Eastern Roman

We're talking about an Empire, not an ethnicity. Everyone living in that map of yours, from Picts to Parthinians, could become Roman citizens.

Latin and Roman are two different things, and this bait is stale.

"Romans" were literally just the inhabitants of the city of Rome and its surrounding villages. If Greeks weren't Romans (they were all given full citizenship), then the rest of Italy wasn't either.

The Byzantine Empire was Roman in the same way the Golden Horde and Crimean Khanate were Mongol, and in the same way the Mughals were Timurid, this being a successor state, the same way the germans and the turks were "roman"

Veeky Forums average thread

>Successor state

You know the original state needs to be discontinued for a successor state to appear right? Can you remind me at which point the Roman Empire stopped existing before the Byzantine Empire replaced it?

The western part of the Empire got conquered, sure enough, then the east, but the Roman Empire lasted up until May 1453. Francia and the Ostrogothic Kingdom are successor states, so is Trebizond if you want, but the Roman Empire is the Roman Empire and nothing else.

>1) Byzantine is a historical period of Roman Empire
>2) Roman Empire ceased to exist in 330 when Constantinople became the capital.

choose one

This

Of course it is you fool.

No Pentarchy, no Roman Empire, so Roman Empire stopped when Antioch was taken

1

This. People need to stop thinking ethnicity and start thinking legal citizenship.

Sure Romans from Rome proper could have settled in the ERE and also vice versa.

To better understand this look up ethnic background charts and population density of the late Roman Empire. Itll show you the majority and minority groups spread across the extent of Rome.

Ethnically Greek; Roman citizens

When Rome switched its capital from Rome to Constantinople, and then the split between the two western part and Eastern part.

These two East and West became successor states. The Original Roman Empire had fallen into disarray and in attempt to keep the entirety of Romanistic civilization, the split occured.

This split became the two successors when thinking of Rome under Trajan at its largest extent and after that Rome never had the same shape again.

I am going to have to disagree in calling them successor states. The Roman empire was still the Roman Empire, had it 1, 2 or 4 augusti and caesars as during the tetrarchy. Would you say there were 4 successor states under the tetrarchy? Then again you could argue there was a senior augustus, but there were still two augusti on paper.
That's the way I see it for the late east-west split. It was still the Roman Empire, just with two colleagues ruling over their respective administrative areas, not two different states.

In addition, turning Constantinople into a new capital shouldn't have much to do with the price of eggs, considering how Mediolanum and then Ravenna had long superceded Rome as de facto Capital.

For all intents and purposes, just as the Romans themselves saw the East and West as two distinct states, and certainly not the East as new entity once the west fell, neither should we.

Im having a hard time arguing that point you made. I suppose in my mind I'm an early Romaboo. As such I dont like to recognize the style ans models of late Rome espically after the split.

The reason I say I dont recognize Rome as such in its later times varies and Id have to go into a lot of detail but you sound like someone who knows a thing or two already and could understand the differences between rome at 50ad and rome at 450ad.

The only thing id like to argue is that if East and West were still one, then the sense of Two captials makes no sense and having to emperors. The people of these two Empires as far as I know now recognized a split and that there was now no one Rome but two Romes and that the entirety of Rome had been dismemebered and now recognized as seperate.

If not whole under one title, then what are they? What I am arguing is that you mentioned a fall of the original empire must happen first before a succesor could be named. ROME did fall and it split into East and west, now with two captials. Sure it was still Roman in the sense, but they were the succesion of the Original Roman empire.

Perhaps not namely the succesors as some would recognize the Byzantines to be, or the HRE, or the Russian Empire, but surely you could argue properly that the Original rome was no longer that which was Under Agustus or Trajan or Occtavian