Why does Veeky Forums get so butthurt about the late Byzantine Empire not being called Roman?

>Culture changed, values changed, the language changed, the religion changed, the territorial and ethnic makeup changed, the capital city changed. This doesn't mean it was suddenly a new, different state
Pretty much does lad

those passages are just an explanation as to why we call it the byzantine empire, i can't tell if you are for or against the name

Achen became an irrelevant shithole shortly after Otto I, doesn't mean the HRE fell after the 10th century.

>At the beginning of the eleventh century the Greek Empire, through the arms and statesmanship of the Isaurian and Macedonian dynasties, had reached again the power, wealth, and culture of its zenith under Justinian. Asia Minor, northern Syria, Cyprus, Rhodes, the Cyclades, and Crete had been wrested from the Moslems; southern Italy was once more Magna Grecia, ruled by Constantinople;

>Although the Empire to its dying day called itself Roman, nearly all Latin elements had disappeared from it except Roman law.

Age of Faith- Will Durant

If it were called the Achenian Empire and had expanded out of there than it very well might be

You can't just dismiss the total legal continuity between early Roman empire and Byzantium. States evolve, everything does, but if you can't point to a specific legal break between the old state and the new one, it's still the same state.

It. Is. The. Same. State.

Nobody contests that the Romans of the medieval period were different from those of the classical period. However the people aren't what make a state a state, the state is. Shit, nobody whines about how people in the 5th century Roman Empire were completely different from those of the kingdom in the 5th century BC and yet they are still considered Rome. It's a joke.

By that logic we shouldn't call it the "United States" anymore given how much the present US is different from the polity founded in 1776

It's Byzaboos that are so desperate to claim it's Roman.

Literally who would gives a flying shit about that pathetic state if its fanboys did not align it with muh Roman?

There's a legit debate about whether they could be called Roman or not, but the THEY SPOKE GREEK! argument that is often peddled is absolute brainlet tier. Hard not to get agitated when you see people being that stupid genuinely.

If it no longer existed in America it would be a fair point to no longer call in the United States of America

...

These people like to pretend that everyone in the empire was speaking Latin. Most people in the East couldn't speak more than a few words of Latin unless they were a lawyer, soldier or official.

Byzantines are Greeks who cosplay as Roman

Yes, but my point is that brainlet think Roman and Latin are synonyms. They aren't, and they haven't been pretty much since the times of Roman kingdom when non-Latins got absorbed into the empire. "Latin" is an ethnic or linguistic designation while "Roman" is a political/civic term.

>>"The Roman pope-if indeed he is to be called pope who has held communion and worked together with the son of Alberic the apostate, with an adulterer and unhallowed person-has sent letters to our most holy emperor, worthy of himself, unworthy of Nicephorus, calling him the emperor "of the Greeks," and not "of the Romans." Which thing beyond a doubt has been done by the advice of your master."

>>"What do I hear?" I said to myself. I am lost; there is no doubt but what I shall go by the shortest way to the judgment-seat."

>>"Now listen," they continued, "we know you will say that the pope is the simplest of men; you will say it, and we acknowledge it." "But," I answered, "I do not say it."

>>"Hear then! The stupid silly pope does not know that the holy Constantine transferred hither the imperial scepter, the senate, and all the Roman knighthood, and left in Rome nothing but vile minions- fishers, namely, peddlers, bird catchers, bastards, plebeians, slaves. He would never have written this unless at the suggestion of your king; how dangerous this will be to both-the immediate future, unless they come to their senses, will show."

>>"But the pope," I said, "whose simplicity is his title to renown, thought he was writing this to the honor of the emperor, not to his shame. We know, of course, that Constantine, the Roman emperor, came hither with the Roman knighthood, and founded this city in his name; but because you changed your language, your customs, and your dress, the most holy pope thought that the name of the Romans as well as their dress would displease you."

Who was in the wrong here?

The Pope thinking he was anything more than a servant of the emperor as a mere pentarch.

Rome got permacucked at Tuetonberg. Neither side of it was ever truly mighty again. Everything after was just a slow decline

>There's a legit debate about whether they could be called Roman or not.

No, there really isn't. After 330 AD, Constantinople was the capital of the Roman Empire.

I bet you also think that Taiwan isn't the legitimate Chinese government

>Rome
>A bunch of greeks hundred miles alway that city call their state Rome.

It's like Berlin Empire in Mongolia

>Roman emperor moves the capital of the Roman empire to Constantinople.

>Somehow Constantinople isn't the capital of the Roman empire

???????????????

>brainlets STILL struggle with the concept of succession
Pathetic.

Every "empire" is just an imaginary thing that only requires people to recognize it as real.

>One hundred years of territorial expansion after Teutoburg
>Constant decline
>Can't even spell Teutoburg

Succession doesn't apply here, the ERE was literally the Roman Empire. Every historian agrees on this.

Byzantine empire wasn't a successor state, it was Rome. At best you could call it a rump state but not a successor state.

I'm fairly sure that Rome had stopped being the capital even under Diocletian. The capitals became Trier, Nicomedia, Sirmium and Milan.

This.

>empire has capital in Constantinople under Theodosius
>divides empire between two sons
>one capital in Rome
>one capital in Constantinople
>WRE falls
>symbols of office and regalia sent back to Constantinople
>Constantinople sole capital
>eastern emperor becomes sole emperor again

It isn't that complicated. Some historians only call it the ERE or Byzantium as a matter of convenience and to distinguish it from the Roman Empire of antiquity.

There is no succession. The "Byzantine" Empire is literally just the Roman Empire but with the capital moved to Constantinople. It's like if America decided to move the capital from Washington D.C. to Chicago.

I imagine an American now would be pretty pissed if they knew that in a thousand years time anonymous transhumans were shitposting about how America no longer existed because the capital moved to Chicago while DC was conquered by roving bands of nomadic mutant sea monkeys and they spoke Spanish instead of English.

Russia would be a better example.
>original Russian capital is Kiev and later Moscow
>Peter the Great moves the capital to a new city named after himself (St. Petersburg)
Now imagine if someone like Napoleon actually conquers and annexes Moscow. Does the state ruled from St. Petersburg magically stop being Russia?

> an American now would be pretty pissed if they knew that in a thousand years time anonymous transhumans were shitposting about how America no longer existed because the capital moved to Chicago and it's full of savage brown monkeys and they spoke Spanish instead of English.

FIXED

>Every historian agrees on this.

Kek. nope, Will Durant literally calls it Greek Empire in his workAlso

Aug.Heisenberg: "Byzantium is the christianised Roman state of the Greek nation (Staat und Gesellschaft des byzantinischen Reiches, Die Kultur der Gegenwart, s. 364)

Talbot Rice: "Byzantium has to be studied as a chapter of the long history of civilisation."

Ostrogorsky: (About 7th century Heraclus era) "Byzantium, although it always remained loyal to the Roman political ideals, and traditions, it is now turning into a Medieval Greek state." (History of the Byzantine state, p. 217)

Gyula Moravscik: He says that it is preferable to talk about Greekology rather than Byzantinology (Byzantion, Vol.25 (1965) p. 291-301)

N. Svoronos: "I never manage to find the difference between Byzantium and modern Hellenism" (The method of history, p. 104)

P.Lemerle: He writes about "Greek middle ages" (First Byzantin humanism, p.52)
for the "Hellenization of the Empire" (p.71) and "Greek christianity" (p.279) for "the Greeks of the Byzantium" (p.284) and the "third Hellenism, the Hellenism of Byzantium" (p.285)

Karl Marx refers to the "Greek patriotism" of the Kingd of Nicaia and he calls the emperors of Constantinople as Greek emperors ( Article of New York Daily Tribune 12/8/1853 London 29/7/1853)

Sture Linner: "The Byzantines... were always conscious of their Greek past" (History of the Byzantine civilisation, p. 219)

Kurt Weitzmann. He writes about "The Greek blood in the veins of the Byzantines" (Greek mythology in Byzantine Art, p.207)

N. David: The Byzantine empire "in 6th century was more Greek than Roman" (p.23) and that Byzantine civilisation is a Greek spiritual world (p. 147 in the evolution of the middle ages).

britannica.com/place/Roman-Empire
Did you even read?

Roman Empire
ANCIENT STATE [27 BC-476 AD]

I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong. The state known as the "Roman Empire" existed from 27 BC to 1453 AD. That article is referring purely to the fall of the WRE, which was no longer the capital of Roman Empire by that point in time. And besides, Justinian reconquered that stuff anyway.

>Byzantium is the christianised Roman state of the Greek nation

"Roman State" - that's the keyword here buddy.

>Karl Marx refers to the "Greek patriotism" of the Kingd of Nicaia and he calls the emperors of Constantinople as Greek emperors

Did you just unironically cite KARL MARX as a historian?

You seem to fail to understand two major points here. One. None of those dispute that the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire are the same state. Two. Being the same state does not mean that the people have the same culture.

Plus. Most of those are from the anti-Byzantine German writers who had an interest in undermining the Empire at every turn, including by inventing the word Byzantine. Also, half of those aren't even modern historians.

This. It's as simple as that.

Are you actually retarded? They were romans not because they lived in rome but because they had roman citizenship and lived in the roman empire.

So you're saying that England isn't England seeing as it doesn't contain the anglo-homeland?
Also reminder that magic isn't real, names have no intrinsic power.

>Roman
>Empire

>>They were historically descended from Romans both culturally and linguistically, and their laws and politics were shaped by Rome
>By that same logic Australia with its Westminster parliament is Britain

And they would be, if the Australians called themselves British.

How does your image reflect your point?

Now with the post fourth crusade empire I'd agree, but that would be ignoring 728 years of history.

Because they realize it does not fit their ethno-nationalist paradigm

>Conquered by Italians, started to larp as their conquerors

>Gets rekt by an Italian later

Of course they're Roman. They even kept up the tradition of needing barbarians to do the real fighting for them.

>They even kept up the tradition of needing barbarians to do the real fighting for them.

Nonsense. The Varangians the tried and true position of having unbribeable military guards when you have a constant issue with usurpations and assassinations.

The Emperorship lasted. The Empire didn't. New Rome is not just the city. It is the Senate and People of Christ. As it failed to protect Christiendom after 600 AD, it forfeited Empirehood which is why the Holy Roman Empire had to be formed.

>Group of people gets conquered by the Romans
>A period of time passes
>"Okay, since you've been a good addition to the empire, we're going to grant you all Roman citizenship now!"
>Those people who were granted Roman citizenship by Romans and explicitly told that they were now considered Romans by Romans aren't actually Romans

The fuck are you blathering on about? There was a Senate in Constantinople, and Constantinople was far more of a Christian city that Rome ever was even at its peak.

You do realise that roman wasn't an ethnicity to begin with, right? It was a citizenship. The roman kingdom was a latin city ruled by etruscans.

A Senate of Christ is a council of bishops.

And it's a Muslim cespool now. While Rome today still stands as the stronghold of Christianity.

>You do realise that roman wasn't an ethnicity to begin with, right?

During the Republican Era, citizenship was indeed tied to ethnicity, albeit very loosely. That was one of the things that Augustus changed. And then just in case there were any doubts remaining, Caraculla definitively settled the issue by declaring that any free man (non-slave) living in the Roman empire would now be considered a Roman citizen, and that all women living in the Roman empire would be granted the same rights as Roman women.

>The Byzantines weren't actually Christian just because they were later conquered by Muslims

By that logic, the Crusader states weren't Christian either, because they were also conquered by the Muslims.

Yes

>During the Republican Era, citizenship was indeed tied to ethnicity, albeit very loosely.
Being tied to ethnicity doesn't make it the same as an ethnicity.

Byzantine city, aka Constantinople, also known as" Nova Roma"(New Rome)! You fucking moron. They're literally, legally, politically just eastern part of Rome empire.

How many times do we have to explain you brainlets? I mean I' not even Westerner or Greek, but i know this.

They were also called romans.

But it wasn't called the holy empire of aachea was it

>land of the angles
user I ?

I feel this post might have some relevancy here.

I think there is enough continuity there to justify calling them Romans,. You don't. We may just have to live with this disagreement.

Non angli sed angeli!

(These are not Angles, they're Anglicans!)

Pope Gregory the Astonished

You've got one of those two switched, and I don't know which one.

>You've got one of those two switched

Was it Gregory Pope that said that?

Taiwan is similar to the Byzantine Empire in this case.

Well, except that there wouldn't be any other China, and the Chinese mainland would be controlled by a bunch of Mongols larping as Chinese.

The Byzantines were not a "successor" to the Roman Empire. They were the Roman empire, pure and simple.

Germanics and slavic pigs cant understand that

Ironically the present DPP regime deny and refuse their Chinese legacy, the rampant sexual degeneration also seriously jeopardize their cultural legitimacy, the only thing prevent them from going full retard is ironically the pressure from PRC and US.

Slavs are the ones who think Byzantines were Romans you dumb ape.

>the rampant sexual degeneration also seriously jeopardize their cultural legitimacy
Elaborate.

It is basically the same thing. Just like if Finland was ruled by the Czar, Finland would be the Russian Empire, just like the Byzantine Empire was the successor of Rome.

> They called themselves Romans
>So did the >HRE
But that's just the thing, the HRE's inhabitants didn't call themselves Romans.

How the fuck do you people keep making this mistake?

Wrong, the city was named after Saint Peter.

Wtf-ever for is it Sankt Peterburg in Russian though, I have no idea.

The Eastern Roman Empire was still the Roman Empire. If you have a stick, break it in half, then lose one half of the stick, you still have half a stick.

If you have a glass and you break it into 2 pieces, no longer have a glass.

>user I ?
What did you mean by this?

That's not how states work.