ITT: We laugh at the Roman Empirlet

How can Byzantine Empire be Roman if Rome isn't even a part of it?

They didn't have india, Tamerlane conquered northern india but only to pillage it

The Mongol Empire lasted at least 732 years.

...

>How can Byzantine Empire be Roman if Rome isn't even a part of it?

Because the Emperor Constantine moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople.

Constantine is a Greek, not a Roman.

He was literally the emperor of the Roman empire.

outplayed

And roman became a nationality

He was a Greek.
Don't reply to my posts, you faggot.

I wasn't aware that China was vast sparsely populated nothingness.

It's not the territory, it's what you control

No it didn't.

The idea of moving the capital to Byzantium wasn't even his idea. Several previous emperors had pondered moving the capital eastward. He was just the guy who actually did it.

Roman isn't even an ethnicity you retard.

>No Rome
>Roman

Yes it is you faggot. Romans are Italic peoples, you dipshit. Being a citizen of Roman ! = being ethnically Roman.

So every Arab, Greek, Anatolian, Assyrian, Indian, etc...is Persian because they were under Persian control? No.

If Congress voted to move the capital from Washington D.C. to Chicago, would America cease to exist?

Roman citizenship wasn't in any way connect to ethnicity by this point in time. Romans were constantly undergoing demographic shifts because of the massive numbers of slaves constantly being brought into the empire. And slaves were automatically considered citizens upon being freed. Even the upper classes weren't immune to this demographic shift. As time went on, senators increasingly came from the provinces rather than the city of Rome itself. And yes, many Emperors came from the provinces as well.

>Assimilation is impossible

Chicago is still America though, and American land is still in posession of the political entity America. Now if the goverment lost all control of continental America and move the capital to Hawaii, just like how Rome lost the city Rome and move the capital outside of Rome, it isnt America anymore.

>uninhabitid useless shut holes vs fertil and well populated regions
>over 1000 years vs under 200
Lol

Exactly nigger, so how the fuck is being a citizen of the Roman Empire equivalent to being an ethnic Italic/Roman? Its not.

You completely missed the point.

The capital was moved long before the city of Rome was actually conquered by barbarians. The capital was moved not because Rome had been conquered, but rather because it simply wasn't very relevant anymore. By the 4th century AD, Rome didn't even make the top 10 list for most important cities in the empire. Most of the major trading hubs were to the east, and so the capital was moved eastward.

I never said that being a Roman citizen made you ethnically Italian. What I actually said was that by this point in time, you could be a Roman citizen without being even remotely Italian in terms of ethnicity. Citizenship was generally limited to Italians during the Roman Republic. That was one of the things that got discarded during the transition to Empire.

>In before someone says Mongols improved the Silk Road trade routes.
[John Green intensifies]

Except those horsefuckers never built monuments or contributed anything tangible to civilization. They only leeched off of the higher culture of the Persians, Chinese, etc. during the hey-day of their Khanates.

Byzantium controlled Rome for well over 100 years. Were they the Roman empire during this time?

Half of China is desert

He can't answer because he's retarded and his view of history is a meme

Read a book.

Khabul Khan 1130 - Bahadur Shah 1862

No you fucking dong-eater. The unified Mongol Empire was dead by the point Kublai takes power. He had no actual ability to excerise authority over his relatives and in-laws ruling the rest of the "empire" because they were already in the transition to being separate macrostates. Your Mongol Empire is meme because it fucking didn't last a century.

...

>empire is reunited within less then 20 years
How dumb dumb are you?

The Mongol Empire was reunited after the 1360s.

Much more solidly, I might add.

No it wasn't.

Read a book.

What a dumbfuck faggot to think mongols are no better then steppe isis.

Read a book and stop being a Mongol apologist.

Your the one who needs to read a fucking book. After Guyuk Khan died Batu made sure that Mongke succeeded him. This pissed off the House of Ogedei as Guyuk only accepted the title if future Khans were kept in the house of Ogedei. Since that didn't happen the different houses began to conspire against each other. The previous Ogedei regent (wife of ogedei) even tried to assasinate Mongke for which he had her sown up in a bag and thrown into a river. By the time Kublai came the various houses founded their own Khanates inside the great "mongol empire" like the Golden Horde, Ikhanate or the Ming dynasty

Yuan*

/thread

All I said was that they lasted longer. How is that being an apologist? Rather, you outed yourself as Muslim or Chinese or SJW.

>stating basic common knowledge when faced with an argument, pretending it disproves anything and that I didn't know it

If the Roman Empire lasted 1000 years with all those dynasties, how do factions of a single dynasty not count? Ottomans actually officialized dynastic combat and not only are they recognized as lasting but as having territories that they didn't even control by their fall like Egypt.

All of those "successors" are vestiges no less than the Byzantines. Clearly they viewed themselves as such. When the Yuan Empire, the true Empire fell, in the 1540s, the Timurids had already ensured they would retain all the traditions and legitimacy and were recognized for 170 years during which China was lost.

Also you corrected Yuan at the end of your post but not the first word of "your" post.

(Cont'd)

In fact, when Tamerlane died, he was starting a campaign specifically not to conquer but to reclaim China.

This is powerful autism

This is what the Byzantine Empire looked like during its prime.

The other half is on par with India.

They did not last a century.

Read a damned book.

The Roman Empire lasted until the Russian Revolution

You read a damn book you fucking retard. The Mongol Empire was no longer under one ruler when Kublai ascended, in the same fucking way the Macedonian Empire of Alexander ceased existing the moment he died and the Diodachii happened.

Mongols are kust barbarians.The Romans actually created something.Mongols just killed and raled everyone.

Just*
Raped*

True Roman Heir coming through

>Mongols are kust barbarians.The Romans actually created something.Mongols just killed and raled everyone.

Then who made this? youtube.com/watch?v=5tVGei24TdQ

Mongols were shit at governing and the only people who like them are Mongol apologists or mongs themselves.

Size doesn't matter. Rome was far better.

>shitty throat singing and using instruments that were drawn, inspired, if not downright copied from other Steppe peoples and the Chinese
>"cultured"

How can the mongol """empire""" even compete?

they didn't have all of that simultaneously

empty land or land inhabited by stone age barbarians

mongols at least fought with peer civilizations

Yeah but the Anglo didn't actively genocide or attempt to genocide people. Mongols were a plague.

C O P E
I especially like how you call the mughal empire stone age barbarians

>empty land
glass houses, user

The capital wasn't really in Rome before him. The four capitals of the Tetrarchy were Milan, Trier, Thesalonica and Nicomedia. Rome was a glorified theme park.

Persians believed in actual multiculturalism instead of cuck western "multiculturalism". They didn't make those peoples persians. Romans did make people roman.

Tamerlane being a larper doesn't make the mongol empire last longer. Also you awnsered yourself, a state being destroyed but the with dynasty surviving is not the same as a dynasty being destroyed (or just dethroned) but with the state surviving. The mongol empire died fast, the genghisids survived longer. The julio-claudians, the severans, the justinians, the komnenos all died pretty fast but the roman state survived way, way longer.

Which Persians? Because the Achaemenids are an outlier compared to the Sassanians, Safavids, and Pahlavis. Yes, the Achaemenids were the first true globalist cosmopolitan empire builders but they were hands off with other cultures identities, religions, and beliefs. The Sasanians however would enforce strict rules on its subjects, same as their Roman and Byzantine counterparts.

I'm a huge fan of Mongolia and their achievements as a conquering military force, but please stop with this shit. Every fruit of civilization the Mongol empire utilized was taken by force from other empires. In the beginning, the Mongol hordes were illiterate, nomadic, and had no unifying structure until chingiss won enough tribal wars to raise an army large enough to start raiding to the south and the West of the greater Lake Baikal region.
All of their writing, seige technology, metallurgy, and navigational knowledge came from raiding other cultures. Their true effectiveness came from being excellent horsemen that lived in a very brutal warrior/raiding culture and a harsh environment. Also, their diet of almost pure protein-rich animal products supplemented with roots, tubers, and herbs made them larger, taller, stronger, and overall healthier than an average Manchurian with a grain based diet and serf lifestyle or a Southern Chinese man with his rice/vegetable based diet and serf lifestyle.

So it's understandable that when large, tough as nails barbarians that got their meal ticket by banditry and raiding in Mongolia come riding through the countryside with heavy lances, compound bows, and roughly 3 horses to every rider, they are going to completely clean house. Yet once a city closed it's gates, the Mongols were screwed unless they could besiege it long enough to starve the city. This is where the Mongols decided they needed meritocracy. So they took the best warriors, engineers, educators, and leaders to build a force that was relevant and dangerous to advanced sedentary empires. Yet ultimately, the Mongols at heart were always raiders and plunderers. They had cities paying tribute from Burma to Prussia, others like Baghdad being holocausted so badly that years later the city would still be nothing but ruins full of bones. But wasn't sustainable, and they became assimilated into their conquests due to their conquests having an advanced culture

Sasanians weren't that less multiculturalist than Achaemenids. But persian/iranic culture and identity were more sophisticated by then so of course they were less prone to literally take everything from outside. They had more than one autistic episode of religious fanatism but that doesn't count.

I don't like what you're implying, friend.

Charlamagne controled Rome.

and all the latins were extinct thanks to germanics

So to sum up what I'm saying, the Mongols were indeed a hell of a force in Eurasia in the middle ages, and to this day they leave a strong genetic footprint throughout the previously "purely" Iranic peoples of southern central Asia, and the Norse descended "white" European populations East of the Urals and both east-west and north-south of the Volga river into central Asia.

That's cool, and the Mongols are single handedly responsible for Russians being seen as Asiatic rather than European people up to this very day. They also put the crescent on many flags. However, you're not looking at this logically at all if you think the Mongol's empire is in any way comparable to the Roman Empire, whether talking about the WRE, the ERE, or the United empire as a whole. The Mongols ruled throughout an expanse of land they didn't even understand or trust. The only way the could even effectively police their empire was by randomly sacking an innocent tributary city already under their yoke just to remind people who was boss. Subsequently, anytime they stopped being nomads and built cities or sent governors to control conquered cities, those Mongols would just end up becoming assimilated into the host culture they settled in. See the Ilkhanate or Kublai's Yuan dynasty for direct examples of this happening.

In the case of Rome, regardless of the size of their empire, wherever the Romans went and conquered, they left behind their language, their knowledge/construction ptojects, their law, their religion, and a consistent/highly regulated military force.

How many people speak or know of Latin or are Christian because of Roman influence? How many people speak mandarin or are Buddhist due to Chinese imperial influence? Now ask yourself, how many people speak Mongolian or practice Tengrist Shamanism due to Mongol influence?

Those questions alone should end the stupidity of this threads debate. On a side note, I think Tengri Shamanism is a really fucking cool religion.

That makes no sense whatsover.
An equivilent example would be moving America's capital outside of the area of the original 13 colonies (say Chicago), then losing control of thosw states. Only a complete retard would dispute the state, based in Chicago but having lost the land from which it started, wasn't still the United States.

So basically, Mongols fought with peer civilizations.

Don't worry so much man. Anyone dumb enough to say the Mongols were superior as an imperial force to the Romans surely will never grasp the simple concept of Rome being a dual empire. No need to argue with them, they literally think that that the ERE not only never retook Rome for periods of time, but they also think that being Roman means you literally had to either hold the city of Rome or be born there. They also think Constantinople is to Rome as Honolulu is to DC, when in reality Constantinople is to Rome as NYC or LA is to DC

>hurr read a book

He's the roachposter (or probably one of his less skilled followers) trying to be more subtle about his shitposting.

No, they weren't peers, but they fought with them, I made that very clear. What I also made clear is that they lost and were assimilated into these civilizations. Starting to see the connection? Even if the Mongols defeated another empire, the Mongols were so irrelevant as a people that they would end up being wiped out by just the culture (what is today called soft-power) of empires that they managed to beat militarily.

>obscure pseudo-tibetan kingdom with delusions of grandeur
>some proto-manchu steppeniggers
>some turk steppeniggers
>more steppeniggers
>some slavs
Behold the might of the great khan, destroyer of """peer""" civilizations1

How did the Golden Horde lose their culture?

The Russians united with some help from the Norse and latins to free muscovy from the Mongol yoke after 300 years of being a tributary city. They looked to (guess who) the Byzantine Empire and married into the Roman Empire, adopted orthodox Christianity, hired Venetian (whoa, more latin culture being highly sought after worldwide!) architects to strengthen the city's defences, build latin seige engines and war machines like rolling wooden bunkers with turrets to fire muskets and small cannons from, design & build the famous onion domes of that cathedral in Moscow, and raised an army strong enough to obliterate the golden horde forever and establish the beginning of the Russian empire, which in turn subjugated the Mongols and forced them to use the Cyrillic alphabet, submit to European Russian culture, and live in relative autonomy in Siberia. Of course, afterwards they were then subject to numerous pogroms and atrocities at the hands of the tzars and later the Soviets until Mongolia itself became a Soviet satellite state to buffer border disputes between China and Russia or Russia and Manchkuo (see battle of Kolkin Gol). There are still reindeer people left deep in northern Siberia, albeit they are suffering badly from inbreeding. There were also chipkaks, Turkmen, Afghans, Uzbeks, khazaks, and uihgars that survived to this day as nomadic, drunken/opium addled herders in yurts (pronounced "gher"). But as a people, as a culture, and as a nation, Mongolia (And the golden horde in particular) were just assimilated into Russia, but you already know that so I have no idea why you're asking what became of the golden horde

Sassanians were less tolerant than the Achaemenids, they were pretty much contemporary with the same average as the Romans and Byzantines. They did not forcibly convert not Iranians to Zoroastrianism or Mazdakism but they were distrusting of Buddhists, they disliked and distrusted Christians regardless of ethnicity, but were especially hostile to the denominations aligned with the Patriachs of Constantinople and Rome, and frequently did not always respect religious freedom of its subject peoples.

Look at Yadzegerd I, he was okay with Christians because Constantine I was okay with Zoroastrians. But the moment one of the Persian emperor's favored inner circle, a high ranking Christian clergymen, started burning down Zoroastrian temples and centers, he bucked that guy hard in the ass.

Religions are not cultures. You can continue being armenian, syriac, jew or whatever just don't serve the Lie or follow the roman cults.

Christianity was part of Mongol culture.

A very minor part, and mostly in Russia where territories were very loosely held by the Khans.

If in the Ilkhanate where Hulagu' mother, general, consort, heirs, ambassadors were Christian and the Church had a possibly Turkic patriarch for decades, and several tribes of Mongols in Mongolia were Christian and are recorded to have used Christian names, Christianity was all "a very minor part" and much less than in Russia, the Russian horde must've been a giant Vatican.

Possibly Mongol Patriarch