Roman Empire ended in 395 AD, deal with it

The Byzantine Empire is not Rome no matter how hard you claim it is.

The Roman Empire continues to exist, with over a billion adherents.

Fuck your LARPing Krauts and your anachronistic Greek rump state which no longer exists.

Literally the "US is Rome" tier.

It was once an officially sanctioned arm of the Roman central government, and the only part of it to survive the fall, preserving Latin and the diocese which it has been chartered to manage.

The US is only a spiritual successor in the sense that they studied the Romans assiduously while constructing their government

Wikipedia>(you)

>historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome

>Rome was exactly the same throughout it's whole lifespan

Yes, you can even visit it

>he doesn't know about the republic
>he doesn't know about the empire
>he doesn't know about Christianity
>he doesn't know that Rome didn't fall in the east like it did in the west
If the Vatican is what you're referring to then your logic is flawed because in your autism you failed to spot that rome wasn't always Christian.

Then why did the sultan called himself Kayzer y Rum (Roma) once he conquered Byzantium?

It’s fall began in 313 AD and it truly fell in 391 AD.

>1806
>1917
>1918

Thats as outlandish as saying if the germans had named their learders Faraoh and later said that the Egyptian empire ended in 1918

That's what they did

>Implying that a proper emperor cares about anything but their cabbages.

>The Roman Empire isn't The Roman Empire because some non-roman scholars refered to it as something else.

Pic fucking related you dingus.

Haven’t you ever heard of the Nika riots? urban Romans and Byzantines were obsessed with politics which ended up infecting everything, even sports matches. Only the poorest Greeks and Romans out in the rural areas didn’t give a shit about politics, and people like that were literally where the word “idiot” comes from

And yet the same wiki article states this
>The massive cultural and institutional restructuring of the Empire consequent on the loss of territory in the 7th century has been said to have caused a decisive break in east Mediterranean Romanness and that the Byzantine state is subsequently best understood as another successor state rather than a real continuation of the Roman Empire.

Boi Roman citizens were probably the most mobile force of wealth and culture on the planet before or since, as provinces and land was lost or given to autonomous groups that chain was broken. Yes, farmers would keep farming, but remember the Vandals would take the late Roman breadbasket, and you can be sure a change in employer on that level would be obvious.

this, it's like Byzaboos don't even read their own history, the aspects of the former Roman empire and their identity that continued in Byzantium were all lost relatively soon.

Where?

Except you don't know what you're talking about

Rome never existed, wake up people

>the language
>the political system and traditions
>the military structure
>the peoples
>the literal namesake city

the last one being more poignant, people called the Roman empire Roman even as the center of political and cultural activity moved to Ravenna because it was still the heart of the empire and ultimately the last city to fall

Byzantium was the heart of the Byzantine empire, it spawned it's own identity and Rome meant nothing to those people(except Justinian), their political and cultural center was Byzantium.

>the language
Many romans spoke Greek but that doesn't mean shit
>political system and traditions
Keep talking out of your ass
>military structure
So?
>the people
They were Roman citizens
>the city
Thr capital shifted multiple times, Constantinople became the capital before the west fell
>Rome meant nothing to those people
Take a guess what they called themselves

>Many romans spoke Greek

only those born Greek or of very high education

>Keep talking out of your ass
>So?

they were cruccial aspects of what defined Rome

>They were Roman citizens

so was fucking everyone in the Mediterranean, that didn't make them special

>Thr capital shifted multiple times, Constantinople became the capital before the west fell

for the eastern empire which was already shapping up to be it's own entity.

>Take a guess what they called themselves

i suppose Russia is the third Rome and FYROMs are the sons of Alexander himself.

First of all, Russians never called themselves Romans. The Byzantines always knew themselves as Roman, ever since Greece was incorporated in Rome. They never had another nationality until 1821. Bringing up FYROM, the LARP monkey state that came out of nowhere shows how strong your argument is.
>they were cruccial aspects of what defined Rome
Says who? Rome changed military structure and governing systems many times. It's called evolution
>so was fucking everyone in the Mediterranean, that didn't make them special
Your point? The eastern Roman empire never fell, and they never consciously changed their identity, they merely progressed and evolved into a more advanced civilization spawning directly from Rome in an uninterrupted continuation for a thousand years. Today, nobody refers to themselves as ethnically Roman, as nobody has a legitimate and direct identity.

Also the Capital didn't shift to Constantinople "for" the east as Rome was a single entity back then. Read a book, the split happened much later when western Rome fell. Plundging western europe into the dark ages.

>it spawned it's own identity and Rome meant nothing to those people
Dumbass. Rome was everything to those people. They kept trying to reclaim Italy for five hundred years.

>Byzies never tried to reclaim ye olden empire
Apply yourself.

Justinian did manage it, after him it was lost immediately and the Byzantine power diminished too much for it to ever be a real ambition ever again.

>First of all, Russians never called themselves Romans

Talk to more Russians. Or don't.

>The Byzantines always knew themselves as Roman, ever since Greece was incorporated in Rome. They never had another nationality until 1821. Bringing up FYROM, the LARP monkey state that came out of nowhere shows how strong your argument is.

So fucking what? if they believe with all their heart they are Roman, it doesn't change that most if not all of them were from local Greek and Anatolian lineage and only received Roman culture through colonization, and what they did receive was diluted with a pre-existing culture to create a derivate one. It's not any more Roman than the kingdoms that replaced the western half. They call their identity Roman but that doesn't make it true. Fucking Gypsies call themselves "Roma".

>Your point? The eastern Roman empire never fell, and they never consciously changed their identity, they merely progressed and evolved into a more advanced civilization spawning directly from Rome in an uninterrupted continuation for a thousand years.

During the times of the united empire it was evolution, when you speak of an off-shot it's called divergence. The Byzantines did not carry the torch of preserving or developing the institutions of old. Roman heritage was equally spread throughout the continent, the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks and so on would all create kingdoms with more or less exactly the same continuity of Roman culture mixed with local flavor as Byzantium would, many would even have titles given by Rome making them just as valid.

>Today, nobody refers to themselves as ethnically Roman, as nobody has a legitimate and direct identity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_of_Rome
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic_(18th_century)

literal Romans may.

>Also the Capital didn't shift to Constantinople "for" the east as Rome was a single entity back then.

But the empire was already divided in four then, if anything the capital shifted to Ravenna for military defensive purposes

Nigger you don't know shit about Russia
No Russian ever told anyone that he's fucking Roman or that he comes from Rome. The "3rd Rome" thing is purely ceremonial. Also guess what the people from that link you posted call themselves. Italian.
>unironically using gypsies as an analogy
I hope you don't speak to your mother with that excuse for a tongue. The verdict is, you stupid faggot, that a Roman race does not exist, as the first inhabitants were of various tribes, such as the Italics and etruscans, who later went on to expand their empire. Anyone inside the borders was an official Roman, nothing to do with blood you autist. Outsiders payed tax and insiders were Roman CITIZENS. Eastern Rome NEVER FELL, IT DIRECTLY CONTINUED. Get it in your head, they never changed name, identity or legacy, they merely developed their culture and were the most advanced people pf their time, unlike the other small waring states rolling around in shig composed of barbarian tribes who destroyed Rome in the first place. Now fuck off with your butthurt.

Those weren't four different empires you piece of shit. And none of them were more Roman than the other.

Do you enjoy lying?

>Also guess what the people from that link you posted call themselves. Italian.

fucking Roman, like everyone who's lived in it since it was literally founded

>I hope you don't speak to your mother with that excuse for a tongue. The verdict is, you stupid faggot, that a Roman race does not exist, as the first inhabitants were of various tribes, such as the Italics and etruscans, who later went on to expand their empire. Anyone inside the borders was an official Roman, nothing to do with blood you autist. Outsiders payed tax and insiders were Roman CITIZENS.

>Patricians didnt exist
>Plebeians didn't exist

just because Caracalla wanted to squeeze more people for their money(against their will for that matter) doesn't mean the distinction truly went away, otherwise you couldn't speak of Barbarians settling within the borders.

>Eastern Rome NEVER FELL, IT DIRECTLY CONTINUED. Get it in your head, they never changed name, identity or legacy, they merely developed their culture and were the most advanced people pf their time

yeah and they developed a lightly Latinized Greek mutt identity, about as Roman as the western Germanized ones

>unlike the other small waring states rolling around in shig composed of barbarian tribes who destroyed Rome in the first place. Now fuck off with your butthurt.

you're the one who has a personal stake in this, it seems

neither were east and west Rome at first but Constantinople existed as a capital parallel to Ravenna didn't it? can't be capital of the unified empire if it wasn't fucking unified.

choke on a shit sponge

Do you consider the western empire to have been Roman for the last fifty years before it truly fell?

>fucking Roman, like everyone who's lived in it since it was literally founded
I'll say it again, today, nobody calls themselves Roman, as a state called Rome doesn't exist.
>neither were east and west Rome at first but Constantinople existed as a capital parallel to Ravenna didn't it? can't be capital of the unified empire if it wasn't fucking unified.
But Constantine literally moved the Capital to Constantinople. The capital of ALL of Rome in 330 you idiot.
I'll say only this, revisionists should hang

>Do you consider the western empire to have been Roman for the last fifty years before it truly fell?

Not really, it was as Roman as Byzantium was an empire in it's last decades.

>I'll say it again, today, nobody calls themselves Roman, as a state called Rome doesn't exist.

the examples i linked were states by the modern definition, the Roman empire, hell even the classic Roman republic would not, and they shouldn't be squeezed into such definition.

>But Constantine literally moved the Capital to Constantinople. The capital of ALL of Rome in 330 you idiot.

but the Tetrarchy began in 285, you cant claim in good faith it was the capital of the whole empire when there was literally another parallel capital. It was the capital of that -side- of the empire.

I don't want to argue or anything and I know I won't convince anyone but whatever. I just don't understand one thing. If you don't consider Byzantium as the Roman Empire then take a look at the third century - you had Septimius Severus who could speak punic, Phillip the Arab, the Illyrian emperors such as Aurelian, Diocletian, etc. Even the adoptive emperors of the second century came from Hispania. Neither were "true" romans as from Italy. And what about Zeno? He was a roman emperor before 476 but after Augustulus got deposed he was a non roman byzantine? The ostrogoths even sent the regalia to the east.

>1144–1193
>1798–1799
The dates of the lifespan of the Roman commune and Roman republic that you sited, don't exist anymore and were established centuries and millennia after Rome fell in their respective areas, unlike the ERE.
>but the Tetrarchy began in 285, you cant claim in good faith it was the capital of the whole empire when there was literally another parallel capital. It was the capital of that -side- of the empire.
Tetrarchy=/=four empires
>theRoman EmperorConstantine the Greatin 330 AD to his new imperial capital at the city on the European coast of theBosphorusstrait, also known asByzantiumuntil then, and asConstantinople.
>Constantinople(Greek:ΚωνσταντινούπολιςKonstantinoúpolisorΚωνσταντινούποληKonstantinoúpoli;Latin:Constantinopolis;Ottoman Turkish:قسطنطینية,translit.Ḳosṭanṭīnīye) was thecapital cityof theRoman/Byzantine(330–1204 and 1261–1453) and also of the briefLatin(1204–1261), and the laterOttoman(1453–1923) empires. It was reinaugurated in 324 AD from ancientByzantiumas the new capital of the Roman Empire by EmperorConstantine the Great, after whom it was named, and dedicated on 11 May 330 AD.[5]
>Imperial capital
>new capital of the Roman Empire
>by Emperor Constantine the Great

The tetrarchy ended in 313 you retard. Constantine was the sole emperor and Constantinople the capital by 330.

The answer is that the origin and legitimacy of the autocratic ruler does not make the empire a true inheritor, it never had. Rome began with foreign kings and ended with foreign kings. What people wish to lay claim to are the accomplishment and glory in between, which can only be attributed to a specific people and culture which, like time, were gone forever. The Byzantines inherited the territory but had their own people and their own culture, and it was clearly distinct from the former empire and not continuous with it, and their own accomplishments too.

>The dates of the lifespan of the Roman commune and Roman republic that you sited, don't exist anymore and were established centuries and millennia after Rome fell in their respective areas, unlike the ERE.

yes, yet they were legitimately Roman, Republics and also states.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great#Foundation_of_Constantinople
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople#324–337:_Foundation_of_Constantinople

seems the Oxford university disagrees with you. It was rebuilt and renamed in 330.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire#Further_divisions

>a complete reunification of the whole Empire occurred in 353, with Constantius.[16]
>Constantius II focused most of his power in the East. Under his rule, the city of Byzantium - only recently re-founded as Constantinople - was fully developed as a capital
> Its status as a capital was recognized by the appointment of the first known Urban Prefect of the City Honoratus, who held office from 11 December 359 until 361

which lasted for all of 5 years until

Following the death of Jovian, Valentinian I emerged as Emperor in 364. He immediately divided the Empire once again, giving the eastern half to his brother Valens.

most of the cities in the empire could have been claimed to have been the capital for periods of time that short.

>yes, yet they were legitimately Roman, Republics and also states
Says who?
And which part of all that states that one empire was more roman than the other? Or that the ERE wasn't Roman, like you desperately try to portrait? Also:
>The political situation was unstable. In 383, a powerful and popular general namedMagnus Maximusseized power in the West and forced Gratian's half-brotherValentinian IIto flee to the East for aid; in a destructive civil war, the Eastern EmperorTheodosius Irestored him to power.[23]In 392, theFrankishand paganmagister militumArbogastassassinated Valentinian II and proclaimed an obscure senator namedEugeniusas Emperor. In 394 the forces of the two halves of the Empire againclashedwith great loss of life. Again Theodosius I won, and he briefly ruled a united Empire until his death in 395.He was the last Emperor to rule both parts of the Roman Empire[24]
----------
>his older sonArcadiusinherited the eastern half while the youngerHonoriusgot the western half. Both were still minors and neither was capable of ruling effectively. Honorius was placed under the tutelage of the half-Roman/half-barbarianmagister militumFlavius Stilicho[25]whileRufinusbecame the power behind the throne in the east. Rufinus and Stilicho were rivals, and their disagreements were exploited by the Gothic leaderAlaric Iwho again rebelled following the death of Theodosius I. Neither half of the Empire could raise forces sufficient even to subdue Alaric's men, and both tried to use Alaric against the other half.[26]Alaric himself tried to establish a long-term territorial and official base, but was never able to do so
Fast forward to the fall of Western Rome, amd only the ERE stands, continuing uninterrupted until 1453. Where in this does it say it stopped being Roman?

>And which part of all that states that one empire was more roman than the other? Or that the ERE wasn't Roman, like you desperately try to portrait?

that wasn't what was addressed, it was in response to

>Today, nobody refers to themselves as ethnically Roman, as nobody has a legitimate and direct identity.

which has strong arguments against it, people today aren't that ethnically different(if at all in some parts), and those were autonomous governments born from the city of Rome. You can't get more Roman than that.

>Fast forward to the fall of Western Rome, amd only the ERE stands, continuing uninterrupted until 1453. Where in this does it say it stopped being Roman?

i don't believe there needs to be official dates or formalities for every political change, we don't have one to say when did the Senate stopped being relevant for good, or when a lot of the territories Romans colonized and conquered acquired their culture.

You do realise a good number of the emperors weren't from the Italian peninsula, right? I don't see the point in that pic or the argument.
>which has strong arguments against it, people today aren't that ethnically different(if at all in some parts), and those were autonomous governments born from the city of Rome. You can't get more Roman than that.
I really don't want to bring up my previous points on citizenship, the multipe peoples that created Rome and also the Greek culture they chose to copy from. This is my last (you). At this point what you think is the definition of the Roman empire doesn't mean jack shit.

>Also guess what the people from that link you posted call themselves. Italian.
Just like the old Romans?

Actually it is still going.

t PKD.

>You do realise a good number of the emperors weren't from the Italian peninsula, right? I don't see the point in that pic or the argument.

>The answer is that the origin and legitimacy of the autocratic ruler does not make the empire a true inheritor, it never had. Rome began with foreign kings and ended with foreign kings.

>I really don't want to bring up my previous points on citizenship, the multipe peoples that created Rome and also the Greek culture they chose to copy from.

Romans created Rome. Or rather, Rome created Romans.

Rome never fell

Robertus deNirus

It's Albertus Pacinus

that's the classiest yet tackiest football uniform i've ever seen, how the fuck is that possible

The U.S. is literally Rome.
It has the same starting point.
A people displaced (at least in myth)
A following of Greek classical civilization to enrich their own and build upon it (this is exactly what the Romans did)
A militaristic Agrarian society of perpetual frontiersmen (This was Rome even into the Imperial Era)