Language was greek, culture was greek, located in greece, capital in greece

>language was greek, culture was greek, located in greece, capital in greece,
>to this day they insist they were the "ROMAN Empire"

???

hebrew mythology is a hell of a drug

actually they were located in turkey

t. urk

*eastern Roman empire
Their capital is in Turkey

>frequently supported antipopes, birthplace of protestant heresy
>language was german, culture was german, located in germany, capital in germany
>no centralized rule, just an elected figurehead amongst the tribes
>to this day they insist they were the "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"
>???

>capital in germany

t. brainlet

HRE didn't have a capital you faget

The empire divided and they were roman as they were roman citizens

yes it did, the capital was Aachen then later Prague, Vienna and Munich

Modern Assyrians call themselves and are called Syrians.

Both cases likely have to do with Christianity.

What do you propose they talked then? Roman?

Get out of here.

>Eastern half of the Roman Empire
>New capital of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople before the Empire split
>Greek was a lingua franca in the Roman Empire
>The imperial line still reigned in Constantinople despite the fact the pope crowned a frankish lord "Emperor of the Romans" for political reasons.
Still a more convincing case than the Federation of Germanic kingdoms.

>language was greek
Irrelevant.
>culture was greek
No, it was Roman.
>capital in greece
Wrong. Byzantium does not fall into the boundaries of ancient Greece. As soon as you step into Thrace, you're in barbarian lands, according to ancient Hellenes.

Most importantly, there's the Roman identity itself as well as the legal continuity. There is no break of statehood between the ancient Roman Empire and the medieval Roman Empire.

...

Look at what Veeky Forums' hateboner for byzaboos has done: effortless shitposting like this is tolerated here now

Rome stopped being relevant in the Roman Empire in the 3rd century AD and the capital was moved in the 4th. Rome stopped having anything to do with Roman-ness.

Nice bait

>Byzantium does not fall into the boundaries of ancient Greece
What the fuck does that have to do with the boundaries of greek culture in 330AD?

That's because they were the Eastern Roman empire, which had always been more Greek than Latin. They saw themselves as a continuation of Rome, seeing as their counterpart in Ravenna and Rome had long since been dethroned and died.

> US invades and annexes Mexico and Canada
> Eventually US becomes too big to govern, so it's split into two administrations, Northern US and Southern US
> Northern US falls to alien invasion
> Southern US changes official language to Spanish, but still operates according to Constitution and has a President.

> 10000 years later, techno-barbarian shitposter comes along.
> "language was spanish, culture was mexican, located in mexico, capital in mexico,"
> "to this day they insist they were the "United States of America"

Why are autist triggered by the Eastern Roman Empire?

>romans spoke greek aswell
>implying romans arent almost greeks
>there is literally nothing greek about byzantines

They are the only legal remnants of the roman empire.

m8 Rome was destined to fall.It became too large for its time to be a centralized empire.Constant rebelions were a sign of this.It's economy was going downhill since Rome reached it's natural borders.Latifundia system had brought the Rome down to it's knees.

One thing that most now fail to understand is that the Roman identity was never tied to ethnicity or culture, as the idea of the nation-state wouldn't come about for another 1600 years.

What cemented Roman identity was their government and citizenship. An Egyptian in Alexandria and a Greek in Athens were just as Roman as a Latin living in the capital as long as they were citizens. It shouldn't even be that hard of a concept to understand, as the United States is very similar in Americans being identified by citizenship rather than ethnicity.

So long as the government was still sovereign over the territory and Roman law was still enforced, to those living there at the time, it was the Roman Empire.

tl;dr: Roman is not an ethnic identity, there's not even such a thing as an ethnic Roman as Rome was founded by ethnic Latins, Roman was a political identity, and the state hammered it home that anyone could take part as the concept of national identity as we know it simply wasn't a thing in mid-to-late antiquity.

are you sure about that? Because as far as i've read, non roman subjects were considered inferior by the romans in terms of law?

Because in 330 AD, it's Roman culture.

>it's a retard thinks Latin and Roman are synonyms episode

>language and religion were greek
>culture was roman
Tell me more

In the early republic only citizens from the city of Rome were considered romans and allowed to vote. The non-roman latin speaking subjects of Italia eventually fought for voting rights. When the Empire expanded almost all ethnicities that assimilated were considered romans, including greek speakers.

Please oh wise one name the major religious differences between latin romans and greek romans

One of the worst fuck ups in understanding this topic is that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that Rome split into two separate states. In actuality, WRE and ERE were merely parts of a singular state that were administered by different people. The Roman Empire did not literally split into two states, it merely changed the way it was governed.

Greek and Latin are both Roman languages.

>language is English and religion Semitic
>culture is American
???

There's no contradiction there.

In 330 AD just the language the sermons were given in, but by the time the western empire fell, there were a lot more.

No... they aren't.

You are right that "Roman" and "Greek" culture was very similar at the time. But to the extent that there were differences, the Eastern half of the empire was more Greek than it was Roman. You'll read this in any history written of The roman republic or empire from both modern historians and the historians from the time.

>Suetonius quotes Claudius as referring to "our two languages," and the employment of two imperial secretaries, one for Greek and one Latin, dates to his reign.
>The everyday interpenetration of the two languages is indicated by bilingual inscriptions, which sometimes even switch back and forth between Greek and Latin. The epitaph of a Greek-speaking soldier, for instance, might be written primarily in Greek, with his rank and unit in the Roman army expressed in Latin.
>In the Eastern empire, laws and official documents were regularly translated into Greek from Latin. Both languages were in active use by government officials and the Church during the 5th century.

Roman City Law or Ius Civile only applied to Roman citizen free,Roman born citizen who wasn't under a patriarch.For other peoples Ius Gentium or Foreigner Law applied.After the Punnic Wars whole of Italy was given Roman citizenship and after 212 AD Caracalla's Diet everyone(free and free from a patriarch) in the empire was given Roman citizenship.

Ius Gentium and Ius Civile both have subjects that are superior to the other.Ius Gentium had better commercial law clauses while Ius Civile had better Contract Law clauses.

t.Law student from a Roman-Germanic law tradition country.

>"Roman" is a culture and not a demonym for citizens of the state of Rome

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you had said that both Greek and Latin are Romance languages, which is not true. You are right that both languages were commonly used both officially and unofficially depending on location within the empire.

So when Spanish-speaking brown-skinned people from Mexico and South America are the majority of the population in the US, will the country suddenly stop being the United States of America?

And the Pontifex Maximus, the Bishop of Rome, crowned another guy as Roman Emperor.

I fucking hate it when people view history through a modern ethno-nationalist lense

The Eastern Roman Empire was neither eastern, Roman, nor an empire.

>crowned
um sweetie the roman empire was never a monarchy

u wat?