kingdom that took over the western world in a single night.

Yes? America is getting overrun by spanish speaking catholics but it still is and will be the United States of America

>Rome
>kingdom

Learn English, Chang. You can troll better if you do.

No it's not just about religion, but Germanics were part of the WRE, their people fought in its armies and lived in it's land before it's collapse Surely that gives them claim to being Roman

>yeah compare that to the mighty roman kingdom that took over the western world in a single night.

I once heard someone say that Rome wasn't build in a day.

*built

Lies invented by filthy chinks. Rome was always a continent spanning power, unlike stupid "chinese" "state" that grew gradually over the centuries.

Not really because they were independent before Charlemagne decided to clam the throne that hadn't existed in centuries. His "Roman empire" had nothing to do with the empire that died with Nepos.

Dat British Empire being born out of the English Empire though, right?

Imagine it. Fucking England, this tiny little country, pretty ass-backwards at the start, taking over 20% of the world.

Charlemagne didn't claim any throne, was the pope who declared him Holy Roman Empire, you know, they guy that was head of the Roman Catholic church

The early Roman Republic, Flavius's WRE and Late Eastern Empire were very little alike, guess that means they can't all be 'Roman'

Emperor*

>spoke Greek.
Latin was the language of roman government and state, but Latin was definitely not the language of the common people. Greek, Aramaic, Iberian tongues and so on were all spoken in the Roman Empire.

Because Roman was a title of Citizenship and not an ethnicity, Greeks, Gauls, and Egyptians were just as Roman as a Latin living on the Italian peninsula.

>were orthodox Christian
and the old Rome was polytheistic, worshipping Juiper, Neptune, and onto Sol Invictus. Rome changed its religion long before the fall of even the Western Empire.

>monarchy
Even the united Roman Empire had dynasties, Titus was the son of Vespasian and Commodus was the son of Marcus Aurelius. Having bloodlines succeed each other in the Roman Empire was not an unheard of occurrence.

>weren't culturally Roman
Cultures change naturally with time, especially with 1000 years of time. The England of 1100 is not even close to the England of today apart from the language deriving from a similar source, and even still it's still hard-pressing to read the Canterbury Tales in its original script. and this isn't even touching the fact that they aren't Catholic anymore.

No I don't, because they weren't Roman in anything else but name.

Pope isn't infallible, that excuse doesn't work in the modern times.

You don't seem to understand how succession works. Late Eastern Empire had passed the mantle down from one emperor to another for a thousand years, changes happening gradually over the centuries. The western empire had been dead for 300 years when suddenly Charlemagne, king of the franks, was declared emperor of it.

>No I don't, because they weren't Roman in anything else but name.

What? That's just false.

>spoke Greek
They spoke Latin as the official language until 610, and spoke Greek after. A change in language does not mean an abandonment of being Roman.

>Also, the city of Rome itself not being part of the Empire is a large factor in the objective answer being 'no.'

Was the Eastern Empire under Diocletian not Roman? If London became an independent city state, would England cease to be England? Would the English identity vanish? Rome was not even the capital for many periods of Roman history, in fact a few emperors only visited Rome once, if at all.

What do you even mean by an "objective answer"? I see "objective" thrown around a lot on Veeky Forums. Do you mean it in the philosophical sense? If so, you need to post some axioms.

>were Orthodox Christian

Not for the full history, they were pagan, then Christian -- the Western Side was pagan, and then Christian

>the empire was a Monarchy

The rules of succession were not clearly defined from the start, and throughout Rome's history, the methods of imperial succession changed. Each emperor was essentially a monarch however. Do you argue that because the Senate was abolished, it became a monarchy? You can have monarchs with a senate -- just look at the majority of Roman Empire history.

>So, culturally, they weren't Roman, at all

"Roman Culture" as with many cultures, changes through time. The art under the late emperors is very different to the art under Augustus.

It began as a split of power in the Roman state; it was ruled by Roman Emperors in unbroken succession until 1204 by which various claimants emerged.

It's a matter of perspective. History isn't a neat bundle of events starting and stopping one after another. Our distinctions and conceptualizations are themselves arbitrary and subject to change.

There's nothing essentially roman. Ask instead what categorization is most useful given your goals. What is it that you want to explain? What tendencies are you interested in bringing out?

How is it false?

The Roman Kingdom and later Empire was founded on Roman mythology, and had a system of patricians and plebeians for 600 years.

Did the Byzantines continues this? No they didn't.

It's like saying The U.S would still be the U.S if it turned into a fascist dictatorship.

>The rules of succession were not clearly defined from the start, and throughout Rome's history, the methods of imperial succession changed.

Ok I'm the roman emperor now.

>The Roman Kingdom and later Empire was founded on Roman mythology, and had a system of patricians and plebeians for 600 years.
Oh, fuck off. By that logic the western Empire wasn't really Roman either. You're ascribing arbitrary social values as being the foundations of Roman society. You may as well say that Rome ceased to be Roman after the Marian reforms. The Hastati have a far better claim to being the "focus" of Rome than abstract concepts like class division and religion do, surely.

Hail, Caesar!

Okay genius, what defines the Roman Empire then?

I mean, if it isn't culture/religion/social structure, then what the fuck is it?

Is Rome the most WEWUZ victim of all time?
Almost everyone and their mother claim it

Direct succession

lol

It's not unreasonable. It did have great influence on the entire world, but especially the countries around the Mediterranean. Rome is the mother of all of Europe.

>509 BC and 1453 AD
before, the kings were romans too

that's what you get when you're ultra-based and literally reinvent the entire world in your image

What, exactly, is wrong about that?

Actually the Empire of Trebizond survived after 1453, and the Despotate of Epirus until 1479.

>have an apple
>cut it in half
>eat one half
>have one half of an apple left
>every professional pomologist agrees that it is still half an apple
>some shitmonger on FruitChan's /malus/ board whose only exposure to apples is watching a TV show about them says "actually I think you will find that what you have is not half an apple but it is indeed an orange :^)"

>It's like saying The U.S would still be the U.S if it turned into a fascist dictatorship.

Are you dense? Yes, yes it would.

Meanwhile, this is completely ignored.

No, it wouldn't, and would directly contradict the founding documents of the country.

>medieval Kingdom of Ireland spoke Irish
>modern Republic of Ireland speaks English
>modern Ireland is still Ireland

>ancient Roman Empire spoke Latin
>Medieval Roman Empire spoke Greek
>medieval Roman Empire is somehow not Roman

>Borders makes the nation

>proper continuation

There was no continuation, the Byzantine Empire WAS the Roman Empire, unlike the """""Holy"""""Roman"""""Empire"""""

The Roman Empire wasn't a nation, it was a governmental entity. And the same government entity, the Eastern Roman Empire was.

Weren't they more culturally greek than they were roman? If so, would they be the continuation of the Roman Empire, or would they be a Greek Empire? I don't really know that much about the Byzantines though

Culture can't be sorted into neat ethnic categories. Someone living in the Roman Empire in 56AD would be completely culturally different from someone living in the same place in 395AD, even in the west.

Actual best answer right here

Bump

""""H""""
""""R""""
""""E""""

This

Yes and no, it was a continuation of the same Empire, but it changed into something fundamentally different

I'd disagree that the Ottoscum is the successor to Rome. Conquering the lands of the former Empire doesn't make you that Empire and iirc Mehmet II was the only Ottoscum ruler to claim the title of "Roman Emperor"

Learn your history scrub, Rome was a kingdom once upon a time.

It was a Hellenic rump state that was politically associated with the Roman empire

It was still an orthodox, Greek-speaking country that didn't even control Rome itself and had little to do with the Latin-Italic culture/ethnicity that defined Rome.

Had little with Latin Italic culture.
For your information untill the late XI century south Italy was under Byzantines.