"eastern"

>"eastern"
>""roman""
>"""empire"""

We get it, you're Latin.

As long as there's a emperor in Constantinople, there's a Roman Empire

>nothing to do with the city of Rome
>medieval greek culture
>christian

not even remotely roman

Is the WRE Roman, then?

C U C K C U C K C U C K
C U C K C U C K C U C K
C U C K C U C K C U C K
C U C K C U C K C U C K

it at least had Rome in it

sure Rome wasn't the capital
nor the most important city
and it was also Christian Medieval

>another one of these threads
OP didn't even try to make his shitpost subtle either

sage

>no Pontifex Maximus
>Greek not Latin language
>no Rome
>no Romans
>"B-but the Hellenes there self-identify as Romans!"
The Eastern "Roman" Empire died with Justinian.

>I don't like history so I'll shitpost >ERE 24/7 to soothe my asspain

Ass-pained booty blasted Greek detected.

>every
>fucking
>day

>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
>people argue that the remaining part of America isn't american

>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

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?

>no Pontifex Maximus

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.

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

Why are people even responding to this autistic bait thread?

>All members of the empire (e.g. all the freeman) became Roman citizens
This shows you when Rome stopped to exist.

Tell that to Constantine.
Most people around them also called them Romans back then.

Roman Empire was not a city state long time ago.

Don't forget the part about about the USA holding Canada for hundreds of years, which would make Canada undeniably American over that time. OP you are a fucking dumbass.

>Roman

it still hurts

>latins

Wow you are stupid

Fucking this

Thank you

np

>No Ultimate Roman Empire in Finland
0/10 shit map.

More like
>is the Roman state
Literally no historian denies this continuity, only tryhard contrarians on this board.

What'd you expect from 4chins?

>assmad German

>Controlled Rome
>Controlled Constantinople
>People spoke Greek, the language that influenced the Romans the most
>same government
>controlled the only important parts of the Roman empire
Oh wow, it's almost like they WERE the Roman empire

>its another "retard doesn't understand anything about Rome or the Byzantines but feels the need to talk about how the Byzantines weren't Roman because they didn't hold Rome" episode

>yes
>it
>was

>christian
>religion born in the Roman Empire during the time of the first Princeps
>spread mostly inside the borders of the Empire
>became state religion
>Latin and Greek to this day are the predominant languages of many Christian churches
>implying Christianity isn't Roman

>Literally no historian denies this continuity
Well I mean this is simply not a valid question for historians. It's all in flux and transforming so the guy you responded to is retarded on several layers.

My main argument would be that not only did the "Byzantines" referred to themselves as Roman but other people like Germans and Italians did so as well. So what we have are some Total War retards spouting memes instead of opening a book.

This, pretty much