Ah yes, the eastern """Roman""" empire, """Roman""" it is called...

Ah yes, the eastern """Roman""" empire, """Roman""" it is called, despite the fact that this """Roman""" body is standing on Greece, a land so harsh and poor that it took the Legions of Rome 66 years to set foot in it. A Greek-speaking and non-Latin Roman Catholic people, yes, but still calling themselves """Roman"""

The saddest part about byzzabooism is that them clinging to the roman continuity completely overshadows everything else about this pretty neat nation and its testament in history. Byzantium deserve better tha those EU4 babbies.

kys

>t. Roach

...

Yeah, because they really were a crucial part of "Roman" Empire, it even became the capital and heartland of Roman Empire, Roman emperor literally call it "Nova Roma". I don't see the problem here. Do you think your moronic words are more credible than "Roman" emperor?

Is hating the byzantines a new trend on Veeky Forums? Is this the new >H>R>E meme?

Greece was part of the Roman Empire longer then it had been an independent entity.

latin italians stopped being the end-all-be-all of what it meant to be roman when they started colonizing most of europe, north africa, and half the middle east, and when we saw emperors from each of these places and great roman heroes with ethnic origins all over the place, from the illyrian dynasties to the iberian dynasties and even african dynasties, rome was a multicultural setup long before the west and east came apart.

People's argument is that as soon as you stop having Rome, you stop having the roman empire, and semantically thats true. But in all actual meaningful metrics they were as "roman" as they ever were going to be, there is no "next step" that makes them suddenly "true romans." Rome stopped being the capital and lost most strategic purpose in the late empire, it literally wasnt even important anyway and was only a symbolic city. Some emperors literally never stepped foot there.

As far as the religious arguments, christians have been divided in the roman empire since the inception of christianity, everyone everywhere has always had their own special snowflake sect, this traces back far before the split. Were they not romans before the split even though they had different religions the entire time anyway? Early churches never agreed on anything.

These arguments are always shallow and semantics-based. It fails to grasp the true spirit and history of the roman empire, as a truly multinational union of provinces where everyone contributed to the central hub in their own way, and his central hub was constantinople long before the split. Remember that Constantine was a western caesar in charge of gaul, and his capital was the city with his namesake in the east.

The fact that a city which was irrelevant to the empire long before any official split suddenly matters when its gone is like a child wanting his untouched toy back after some other kid wants to play with it. It had lost meaning until it was gone, but it only ever was symbolic

>state called the Roman Empire whose people call themselves Romans
>it is somehow not the Roman Empire and the people are not Romans
Explain

It's because Greek keep in LARPing around saying that they were Romans and shit and that actual Roman Catholic Italians are sub-human. It's a push back against all the Byzantine wank and butthurt with the 4th crusade.

well thats because the byzantines had true blood relations to the last emperors and are the official, legal inheritors. Rome was nothing if not a legal state that loved its laws and regulations, romans sued each other just as much as we do today. Any true roman would respect the legal heirs, you'll find your womanish attachment to italy is actually counter to the true spirit of romans, who saw the whole world as the dominion of terminus, that everywhere would eventually be roman.

hear hear

>no turk shit poster in thread
I knew the guy was fake

>Is hating the byzantines a new trend on Veeky Forums?
oh my sweet summer child!

wasn't the real meaning behind the nomenclature of the Roman Empire closer to "the Empire of the Romans" rather than a direct link of the name of the empire to the city of Rome itself?

wouldn't that make holding Rome irrelevant as long as you are linked to the "Roman Empire" by other means?

>Empire
>Full of Roman citizens
>Not the Roman Empire
?

1)'REEE ROMANS ARE ONLY FROM THE CITY ITSELF' stopped being a thing following the Social wars
2)All members of the empire (e.g. all the freeman) became Roman citizens from 212 onwards (Edict of Caracalla)
3)Following the Pope is hardly what makes one 'Roman'. If it was, then you'd be dismissing the classical Rome as not roman

that is correct
what is it that you wanted to say?

>latin italians stopped being the end-all-be-all of what it meant to be roman when they started colonizing most of europe

Actually, it was even before that. All of Rome's found myths seem to emphasize the idea that no matter how far you go back, there is always going to be another group of people who got there before you, and even the Italians were not exempt from this.

ah yes, i guess when the african american calls themselves ancient egyptian they actually were ancient egyptian yes

Aside from intentionally trying to delegitimize the Eastern Roman Empire in order for the Pope to claim influence over his Holy Roman Empire, how does the same government ruling over the same territory as the Empire not make it so?

For the final 150 years of the Western/Eastern Empires, Constantinople was seen as the better capital, with even the Western Empire abandoning Rome in favor of Ravenna.

My question is just that, how does having the exact same state, government, and law system not make it the country that it was founded to be just because an influential bishop of the Church says it's not?

>influential bishop
You mean the head of christianity, right?

You realize that the Roman empire predated Christianity by a substantial margin, right?

friendly reminder that the roman empire died with constantine

Only if you have an extremely limited view of the Roman empire. One which the Romans themselves wouldn't have shared.

sure and the ottoman empire is a legitimate sucessor to the roman empire btw

but that's the thing, The Roman Empire, even after accepting Christianity as the state religion, still exercised the policy of Caesaropapism, where the Emperor was the authority of the church, even moreso than the Bishop of Rome, This policy continued all through the history of the Eastern Roman Empire as the Emperor still held authority over the Ecumenical Patriarch and was the de facto leader of the Orthodox Church. The Pope simply rejected that and declared the Pope to be the supreme authority of their own Holy Roman Empire by making the Holy Roman Emperors subservient to the Pope.

The Pope's actions to exercise authority over Emperors was an exact reversal of the Christian Roman practice, and it was that direct challenge to the Emperor in Constantinople that led to the Schism, among other catalysts.

Turk posters support the idea of a contiguous Eastern Roman Empire because it lets them claim to be the successor to Rome.

People against the idea are butthurt Italians, Germans, Catholics and "German"-Americans

*theodosius

Constantine didn't convert till his death bed

Hot Take: Historians will look at the United States before and after the 1960's the same way we view the Roman: Byzantine dichotomy.

Multicultural California is our Constantinople and Obama is our Heraclius.

no one cares amerifat, stop posting dumb shit

In other words they share geographic and (to some degree) political continuity but the underlying cultural shifts make them rather separate entities.

...

nonce, all but one of our federal entities are east of the mississippi. plus california is pretty much a vassal since you're so incompetent at managing your resources and borders

> all but one of our federal entities are east of the mississippi

I meant it more in the sense that Constantinople was deliberately founded as a "new" Christian, Greek-speaking city away from the more Latin, and still at that time more traditionally Pagan Rome. Theodore Roosevelt ( let alone a George Washington), wouldn't recognize modern California as being American anymore than Cato the Elder would recognize the City of Constantine as Roman.

> plus california is pretty much a vassal since you're so incompetent at managing your resources and borders

I'm a Texan.

a

If Americans decided to start speaking French would they still be Americans?

Except Latin was still the official state language, language of the military, and language of the aristocracy for centuries after its founding.

In Roman society, you weren't considered to be an educated person unless you were fluent in Latin AND Greek.

bad comparison. The east had always predominantly spoken greek. Were they not romans before the fall of the west just because they spoke greek?

The Roman Empire died when it converted to Christianity since that was the point the state chose to become something that wasn't Roman

wow that was really original Gibbons you should write a book about it

he's right though

t retard

Newfag
>E
>R
>E

What it meant to be a Roman changed through history. By the time of thr split the Byzantines fit firmly within the definition of Roman

DELETE THIS

WE

WU

yes, Veeky Forums is now on /v/ contrarian levels because the Byzantine Empire is more popular than before.

>libtards are STILL salty

>new

byzzieboos are always shunned on Veeky Forums for a good reason

>for good reason
Which is?

Veeky Forums posters like to start to the historical orthodoxy of the 1950s/60s and get angry if you bring about revisionist views or point out the new academic consensus

>byzzieboos are always shunned on Veeky Forums for a good reason
They're not though. Please go to and notice how people are talking about "Byzantine" history without REEEEEE'ing. The general Veeky Forums consensus has always been that Byzantium = Rome, and the newfags who periodically start REEEEEEing at it always get BTFO.

Like this thread.

>Multicultural California is our Constantinople and Obama is our Heraclius.
Nope, they're not at all. ERE banned faggotory and they didn't have tranny toilets and fluid genders degeneracy.

They did however have a third gender.

Eunuchs. That weird place between man and women

Eunuchs are just castrated "men", that's not "third gender", they didn't call themselves third gender, and they're castrated not because of "identity crisis" lunacy.

I'm not saying they did it because 'I'm not a man!'.

It's just that culturally and socially, they were treated as not male, nor female.

Libtard salty much?

>EU4 babbies
CK2 babbies ?

>Eternal
>Roman
>Empire

isnt it just bunch greeks larping as romans anyway, why does christards really want to claim rome's name that much

>Germans LARPing as Romans
>Greeks LARPing as Romans

this, i dont get why christians, both the orthodox and catholic flavour wants to be associated with empire that killed their jew god

because christianity is roman to the core. 99.9% of what modern christians do is rooted not in some unknown jewish backwater, but in roman society. Rome spread it everywhere, rome codified it, rome set up the rituals that people still follow today. Its impossible to separate rome from christianity

No, we mean the bishop of Rome. There was no "head of Christianity" at that time other than Jesus Christ. Papal authority came way later as an invention. Making him the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

why even bother being christian then if youre not even going to follow the original

>the original

christianity has always been highly decentralized. It was unique everywhere it sprung up because it changed depending on where it was. There was never "one true faith," it has always been a clusterfuck. Those bishops never agreed on fucking anything. Wars were started over semantics, I kid you not.

>christianity is a roman invention

wouldnt that makes the whole thing fake then

well it is all fake but thats irrelevant. Everything you think is christian is actually a roman tradition that predates christianity and was later changed to fit with christianity. Its so ridiculously bastardized that I cant help but laugh every time some calvinist acts like he has it all figured out. I mean, Jesus was basically an anarchist, using him to prop up family values and the state is fucking hilarious, but romans morphed it into something that worked for them and us in the same way. What jesus taught is not compatible with your social structure or life choices. You cannot be a capitalist and a christian, but you can if its the bastardized roman christianity.

>greeks larping as romans.

Define 'greeks'.

Genetically? No, it was a mix of hellens, slavs, anatonials and such.

Culturally? No, it wasn't modern greek culture (which looked back to ancient greece), nor was it reverting to pre-roman culture.

The culture remained Imperial and Christian (like the Late Western Empire), albeit written in medieval Greek instead of Latin.

Instead of Greeks, it was just what was left of the Roman Empire.

It really isn't.
The 'everything is just copied from pagans!'.

It's a nice meme, but research has shown that a lot of it isn't.

And if anything, Jesus was just a revolutionary jew, aimed at destroying the power the priest class had over jews. If it was the 'original' stuff, it'd just be Liberal Judaism

>baby's first history book

>muh larping
Either learn some history or fuck off permanently.

>expecting any better from 4 chins

Absolutely false, Byz hate was always from butthurt HREfags

Hi otto

get back to plebit

papadopulos pls

I am a Turk but I cant stand this bullshit:

1) intelligentsia of Romans were always Greeks
2) Greek was the scientific tongue
3) Greeks formed the theory of military, bureaucracy and nobility that Roman society employed

In short, Roman Empire was a bastardization of 1000 years of Greek social tradition.

If anyone deserved the mantle Byzantines did, by far. Romans themselves were sheepfucking alcoholics.

Shitalians can't into originality.

Costantinople was a fusion between Roman identity and centralism and Greek culture al language. Ancient Greeks never had any idea of a unified state for themself (cities states), the Roman teach them how to not kill each others in petty wars.

So, as long as i am a Byzantine fanboys, nobody can deny that they were Greek speaking Romans. Language and land aside they had virtually nothing in common with the classical Greeks

> Ancient Greeks never had any idea of a unified state for themself (cities states),

This isn't true, Athens made a bid for it, and the Peloponnesian war was fought to prevent Athens from creating a pan Hellenic empire. The Spartans had a somewhat reactionary desire to stay in the era of city states forever and ended up causing the stagnation that led to the later conquests by both Macedon and Rome.

Athen league was not a centralized empire, rather a league of vassals cities, who were forced to give tributes to Athenians and help them in they wars.

The Macedonians dominance was similar, the cities were vassals under a Macedonian-leading league, not part of the Macedonian state. Only Rome endend the indipendence of the Greek cities by forcefully annex Greece into the Republic

This, pretty much

I agree with both of you. You two all have fair points.

Bump

I can call myself Roman too, but it doesn't make me Roman.

>everyone who doesn't share my idea is a t*rk

Yeah, but you aren't a roman citizen. Which most of the ERE was.

The bishop of Rome was just one of five patriarchs. The seat just got entitled due to being the only patriarch inside the territory of the former WRE which netted it immense influence in Western Europe.

Your argument is retarded and the position that ERE wasn't Roman is as silly as claiming that people from Texas or California aren't americans.

Roman empire died with christianity

Greeks larped as Romans, absolutely

>Imagine a place full of Mexican Americans, speaking Spanish and call their country Estados Unidos de America.

I wouldn't want to see that abomination.

It's the eurangutan fate. America belongs to the Amerindians. You are being replaced. Deal with it.

this

It's more
>USA invades Canada
>Intergrates it
>Divides in two because of corruption issues
>Parts of old USA get eaten by mexicans
>Canadian + north american states are all that remains of USA
>Still call themselves USA, as it's still the US government with US citizenship
>Some Mexican warlord declares he's the USA now

It's a Roman rump state

When you think about it, Turkey is the most valid modern day successor to the Roman Empire, by following the line of

Roman Empire
| |
| |
West Rome East Rome
|
|
Byzantines
|
|
Ottomans
|
|
Turkey