What are Veeky Forums's Favorite Nation's in History

My Personal Favorite Nation was the Roman Empire from its early days as a Kingdom all the way to the Fall of Constantinople or Trebizond whatever you consider to be the final battle in their history

>all the way to the Fall of Constantinople or Trebizond

Byzantine is not Roman

Taiping Heavenly Kingdom a best

haven't seen this before

If you think that illigitimate plot of land was Rome, please, please just kill yourself

>t.germaboo

First line of the Alexiad
>The Emperor Alexius, who was also my father, had been of great service to the Roman Empire
hmmmmmm rly makes u think...

>Roman empire splits in two for administrational reasons
>West burns
>East doesn't
>Maintains the administration system and Government of late Rome
>Barbarian based successor states have a 'n-nuhu! Totally not Rome, w-we're the ones who are the proper romans, with our German king!'
>even later ones have a 'I-IT DOESN'T MATCH THE 1ST CENTURY AD WHICH IS ALL I KNOW ABOUT ROME! TOTES NOT ROMAN'

>Be Gibbon
>Well gee, I'll go write a narrative of Roman decline being caused by christians c:
>What about the bit where it maintained itself, reversed the tide, overcame countless odds and actually managed to undergo repeated renaissances, despite being Christian
>s-shut up!

It's proved that Greek are just wewuz as hard as Germnans

Yeah but the Greeks really wuz Caesars n sheeit
Like unironically.

But the Roman Empire lasted until 1806 when Napoleon finally defeated it.

Yes goyim like byzantine empire more, there should be a greater demand in byzantine historians

t. Byzantine phd fag

>greek
>implying it wasn't a Universal Christian Empire, under the Universal Christian Emperor, who rules through the will of god himself.

Nationality means fuck all. (Since, ya know, 'Roman' isn't nationality based, it's culture based and what defines the roman 'culture' constantly changed and evolved)

You are from USA aren't you?

>under the Universal Christian Emperor, who rules through the will of god himself.
Hmm I must say no, Divine Right was a much later and Western concept, people who revolted against the emperor would cite religion a lot, and they would never consider the emperor to be divinely appointed.

Anthony Kaldellis's last work, Byzantine Republic, touches this subject. Neither the Emperor nor the people had the western divine right belief.

>men have beards

>Jews!

Shut the fuck up, you manlet. Having a beard makes you a man, not a Jew. Go shave your arms and legs too, you prissy faggot.

>>implying it wasn't a Universal Christian Empire, under the Universal Christian Emperor, who rules through the will of god himself.

That's a nice piece of propaganda I guess. I mean Greek was the official language. And almost all of the most important people were Greek. But it wasn't about Nationality at all. They were all equal :)

British, doing a dissertation on Byzantium
Ah. I'll admit, I haven't read that work yet. I'll look it up

I'm the jew here pham, getting shekels from universities due to byzantine interest

>implying nationality existed in the modern sense.

You're a special kind of moron, aren't you?

If you don't mind my asking, what is your research topic and who is your adviser?

The Impact and Influence of Latins upon the Byzantine Economy, army and administration, 1050-1204. G.A. Loud.

Doesn't mean they didn't have a shared identity or culture.

A shared Roman identity, which included Non-Greek subjects of the Empire.

Bad move op.
A lot of the people here get their history from pop fiction and memes.
(e.g. see people circlejerking the old 'venetians did the 4th crusade and plotted the entire thing! evil jew merchants!' meme)

Shared with who exactly?

Greeks (which isn't' the same as modern hellenics, the turn to identifying back with them isn't till the 14th/15th century onwards), Armenians, Georgians, Latins that settled there/Franks/Italians, Coptics, Turks, Slavs, Pechengs etc.

There was certainly a 'smugness' between the Greek elites and others...but that same smugness existed between the Elites in Constantinople and /literally anyone out from outside it/.

>Turks, Slavs, Pechengs

>doubt.jpg

I mean even if Georgians, Armenians and Syrians were given local power the Greeks still dominated the country. I mean even the Old Roman Empire was very Greek. The Latins were pretty obsessed with them and all. It might not have been discriminatory in quite the same way as modern nationalism but it was just still exulsionary. I mean we wuzers are pretty dumb. But in the greater context the Greeks do have a pretty legitimate claim to their right to we wuz Romans n sheeit.

? Said groups were part of the empire. While recent migrant groups that settled wouldn't be 'romans', but over time their desendents could become so with little issue. (Bar maybe an upset chronicler making race based attacks on them).

The exclusionary nature is...well, it's evident from the offical histories. But the issue there is, that's not really showing 'greek v non-greek'. It's showing 'rich, well educated elites in the capital v every one else'.

Modern greeks don't have a claim to the Empire, but the medieval hellens were Romans, yes.

Yeah but I guess what I'm saying is there a difference between being a subject or citizen of the Empire and running the whole damn thing. I mean the Emperor were Greeks. The language and the culture are different but they're directly related. I really don't know why I'm spending so much effort trying the defend these types of people. I feel dumb.

Tiberius III Apsimar (698-705) was of German origin
Philippikos Bardanes (711-713) was Armenian.
Leo V (813-820) was Armenian.
The Isaurian dynasty (717–802) was (initially) Syrian, albeit Greek speaking.
The Macedonian dynasty (867–1056) was founded by Armenians (Or Slavs, it's hard to tell which. It wasn't Greek at any rate, and I lean towards Amernian, personally).

*pukes*
*wipes mouth* ugh this was a nation once ??!

t.turk

Incan Empire, Kingdom of Chimor, and Song/Tang China

German Empire, natch.

Though I've also been wanting to look into the French and collective Muslim Empires. I know way too little about those nations.

>Nobody has replied with what could of been

R H O D E S I A ' N S N E V E R D I E

>Greeks (which isn't' the same as modern hellenics, the turn to identifying back with them isn't till the 14th/15th century onwards)
this makes no sense, Greeks were always the same, just that they continuously changed names throughout centuries (Hellenes to Romans/Romioi and then to Hellenes again after they revolted against the Ottomans)

Also another thing, all those other ethnicities like Armenians, Slavs, Georgians, etc NEVER considered themselves Roman to the fullest extent as they chose to have their own seperate kingdoms instead of assimilating in the Byzantine Empire, unlike the Greeks who continously reffered to themselves Romans until Byzantium's end. You can even see this after the 4th crusade when the Byzantine Empire was split between the Crusader states and the GREEK successor states who were all striving to reclaim Constantinople and rebuild the Byzantine Empire.

Deutsches Reich
K.u.K
Dutch

>manlet

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

>rhodesia'ns never die

makes them sound like some kind of klingons desu

>Roman successor states trying to retake Rome from the Latins

Anyway, the point wasn't that /all/ Armenians etc were part of the Empire. The point was that said nationalities /could become part of the empire and become Roman/.

E.g., multi-ethhnic empire, that while largely base up of greeks ethnically, was culturally open to assimilation.
See ?
The point wasn't that 'greeks' are different genetically.
The point was that 'Greeks' looked back to Rome as the 'this is who we are' instead of ancient greece.
Compared to modern greece that looks back to the ancients.

>Roman Empire
>Fall of Constantinople
No, it all ended in 476

>Empire splits in two
>The east somehow stops being Roman in any way prior to the 7th century
Vas ist?

I'm not denying that the Byzantine Empire was compromised of many ethnicities but it was the Greeks who were the most faithful to the Byzantine state, while others that were temporary part of it like the Bulgarians, Serbs, Armenians broke off and kept their old identities. This is why the Byzantine Empire is more commonly associated with the Greeks, much like how the Ottoman Empire was also a multicultural empire with Sultans from different backgrounds but is still associated with Turks.

Also modern Greeks have never abandoned their Byzantine past. While they looked back to the ancient Greeks as their ancestors, the reclamation of Constantinople and the rebirth of a Byzantine state was their endgoal before 1923

>endgoal before 1923
>modern ones haven't abandoned it

Again, the point wasn't that all Armenians etc are all parts of the Empire.
THe point was that said groups /can/ enter the empire and assimilate into it. e.g., not a greek national state.

So yeah, it's still mostly agreeing with ya.
Mainly against that old 'It's a Greek kingdom/empire' view, instead of a Roman empire, largely made up of greeks

The only correct answer

i find it
intradasting

Go fuck yourself. Every credible historian today is in consensus that the Eastern Roman Empire is the exact same entity as the Byzantine empire.

Byzantine is just a naming tool to refer to the ERE during a time frame in which the Western Roman Empire didn't exist. Just as the Roman republic, the early Roman empire, the late Roman empire, the Western Empire and the Eastern empire, etc are all tools used for referencing the same entity during different time periods. Differentiations they didn't apply.

>b-but muh greek
Meditations was written in Greek
Claudius refers to "our two languages"; Latin and Greek
All Roman upper class spoke fluent Greek and were educated by Greeks

Ghurid dynasty

Should've rephrased it better, yeah modern Greeks were forced to abandon their claims after they blew it on their war against the Turks but this doesn't change the fact that the Megali Idea was an important part in the history of the modern Greek state

Yep. Wasn't the initial idea in the greek revolution to restore the empire, only for the western powers to do a 'nooooo noo, just greece, just be greeek.' ?

Might be bullshit, not sure.

Well that's what the Greeks fought for, but the western powers didn't care that much about it as long as Greece didn't get too cozy with Russia since they didn't want a strong Orthodox alliance led by Russia.

Duchy of Savoy

Ah.
Get why (the whole, ah, balance of power and all and not wanting Russia to get control of the straits), but it's a shame the Greeks didn't end up getting more.

Byzantine is a term invented by later historiographers.

There's no such thing as ''Byzantine''. It's just Roman.

Deal with it.

>it's another "western catholicism is the bad guy whilst pederastic eastern we wuz romans n sheeeeeit cosplayers get glorified" episode

i literally will never understand byzafaggots

>western catholicism is the bad guy
No one said that in this thread?

Latin christians were a useful part of the empire's economy and army.

We're Romanfggts who care for more than 'muh early imperial period!'

The only issue with catholicism was the Pope doing a 'oh hey I'm the head now o3o'.

I get why he did it, and why he sucked Charlie's dick (needed protection from the Lombards). Doesn't mean he had the authority to invest the imperial title.

United States

Which period? All, early? Pre/post civil war?

...do duchies count as nations?

Define nation

Kingdom of Yugoslavia

έτσι λέτε ήμασταν Ρωμαϊkή kαι σkατά

>implying the communist version wasn't better.

There's no such thing as "principate" and "dominate" either.

Guess what dumbass all these terms are historiographical categorizations.

I mean, you're both not wrong...

It's the Byzantine period of the Roman empire

Which Reich?
1st/2nd/3rd?
They're all German Empires, albeit more centralised each time.

>no one mentioning the Empire of Japan (pre 1918).

Shamefur

TRIGGERED

I think they lost wars on purpose to get those borders so aesthetic

It's mainly since they're ('specially the east) in areas were geography helps out a lot.

China.
It's amazing the things the Chinese have went through, and it's even more amazing to think what awaits them in the future. Here's a country that has experienced everything all the way from dynastic rule to being overrun by Mongols to drug wars to Featherweight Boxer terrorists fighting Russians to Communism. They're so old and every time they get knocked down by famines or brutal autocracies they've shown they can recover every single time.
If anyone says anything about the Chinese being soulless or unethical, come over here, I'm gonna punch you in the face.

...

Prussia

Veeky Forums, let me tell you guys a secret. This discussion is completely meaningless. There is no definite way any state can be defined as "Roman" or "Greek". You can count the attributes that are commonly considered to be part of a roman state, like the universal use of Latin and the use of legions but every one of you probably has a different threshold when these things cross over into officially "RomanTM", and even the different attributes themselves are weighed differently by different people.

I think he mean independent states. So yes, some duchies were independent while others were subordinate to a king or emperor.

Civil war

bump

This but I also like Bactria.

>meaningless discuss
Welcome to humanities

• ‘NEITHER THE RECRUITMENT OF FOREIGN SOLIDERS NOR THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRONOIA REPRESENTED A TOTAL DEPARTURE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION PRACTISES WHICH HAD MADE THE EMPIRE GREAT. They were solutions to age old problems –the problem of manpower and the problem of providing support for soldiers when they were not on campaign- for which the administrative options were necessarily limited.’ AS SUCH, THEY REPRESENTED A LONG OVER-DUE REPLACEMENT FOR THE OLD THEME SYSTEM WHICH THE EMPIRE HAD BEGUN TO OUTGROW FROM THE BEGINNING OF ITS EXPANSION IN THE TENTH CENTURY.’ (O. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, p. 232)