We wuz romins n shiet

He's Emily Dickinson

Turk/Balkan

They were.

>we wuz romans n shiet

At least they weren't autistic and demanded to be called romans during and after they lost their "empire"

I've got a stick

After a while my one stick is too much to handle so I cut it into two smaller sticks

At some point I lose one of the sticks, but it's okay because I still have the other stick

Autistic teenagers on a Rawandan oyster collecting forum then start telling me that my stick is not a stick at all, but rather a cube

They were romans. Romans had always been greekaboos anyway (Greek was the language of Roman culture, not Latin)

>Greek was the language of Roman culture

lmao fuck off greekroach

Meditations was written in Greek, basically every Roman document that wasn't meant for commoners to read was written in greek

>nations are static things that always stay the same

Following that logic the Roman empire of the 4th and 5th century wasn't the roman empire because it was vastly different than the roman empire established by Augustus.

they thought of themselves as "ottomans"
it was a meritocratic multi-ethnical society with a turkish core and army

Learn to Koine nigga

Nope.jpg

It's more like "WE X NOW"

The full title of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was
>Padishah (پادشاه), i.e. Emperor,
>Hünkar-i Khanedan-i Âl-i Osman (شاه خاندان آل عثمان), i.e. Sovereign of the Sublime House of Osman,
>Sultan us-Selatin (سلطان السلاطین), i.e. Sultan of Sultans,
>Khakan (خاقان), i.e. Khan of Khans,
>Amir ül-Mü'minin ve Khalifeh ül-Rasul Rabb al-A’alimin (امیر المؤمنین و خلیفه الرسول رب العالمین), i.e. Commander of the Faithful and Successor of the Prophet of the Lord of the Universe,
>Khâdim ül-Haramayn ush-Sharifayn (خادم الحرمین الشریفین), i.e. Custodian of the Two Noble Sanctuaries (i.e. the Holy Cities of Mecca, and Medina),
>Qayser-i Rûm (قیصر روم), i.e. Caesar of the Roman Empire (or the Grecian Caesar)

The Ottoman Empire is literally what it says on the tin: the Empire of the Osman Dynasty. It just collects titles of the places it conquers so that the Sultan is justified in holding those places.

It depends on where you draw the line between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, because when the West fell, the Eastern Empire was still functionally identical to the West.

>immediately when the West fell because theres no Roman Empire without Rome
so were they the Roman Empire when Justinian retook Rome mulitple times and not when they lost it back to the Ostrogoths multiple times?

does owning what was a decaying, backwater town that was a shadow of it's former self at the time even mean anything significant?

Of course not. That only leaves the question then of what exactly broke the camels back and made it so you called it the Byzantine Empire instead of the Roman Empire, if it wasn't a qualification of owning a sacked (twice) city that had been abandoned years before to have Milan and Ravenna as substitute administrative capitals of the late Western Empire.

byzantine empire as a term didnt exist at the time

many kingdoms wanted to be named the legitimate heir of rome, and as long as the Roman Empire existed in the east, they wouldn't be able to secure it. that's why they started calling the Romans the Byzantines instead in an effort to take away their legitimacy as a continuation of Rome

but that's not even the point I was making, as I never tried to argue anything about the term Byzantine Empire as a relevant name in the past, but rather deferring to the OP about where he thinks the Roman Empire ended and what could be called the Byzantine Empire began. Once we know that we can see how long the Byzantines "LARP'ed" through history as the Romans.

No.
People called the Byzantines Romans when the empire still existed until the mid-1400s. That's why the Ottoman Emperor took the title Caesar of the Roman Empire when they took Constantinople.
The term "Byzantine" only showed up in the 1550s AD from some revisionist historians of the time.
That was like 100 years after the actual fall of the then known Roman Empire in 1453 AD with the loss of Constantinople.
Romans did not completely lose their empire until they got defeated in 1453 AD.
Also, they didn't really call themselves Romans because everyone called the "Byzantines" Romans during that time.

>that's why they started calling the Romans the Byzantines instead in an effort to take away their legitimacy as a continuation of Rome
i think byzantine is a much later term that came in use centuries after ERE was dead

but your point is overall correct, they did call them greeks instead of romnas from time to time due to language

Dividing the Early Roman Empire with the Byzantine Roman Empire is a historical crime.
The Byzantines were Romans through and through just like how Gallic Romans were Romans and Levantine Romans were Romans.
Why the current historical educational system allows this to happen is a travesty.
It's like saying the Chinese Empire did not start with the Xia Dynasty but with the Qin Dynasty.

Change is always gradual. You can't separate Rome and Byzantium at a clear point, but they are different. One can argue that Dominate era Western Empire was already not "Roman", but it is easier to call it so to avoid confusion

The Eastern Empire/Byzantium has always been different in terms of geography (even if the city of Rome iwas unimportant, Italy was the still Roman heartland), and culture (Greek language and Orthodoxy, which also effected the political structure).

>The Eastern Empire/Byzantium has always been different in terms of geography (even if the city of Rome iwas unimportant, Italy was the still Roman heartland), and culture (Greek language and Orthodoxy, which also effected the political structure).
You could literally use this argument to disjoint the Chinese Empire into several different empires then. If you really stretch it out, it could even apply to the Russian Empire.

Byzantine first showed up 100 years after the collapse of the Roman Empire. It was simply used by Renaissance philosophers to go full Romaboo while being able to ignore what the Roman Empire ended up as during the period. It is a totally ethnocentric term meant to stroke European egos.

The Chinese empire DID start with the Qin Dynasty.

Before that it was
>A bunch of culturally similar yet diverse states kinda like Medieval/Current Europe (Warring States)
>A Feudal Kingdom (Zhou State)
>A Theocratic Kingdom (Shang State)
>Ayyy lmao legendary period (Xia """Dynasty""", three sovereigns and five emperor's period.)

There's no denying that all three periods were formative to Chinese Imperial State, but they're not the Empire. The idea of Empire as the Chinese know it showed up in the Qin & matured under the Han.

>You could literally use this argument to disjoint the Chinese Empire into several different empires then.

So? Aren't official historians refer to it as Empire instead of China anyways?

>If you really stretch it out, it could even apply to the Russian Empire.

Well, yes. Grand Duchy of Moscow -> Tsardom of Russia -> USSR -> Russian Federation. These are all demonstratibly different.

This.

the turks are the true heirs to rome

What the fuck do you guys mean by LARP?

It means imitating a culture which is not your own to feel superior.

You can say that about every culture that has every existed.

Romans were We Wuzing and LARP-ing as Etruscan and Greeks

The area that the Byzantine Empire mostly consisted of (Greece and Anatolia) was almost never abandoned by Roman control and the people have never stopped being Roman citizens so how can you say that they were imitating them?
>yfw you realize that Greeks have been Roman citizens for much longer than Latinized people were

>imitating

Do you understand what a legal continuity is? "Muh culture" is irrelevant. It was legally Rome.

did he died?

When you're this stylish you can larp as whoever you want 2bh

by that logic the ottomans were also romans

If American was eventually destroyed and conquered by foreigners in most of the country, it's quite possible that a Spanish speaking Independent California might still consider themselves to be americans.

No. One was legally Rome, the other just conquered Roman lands.

not a chance in a christian hell after constantine

There's a difference between a single government surviving between emperors, and a foreign roach taking land from said government, killing everyone and the emperor.

It's like if Germany invaded Mexico, then after everyone in the Mexican government was either dead, in exile, or reduced to peasantry, Germany then says "ayy lmao we mexicanz nao!!!11!!11!1"

They were the offspring of a people literally called Roman Seljukes. Of course they were roman.

Simply throw out the arbitrary Western name given to it, remove "byzantine" from its identity entirely and the argument that it wasn't the roman empire crumbles. No source ever used the work Byzantine to describe the Empire until long after its death.

second argument that people fail to understand is that the term "Roman" is not an ethnicity or nationality, but a status of state citizenship. hell even the first founders of the city were not Romans, but Latins. This should be easy to understand as it's very parallel with the term "American", there's no such thing as an ethnic American, but there are American citizens. Same principle. A black as the ace-of-spades man living in Egypt was just as Roman as a Briton living just inside Hadrian's wall, who was just as Roman as a Greek in Thessalonica, so as long as they held Citizenship within the Empire.

Third argument people bring up is that the city of Rome is needed to claim the title of Rome. Which isn't true, as the idea of Rome over time wasn't tied to the city of Rome. Even the Empire changed capitals as Rome fell to political irrelevance, setting up shop in Constantinople after its founding, and the Western Empire set up their capital in Revenna specifically to get away from Rome.

and even then, after the fall of the Western Empire, the East still came back for Rome, and kept it in Imperial hands for over 200 more years after the "fall".

Just because an empire doesn't look the way you want it to like it does in Hollywood movies, or has a culture that doesn't look like the movies doesn't stop it from being the entity that it is. The Roman Empire of 1100 is vastly different from the Roman Empire of 100 just the same as the England of 2000 looks absolutely nothing like the England of the 10th century.

people fail to understand byzantium is the furthest extent of the ethno-roman-celt-based-empire, glorified control/outpost, bipartisan control of the west from eastern influence. it served its purpose. it was the iron curtain behind which europe was born

If the Byzantine Empire was Rpman, then the Ottoman Empire was Roman.

I'm reading through SPQR by Mary Beard and it is a pretty good book. What other books does Veeky Forums recommend about the Romans, preferably about their later days as the Roman Empire?

>Roman Empire divides into 2 for more efficient administration
>one half croaks
>the other continues for another 1000 years

>another player shows up in Anatolia
>kills the second half and puts on its skin, claiming its still the same empire it just killed.

doesn't really hold up to me broski.

Mary Beard is a bit of a wishywashy writer on the Romans. She once claimed their military was nothing special just that they had more men.

Don't pretend like the Eastern Empire didn't try to conquer the west again. By the right of Conquest, Ottomans have the right to call themselves whatever they want, including Roman.

The Ottomans didn't call themselves Roman though.

>By the right of Conquest, Ottomans have the right to call themselves whatever they want, including Roman.
They didn't do this, though. They didn't claim to be Romans, idiots on the internet just like calling them Roman because, in my experience, they dislike the idea of the Roman Empire becoming Christian and surviving for so long as a Christian state.

She looks like the feminist type. So any other good books on the Romans Veeky Forums?

>She looks like the feminist type
She isn't, she's a fairly reputable historian.

At the minute I'm reading through The Late Roman Army by Pat Southern and Karen Dixon, and A Military History of Late Rome by Ilkka Syvanne, check those out if the period wets your whistle

>Roman Empire becoming Christian
Worst thing to to happen to the Romans t.bh

>Christian
>""""Romans""""

kek

this is after-the-fact history determined by our cultural biases. we think of classical rome as "real rome" because westerners wanted to claim the roman title and saw the byzantines as degenerate orthodox greeks. if we just accepted the reality, that the roman empire survived until 1204 AD (with a revivalist state until 1453), and taught that in our schools from the start, nobody would be arguing that the byzantines "weren't roman". they'd just say that they changed in the same way that 2016 America is not 1776 America but is still America

they were tho

basically inconsequential desu

>when tyre goes mudslime

>the fisheries long exhausted
>the forestry long extinguished
>the mines long depleted

>oh no man muh crusader states

>when you don't crusade that season & britain finally complies to playing pocket

This sort of BS happened all the time in the Middle Ages. So you have the Kingdom of Sicily, right? It takes up the island of Sicily, and southern Italy. There's a rebellion, and the kingdom is divided, the royal family loses control of Sicily and moves their capital to Naples. The king is still called the King of Sicily, and reigns over the Kingdom of Sicily, but he doesn't actually control Sicily. And the actual Sicily is now called the Kingdom of Trinicaria.

Absolutely retarded.

United States confirmed for true British empire.

>Eastern Empire was still functionally identical to the West.
Lol

>not a republic
>not roman catholic
>spoke greek, not latin
>not located in the west
>not centered around Rome

Except that the Ottoman Sultans called themselves the Caesars of Rome

One Sultan called himself that.

>The Western Roman empire wasn't centered in Rome for 200 years
>The Western Roman Empire wasn't a republic for 500 years
>The Western Roman Empire mainly spoke and wrote in Greek, not Latin (Catholic literally comes from greek) Latin was only used by certain plebs and government documents
>The Western Roman Empire wasnt Catholic

Again, by the metric you use to say the Eastern Roman Empire isn't Roman, also disqualifies the Western Roman Empire as Roman.

Following this argument the Roman empire fell in the third century.

>black as ace-of-spades man living in Egypt
You mean brown man living in Egypt.

>The Western Roman Empire mainly spoke and wrote in Greek, not Latin
Dude come on.

Egyptians get pretty dark the further south you go

Patricians mainly spoke greek. Personal writings were mainly in Greek. Meditations was written in Greek. As stated the fucking word Catholic comes from Greek. 90% of Roman mythology comes from the Greeks.

Latin is a fucking meme. Latin was only used for government documentation for record keeping purposes and a different, more common Latin was spoken by the plebs of rome. That was the extent latin was used. Most citizens around the empire simply spoke their own native languages.

>Patricians mainly spoke greek.
Proofs pls.
>Personal writings were mainly in Greek.
Yeah, like Cicero's letters. Or all other letters. Or the centuries of latin literature during the empire. Oh wait.
>Meditations was written in Greek.
Whatever, a greekaboo doesn't unmake all literature.
>As stated the fucking word Catholic comes from Greek.
It's a loanword. By this argument, the anglosphere speaks latin.
>90% of Roman mythology comes from the Greeks.
Absolutely and hilariously false. Even ignoring the fact that half of the greek mythos is not even originally greek anyway, roman religion and mythology is obviously italic, from the conceptual rather than anthropomorphic divinities to the massive similarities to oscan mythos and the etruscan influence.
>a different, more common Latin was spoken by the plebs of rome
You could make the same exact argument about any language before 20th century standardization due to mass media, greek included.
>Most citizens around the empire simply spoke their own native languages.
Top fucking kek, must be why we have basically no material left about the other italic languages right? Or why the whole western empire nowadays speak romance rather than pre roman languages right? Including the southern french coast which was fully hellenized before Rome conquered it, and yet ended up fully latinized. The only non romance areas are due to post roman migrations like the anglosaxons, slavs and arabs, but still Britain, north Africa and the Balkans all developed their own romance language before it was snuffed out.

>it was the iron curtain behind which europe was born
>le defending europe meme

>ethno-roman-celt-based-empire
Are you the buttmad celtaboo of ?

>implying the "Roman empire" existed at all
>implying the "glorious Roman" past wasn't invented by the House of Medici
>implying "Roman" and "Greek" statues weren't made during the 15-16th centuries
>implying all "Roman" texts weren't forgeries made by Benedictine monks

Wew, lads, why don't we unironically believe in elves and orcs while we are at it.

>America

That's a really bad comparison. America today is still has the same Constitution, still has its core in the Eastern Coast, still speaks English, and still follows Protestant Christianity.

The differences between 1776 America and 2016 America are comparable to Republican Rome and Principate Rome.

why didnt anyone mention
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
yet?

The HRE did not have a direct lineage straight from the Roman Empire. The "Eastern Roman Empire" literally is one half of the actual Roman Empire whose capital was actually a Roman city.

You mean the Eastern Frankish Empire?

The city wasn't even CALLED Byzantium after Constantine made it the capital.

>the roman empire survived until 1204 AD (with a revivalist state until 1453
It wasn't destroyed by the crusaders. They just installed one of their own on the Roman throne, historians just call it the Latin Empire to avoid confusion.

>Implying the Byzantine Empire from the Doukas onward was still Roman
Nice meme Gyro

we've done this thread before

>ERE is plebeian
>empire that comes after the ERE is somehow patrician

roach please go home

Bump

>Rawandan oyster collecting forum
OK that one is god damn genius

Americans
>We Wuz revolutionaries and colonials n shiet
Chinese
>We Wuz Ming dynasties and Great Wall n shiet
Japanesse
>We Wuz Samurais n shiet
French
>We Wuz French kingdom and Napolenic Empire et merde
Russians
>We Wuz Russian Tsardom n shiet
British
>We Wuz Anglo-Saxons n shiet

How do we get rid of all these LARPer faggots, /his?

>Rwandan Oyster Collecting Forum

mexicans
>we wuz aztecs n shiet
portugese
>we wuz explorers n shiet
italians
>we wuz romans n shiet
greeks
>we wuz founders of western civilization, philosophers, roman empire, creators of christianity n shiet pls gib more monies
mudslimes
>we wuz shieks n shiet
black americans
>we wuz kangs n shiet
indians
>we wuz mughals n shiet

>implying rivendell doesn't exist in secret

>forgetting turks
>we wuz trojans, attila, romans, arabs, europeans, secular n shit pls let us in EU