Byzantium

romeos

>Rum was the turkish name for Anatolia, not for the roman empire.
More appropriately, the turks (and the arabs before them) called the region "Rum" because that's what the byzantines called themselves, romans. It can hardly be taken as an indication that the turks considered the ERE heir to the roman empire.

If that's true then why did Mehmet style himself as the emporer of Rome after conquering Constantinople.

The Turks and Arabs knew it to be Rome.

Muslims in many ME countries still refer to Western European Catholics as "Franks". Not a very credible bunch when it comes to anthropology.

>The Turks and Arabs knew it to be Rome.

Because it is a more grandiose title that appealed to his bogan warlord sensibilities. Does not mean it is accurate.

>it is a more grandiose title
The ERE imperial title was actually basileús ton romaíon. Kayser-i-Rum, or caesar of Rome was basically the equivalent of "imperial cousin". It was even awarded to foreign rulers from time to time. In fact, even without conquering Costantinople, Mehmet would have certainly qualified for the title on both blood and station.

They called Romans "Greeks". Westerners had an inferiority complex towards the Romans and Orthodoxy.

The Serbian emperors crowned themselves as "Emperor of Serbs and Greeks (Grka)" in Serbian, yet the same title was "Emperor of Serbs and Roman lands (Romanias)" in Greek.

>Easterners, especially Turks, called them Romans
fascinating, I suppose when your culture revolves for 500 years around trying to succeed the Romans, it bodes well to constantly call them that

>Didn't speak a Romance language
Neither did the majority of the original Roman empire at any point of history. Even the official documents were issued in both Latin and Greek.

>The Ottomans actually called Orthodox Greeks Romans up until the fall of their empire.
Turks called all Orthodox Romans, including South Slavic Orthodox.

>whether ERE was a continuation of the Roman empire is an issue of ANTHROPOLOGY
How dumb are you?

Technically speaking, Caesar is not the rank of emperor. It is the rung below that of the emperor (which in Greek was autokrator I believe). The highest imperial ranking was always autokrator or augustus, and never caesar, which was usually reserved for imperial heirs, lower ranking emperors etc.

are you people trolling or do you genuinely from an uneducated point of view not understand the historiographical reasons for Byzantium being the continuation of Rome?
No-one says it /is/ the Roman empire, everyone knows and accepts it wasn't literally Rome, but it's successive state.

>It is the rung below that of the emperor
By the 15th century it was actually fourth after basileus (or autokrator, emperor), sebastokrator and panhypersebastos. Arguably fifth due to megas domestikos being of equal rank but having more actual power.

>Greeks: It's Roman empire
>Turks: It's Roman empire
>Arabs: It's Roman empire
>Slavs: It's Roman empire
>Mongols: It's Roman empire
>Latins: I'D JUST LIKE TO INTERJECT FOR A MOMENT. WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO AS ROMAN EMPIRE, IS IN FACT, A GREEK EMPIRE, OR AS I'VE RECENTLY TAKEN TO CALLING IT, THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

He's kinda right, actually. He's referring to how Muslims classify those around them, which fits into social/cultural anthropology. Read more carefully.

>everyone knows and accepts it wasn't literally Rome
But it is.

It has nothing to do with cultural categorization and anthropology and everything with legal continuity. ERE would be Roman even if it was populated by Martians.

>I'm the angevin empire
>I divide myself into the kingdom of England and Grand Anjou
>the french Grand Anjou
>I'm still the angevin empi.. oh wait that's retarded. I'm just the kingdom of England now
This is a far more accurate example.
In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with considering the ERE a successor state of the roman empire. I do think it's retarded to consider them the actual roman empire tho.

>But it is
No it isn't, if we want to be autistic we can say the Roman Empire actually ended when it was split, then you have the two halves which were distinct from one another. As the west died, the East developed it's own unique culture and customs, changed the language, while still operating within the geographic, religious spheres of the classic united empire, making it a successor state.

>the french Grand Anjou
*CONQUER
Fuck me life I always forget pieces when I edit my posts.

>changed the language
When will you people finally comprehend that Greek was one of the two official languages in Rome at least since Claudius?

That's a shit comparison because you're comparing dynastic title vs a non-dynastic one.

>No-one says it /is/ the Roman empire, everyone knows and accepts it wasn't literally Rome, but it's successive state.

People regularly say exactly that.

If it was official since Claudius it wouldn't have needed to be officialized in 610.
Just because all latin edicts were accompanied by greek translations doesn't mean greek was actually an official language.

It was the official languages. What the ERE did wasn't adopting Greek, it was already official, it just ditched Latin because there was no need for it anymore.

>When will you people finally comprehend that Greek was one of the two official languages
I already know that, but seen as language changes the dynamic of the Church and the law it's safe to say that overtaking Latin as the main language of the empire results in a significant cultural shift.

Academia accepts the ERE is different from the RE hence the denomination of ERE and "Byzantine/East Roman" instead of RE and "Roman"

It's too easy to say "It wasn't Roman coz it was GREEK HURR" or "It was Rome because ITS A CONTINUATION" when in actuality it's a bit more grey, Byzantium changed some things and kept some things the same and was neither a fully separate entity nor an exact copy of it's predecessor. Arguing for a black and white answer it autistic and gets no-one anywhere, it's also not properly representative of history.

Since Romanness became a semi-religious thing, clearly it stopped being Roman the moment they lost Antioch and therefore the Pentarchy, or when HRE was founded

I don't see how that matters. The angevin empire got its name due to having started out as the county of Anjou. Just like the roman empire started with the city of Rome.
Then Anjou was lost. Bit silly at that point to keep calling themselves angevines, especially when there's other people unrelated to you actually residing in Anjou and calling themselves that way.
The HRE kinda did the same by resizing their title to HRE.. ..of the german nation.
Same with the ERE, really. It's justifiable for them to keep calling themselves "roman empire" since they don't actually have a fallback title, but it shouldn't really surprise anyone that people who actually had to deal with Rome wouldn't call the ERE as such.

>I don't see how that matters
I think it matters heaps whether your country is just a reflection of a dynasty or exists independently of the dynasty. Habsburg monarchy is not the same thing as modern Austria.

It was literally the Roman Empire. No two ways around it.

Rome changed as much from 44 B.C to 300 A.D as it did from the time of Constantine to Heraclius. The culture, linguistics, economics, structure, and politics of the empire was always in flux.
The one thing that remains constant is that you have a direct line of emperors all claiming rightful succession and rule over the empire, from Augustus all the way down to Constantine XI

You buttmad fucks have to go back to kissing nigger feet with your Pope.

>Holy Roman Emipre
>Roman
Please. The Roman Empire died in the 6th century.

The vikings called it Greece

No it wasn't, not even. Would you consider an islamic, spanish speaking, mexican ethnicity state that followed american laws based in western america to a legitimate continuation of the united states? Because that is basically what the ERE was. Different religion, different people, different culture, different language.

What does the symbol on the eagle's chest mean?

It died in the 15th century.

orthodox christianity is much closer to roman stuff (before and after chalcedon than >roman catholicism

whoops didn't mean to meme arrow

The grand majority of contemporaries referred to it as "Empire of the Romans", except for the Papal/Italian states who sought to legitimize the Holy Roman Empire over it cause the HRE was under Papal influence, where they would call it the Empire of the Greeks, but that didn't take widespread hold in Italy until after the Schism, where the Church in Constantinople completely broke off from dialogue with the Pope, and the Pope seeing such a break as the delegitimization of the Empire.

It's ironic too, cause it was the Empire in Constantinople that flatout gave the city of Rome to the Pope Stephen II in 751 to help heal church relations during the iconoclasm, but instead the newly formed Papal States wanted an empire with the Pope having authority over an Emperor, and took the opportunity to anoint Charlemagne as King of the Romans, since he was a king who accepted Papal authority where the Eastern Roman Empire would not.

>If it's citizens called themselves Romans, and we after it's fall call it the Byzantine Empire or ERE, what did contemporaries outside the realm call it?

Everyone called it the Roman Empire during its time before it finally collapsed in 1453. Everyone called them Romans during the time period they still existed as a state.

The term Byzantine Empire came from a German historian from the "Holy" "Roman" "Empire" in 1557, more than 100 years after the fall of Constantinople.

Well, people who hated them called them Empire of the Greeks. But obviously, there's a definite reason for doing that after 975 AD.

>Would you consider an islamic, spanish speaking, mexican ethnicity state that followed american laws based in western america to a legitimate continuation of the united states? Because that is basically what the ERE was. Different religion, different people, different culture, different language.
Yes.
If it followed the American constitution and followed the American system of governance and at the same time, a direct line of governance from America exists, then yes, it is a legitimate continuation of the US.

The US Constitution was designed in a way that allowed for that. So did the Roman imperial system. Nothing in either system of governance was it required for them to hold specific territory, have a specific language, have a specific ethnicity, heck, even a specific religion.

Wouldn't like it, but a direct line of succession exists. Anyone saying the ERE isn't the Roman Empire when everyone and their mothers called it the Roman Empire during its existence (except way after 1000 AD when the Schism really got things going) are just being historical revisionists.

The Roman Empire of Augustus was wholly different from the Roman Empire of 200 AD and that of 300 AD. But "historians" still do mental gymnastics still try to say that the WRE that collapsed in 476 AD was still the Roman Empire.

>when people say not sharing the pagan gods of Rome makes it not Rome
>This means Rome officially ended under Theodosius I who made Christianity the state religion or even under Constantine who converted first
>Rome ended years before it fell

Really makes me think.

Rome did fall or at least the classical era died with Theodusious aka Fedorasious
>Ban the olympics because "muh paganism"
>Tore down multiple monuments such as the pillar of victory because "muh paganism"
>Disbanded ancient institutions like the vestal virgins because "muh paganism"

It's what I would imagine the world would be if a fedora tipping militant atheist came into power with no one to oppose him.

It's kind of ironic because the Latin pantheon and 90% of Latin culture was just copypasted from Greeks to begin with.

The Classical Era is from 600 BC to 600 AD.
Theodosius lived in the early Late Classical Era (after 200 AD).

Stop meme spouting. Not even an athiest but he clearly wasn't an athiest. Similar things had happened under past Emperors. Some completely disregarded the traditional Gods for Eastern ones. Only difference is he had enough Christian support to not get assassinated.

Roman paganism had evolved over time similar to Egyptian paganism, some Gods became more popular and replaced or merged with existing ones. By the time paganism was outlawed many Romans were worshipping whatever God they wanted and ignoring the traditional ones.

Wrong, It died in 1922

>t.urk

>Greeks:We're the Roman empire
>Turks:We're the Roman empire
>Russians:We're the Roman empire
>Germans:We're the Roman empire
>French:We're the Roman empire
>Romanians:We're the Roman empire
>Brits: We're the Roman empire
>Spanish: We're the Roman empire
>Italians: We're the Roman empire
>Texans: We're the Roman empire

>someone spent time to make this
this is why nobody takes Veeky Forums seriously

...

>Would you consider an islamic, spanish speaking, mexican ethnicity state that followed american laws based in western america to a legitimate continuation of the united states?
Yep.

Western Roman Empire heirs
Legal: Germany via the HRE
As a polity: France via the Franks who were once clients of the Roman Empire and integrated with Romano-Gaul
Spiritual successor: Roman Catholic Church

Eastern Roman Empire
Legal: Kingdom of Spain via titles sold by Andreas Palaiologos
As a polity: Turkey filled the same niche as the Eastern Roman Empire
Spiritual successor: Russia via the Orthodox church

>muh heir
literal WEWUZism

Add to that image the ashes being given back to the other half of the stick in a box and being sprinkled on top.

Funny things, there are a lot of written references about medieval Bulgar authors reffering to them both as Romans (romei) and as Greeks (grkom)

>The one thing that remains constant is that you have a direct line of emperors all claiming rightful succession and rule over the empire, from Augustus all the way down to Constantine XI
What the fuck am I reading, year of four emperors not happen in your fantasy world?

>both as Romans and as Greeks
Well that's because they were both.

We.

>Kingdom of Spain
fuck's sake, is there anything you retards won't link to being Rome's successor?

Those aren't both sticks, they're splinters.
It's just one happens to be the Roman splinter and the other happens to be the Greek splinter.

>not adding Persians, Bulgars, Armenians to the list

>ITT: people who don't understand what the definition is of a successor state, a spiritual successor, a continuing state, or the difference between the three

That was still a direct line of rightful succession. The Roman imperial seat was not something that requires birthright.

this is probably one of the most charged and triggering subjects among history hobbyists.

But then would the ottomans not be "rightful" successors to the Roman Empire as well

Aye. I've even seen Veeky Forums react the same way in a thread that was about using the Eastern Roman Empire as inspiration for a setting. It mostly devolved into a flame war similar to this thread.

He is speaking legally you spaz. The last relative of the last Emperor was technically the legal heir. He sold his titles and claims to the throne to the throne of Spain.

The Ottomans destroyed the Roman Empire by crushing the state as a separate state themselves.
They weren't fighting for the seat of Roman Emperor, they were fighting for Ottoman dominance. Each and every one of those emperors were going to be Roman Emperors.

It's honestly only controversial because Latin Christians invented the Byzantine meme, and the descendants of Latin Christians ended up dominating the entire field of history and world culture. If that didn't happen this wouldn't be even a debate, "Byzantines" were Romans simple as that.

How is Germany the "legal" heir of the WRE?
The HRE did not officially exist until late 900AD. It's way after the collapse of the WRE.

>Speak a gay ass language
>Wear gay ass costumes
>ugly as fuck glass pictures
We wuz

>wikipedia

>The Eastern Roman Empire continued on as the Byzantine Empire until 1453 CE, and though known early on as simply `the Roman Empire’, it did not much resemble that entity at all.

ancient.eu/Roman_Empire/

>It's not the Roman Empire because it didn't resemble that entity at all
>implying that the Roman Empire of 1 AD was anything like the Roman Empires of 100 AD, 200 AD, 300 AD, 400 AD, and 476 AD

This. I love this meme that the Ottomans could be a continuation of Rome even if we exclude their religion and vast cultural differences. They didn't fight for the throne of the ERE, they fought to destroy it and establish a state of their own.

It was called Rome by its contemporaries

Except for Rome

The Eastern Empire was still considered Rome by the Western empire when they both existed. It was all considered Roman.

When the west fell, there was no distinction between the Eastern empire and the Western empire.

thats because french kingdom was first european country ottomans had diplomatic contact. europeans called all muslims turk for same reason.

Rude

>Romanians:We're the Roman empire
never claimed that
people here never claim to be the roman empire but rather descendants of the roman settlers left behind in dacia

The fact that this is even being discussed goes so show how absolutely shit Veeky Forums has become.

They were still a Roman state.
The German speaking kingdom of the Franks is considered the ancestor of France, hence its name, and they spoke a different language and went through a dozen changes in government.

Russians: MЫ БЫЛИ

to be fair, russian wewuzism wasn't larping, the third rome rhethoric served the purpose of justifying the ambition of russian dominance over orthodox peoples

Russia was more of
>I'm the Roman Empire now
As it more claimed to continue Rome-East Rome tradition by becoming Third Rome, rather than being the rightful successor of original Roman Empire instead of HRE and ERE

>but seen as language changes the dynamic of the Church
Early church was greek as fuck.