People should stop calling it the Byzantine Empire, and call it the Christian Roman Empire, because that's a more accurate description of what it was. the name Eastern Roman Empire is a bit problematic as well, because it suggests some sort of split East and West, when there was none. For administrative expediency, the Empire had two emperors. However by calling it the Christian Roman Empire, it does two things: One, it recognizes that the largest shift from when people normally start the "Byzantine" period is the shift from Greco-Roman pantheonic religion to Christianity. Two, it serves to encompass both the Milan and Constantinoplitan courts, because while they were still speaking Latin in Milan, the Emperors and their rule were also undergoing the same autocratic change that was occurring in the East (i.e. both were embracing Persian style autocratic rule), and it also makes the connection that the Rome of Herclius would be familiar to someone living in Milan during the time of Valentinian or Theodosius.
It's the Christian Roman Empire
>Christian Roman Empire
No such thing. Rome officially died in 363 with Julian. A Christian "Rome" is RINO.
Why are there so many pagan larpers that worship Julian here? He was a terrible emperor. Rome was a Christian Empire and no amount of sucking Julian's cock will change that.
May I make a suggestion? Why not replace "Christian" with the more stylistically satisfying "Holy"?
kek
>Rome was a Christian Empire
You realize you sound exactly like some KANG nigger, right?
I just call it the medieval Roman empire.
WE
But it isn't roman.
How about eastern hellenic despotate OP? It certainly wasnt very christian nor roman
>pagan Roman Empire
>27 BC - 380 AD
407 years
>Christian Roman Empire
>380 AD - 1453 AD
1073 years
Edicts of Caracalla, mate
This is not a bad idea.
>Not counting the Roman Republic
>Counting the Byzantine Empire
Fucking brainlet
>People should stop calling it the Byzantine Empire, and call it the Christian Roman Empire, because that's a more accurate description of what it was.
This is actually true.
>It certainly wasn't very christian
Yes, it most certainly was.
>nor roman
Constantinople was the capital of the Roman empire from 331 - 1453 AD.
stop shitposting
They should call it Greco-Romania.
Romania, because that is what they actually called it.
And Greco-, since they switched from Latin to Greek, and to differentiate it from modern Romania.
>OP is not a faggot for once
>rest of the thread picks up the slack
>It certainly wasnt very christian
t. brainlet
Why not call it the Greek Empire like they did at the time?
When the Ottomans finally took Constantinople, they sure as hell didn't say "we just conquered the Greeks." They said that they'd just conquered the last remaining city of the Roman empire, and they were right. There is a reason why 1453 AD is considered to be so significant.
>he thinks the dominate still counts as 'Rome'.
>he thinks the Principate still counts as 'Rome'
Rome died when Caesar came to power.
>he thinks the late republic counts as Rome
Paganfags btfo
This whole "NOT MUH ROME!!!" bullshit needs to stop.
>Implying the Ottoman Empire wasn't Rome
>Roman EMPIRE
>Dont counting the republic xd
The absolute state.
It's much better to claim you took the city from muh 'Roman' than a bunch of Greeks.
>They don't think the Ottoman Empire counts as Rome.
The Ottomans never referred to the Byzantines as anything other than Romans. The only people who stubbornly insisted on calling them "The Empire of the Greeks" were the HRE, who the Byzantines in turn referred to as "The Empire of the Franks." Everybody else, and I mean everybody who wasn't affiliated with the HRE, simply referred to the Eastern Roman Empire as Roman.
>hurr dee durr dur rit's an empire if there's an emperor at the head xD
Back to Redbit. Rome was an empire before Augustus.
The farthest back you could go is Marius and Sulla for the Empire, which adds ~60 years to the pagan era.
If you mean control beyond Italy then you're adding ~200 years
So it's still dwarfed by the Christian Era
It's kind of hard to argue that Rome wasn't already an empire during the period following the destruction of Carthage. They absolutely dominated the Mediterranean after 149 BC.
The 200 year mark was from the addition of Sicily to the empire, which means the pagan era of the empire lasted at a max of 604 years, compared to the 1100 years of the Christian empire
Because those who call Byzantines "Roman" are those who gain benefit from doing that, much or less. Like the Slav or Arabs or Turk who constantly kicking Byzantines ass.
HRE and others don't call them like that because they gain nothing.
>HRE and others don't call them like that because they gain nothing.
So what did they call them?
If Rome establishing hegemony over Italy doesn't count as imperial then the last hundred and fifty years of Byzantium should't be counted as imperial as well because they barely controlled more then Thrace.
Roman control of the whole peninsula only goes back to the end of the pyrrhic war, which is only ~25 years before the addition of Sicily
>The Byzantines hold off the Turks for centuries before finally succumbing
>LOL they constantly got their asses kicked! Who cares if they were most powerful Christian empire during the medieval period?
>they were most powerful Christian empire during the medieval period
kek, this is what byzaboos believe
Rome died when Sulla was appointed dictator for life.
It was just Roman Empire, it doesn't need any faggy suffixes.
OP here, that would also be good, if we already didn't use the term Greco-Roman to describe the Mediterranean culture and religion during antiquity.
Because only the Franks and Germans did that when they wanted to pretend they were the inheritors of Rome, and again it creates a sense that it's not the same empire. If you brought up the Byzantine empire to a layman, they would think that it was a separate entity from Rome. I've gotten into a discussion about the Christian Romans with my brother, and he thought that they broke away from Rome and started calling themselves Byzantines. The problem with Byzantine or any term that's not Roman is that it creates an illusion of some seismic shift, when there is none. Instead there's a gradual change (even with the catastrophe of the 7th century). The Empire was always moving more Eastern and more autocratic, even before it became an Empire, and the moment the emperors were no longer beholden to the city of Rome (i.e. Hadrian), it was inevitable that things would lead to autocratic style of Heraclius and the Armenian/Amorian/Macedonian dynasties.