Were they the Roman empire Veeky Forums?
Or were they Greeks who had lost their way.
I lean towards that they were, although they used Greek and were Orthodox Christians, lineally they are the successors and they still remained very 'Roman' and distinctly unlike other European powers.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Why ask the question when you already seem sure of the answer?
>not thinking people might have other opinions
>not realising there are no absolute truths in history
>A rump state is the remnant of a once-larger state, left with a reduced territory in the wake of secession, annexation, irredentism, occupation, decolonization, or a successful coup d'état or revolution on part of its former territory.
>The Eastern Roman Empire from the Slavic, Avar, and Bulgar invasions of the Balkan Peninsula and the Persian invasions of eastern Asia Minor of the AD mid-6th century, particularly after its progressive loss of Italy to the Lombards starting in 565[12] and during the height of the Sassanid Empire in the early 7th century, when it lost most of its Asiatic lands and Egypt.
en.wikipedia.org
It was Roman in name only, Roman only because they were the ones who happened to have inherited all the deeds and property titles previously held by Roman aristocrats, which were rendered worthless when the WRE fissured into Germanic successor kingdoms.
The whole reasoning of the Byzantine Empire being Roman is the fact that it's literally the eastern part of the Roman empire after the split that managed survive for centuries unlike the western part that fell. Even if you bring the argument that they aren't Roman in the ethnic sense or at least Latin speakers you shouldn't forget that by then everyone within the Roman empire is considered a Roman citizen thanks to Caracalla's reforms and non-Latin speakers are no exception. Changing the language from Latin and Greek doesn't make it any less Roman, especially when you consider that Greek was also a prestigious language within the Roman empire itself.
Basically the only people who don't accept it as the Roman empire are people who are ignorant of history or diehard Romeboos who think with their feelings instead of facts
They could've been whatever they wanted to. And they chose to Roman.
We could at least show some respect and call them Romans.
>Basically the only people who don't accept it as the Roman empire are people who are ignorant of history or diehard Romeboos who think with their feelings instead of facts
Nonsense, the people who are having the difficult time here are the people who take issue with the term "Byzantine Empire" a distinct period in history which does not include Hannibal's march over the Alps, but they want it to be, even though all it does is make things hazier and more vague when trying to talk about things in the broader sense.
Yes, "Byzantine Empire" is a modern shorthand which didn't exist in its own time but guess what? So is the term "Roman Empire". The Romans only ever called themselves Senātus Populusque Rōmānus, The Senate and People of Rome, which was (and still is) a direct reference to the city itself.
It was a Roman empire of Greek people.
No one before the French Revolution named themselves after what it says on their passports. And no one outside the E.U. today, for that matter. In the U.S., people consider liberty and justice to come from the people, and the government is not the sole guardian of it.
>Nonsense, the people who are having the difficult time here are the people who take issue with the term "Byzantine Empire"
yeah let's forget all those people who go apeshit whenether you mention that the Roman Empire didn't fall in the 4th century
not to mention that Byzantine Empire is literally historical revisionism
>The first use of the term "Byzantine" to label the later years of the Roman Empire was in 1557, when the German historian Hieronymus Wolf published his work Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a collection of historical sources. The term comes from "Byzantium", the name of the city of Constantinople before it became Constantine's capital. This older name of the city would rarely be used from this point onward except in historical or poetic contexts. The publication in 1648 of the Byzantine du Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae), and in 1680 of Du Cange's Historia Byzantina further popularised the use of "Byzantine" among French authors, such as Montesquieu.[9] However, it was not until the mid-19th century that the term came into general use in the Western world.[10]
>a distinct period in history which does not include Hannibal's march over the Alps
I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that Rome existed way before it was a republic or even fought with Carthage
Political, it’s an unbroken line from the till the 4th crusade. So there’s no reason not view it as Rome from that lens.
Culturally, I feel it all depends on much importance you place on “Latiness” of Rome. Some are going to follow Gibbons view. Some will say Justinian’s rule is the end. Personally, given that citizenship had been given to almost all since 212, and that the Greek culture replaced Latin in a slow, syncretic process, I tend to view it as Roman.
>yeah let's forget all those people who go apeshit whenether you mention
They're all arbitrary points. Romans in 150 BC would find Rome in 250 AD a totally different place from the one they knew, as would Romans from 650 AD. At the end of the day, they're all just arbitrary markers that we use to condense blocs of history into a easily digestible chunks
"Roman Republic" is also a modern invented shorthand, the Romans themselves never publicly noted any difference between Republic and Empire (with the exception of a few hold-outs in the senate) And were always just Senātus Populusque Rōmānus until everyone started calling themselves that
You could argue that the Roman Empire fell in the 2nd Century when Caracalla made everyone Roman citizens, rendering the concept of Roman citizenship officially obsolete and pointless, recognizing the untold truth that it was simply a tax burden with none of the perks of self-governance, and that the very cornerstone of their society was now just a cruel lie.
You could argue that the Roman Empire fell in the 3rd century and everything afterwards was a despotic rump state clinging to crumbling remnants
You could also argue that the Roman Catholic Church is itself a direct continuation of the Roman state, as they were an official and important pillar of the state
You could argue that Charlemagne being crowned Emperor of the Romans in 800 has as much a claim to legitimacy as the Byzantine Empire, after all that region of the world had been a part of the Empire for almost as long as the Greeks had been
Why don't we use terms like, say, the "Ravenna Empire"? Because it's not tradition, and makes things more complicated than they need to be. Byzantine Empire caught on because of its usefulness in defining that period of Roman history when "Rome" had nothing to do with the city itself, but was in a totally different place and had a totally different culture.
It had Roman culture, which was heavily hellenized for centuries before the empire even split in two.
Yes
Culturally Christian
Ethnically Greek
Politically Roman
Rome in 753 BCE and Rome in 476 CE were very different states. States change, culture changes, it just depends on what people tell themselves
A bit off topic, but can someone redpill me on Zangid Sultanate and Empire of the Almohads?
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).
>Will Durant, age of faith " Although the Empire to its dying day called itself Roman, nearly all Latin elements had disappeared from it except Roman law"
A lot of quotes just to say 'They like Roman....But Greek'
Most people agree that they were? Even though they did speak greek and culturally were different?
Byzantines were NOT Roman. Period. Stop LARPing.
Too lazy for an own thread?
Why not bro?
>Many Greek Orthodox populations, particularly those outside the newly independent modern Greek state, continued to refer to themselves as Romioi (i.e. Romans, Byzantines) well into the 20th century. Peter Charanis, born on the island of Lemnos in 1908 and later became a professor of Byzantine history at Rutgers University, recounts that when the island was taken from the Ottomans by Greece in 1912, Greek soldiers were sent to each village and stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of the island children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. ‘‘What are you looking at?’’ one of the soldiers asked. ‘‘At Hellenes,’’ the children replied. ‘‘Are you not Hellenes yourselves?’’ the soldier retorted. ‘‘No, we are Romans,’’ the children replied.
got a source my man?
Sounds interesting and just how limited your knowledge would be on an island back in 1912.
It's like how on Sicily the peasants thought Italy was their new King and just went with it
>Sounds interesting and just how limited your knowledge would be on an island back in 1912.
It wasn't a question of knowledge but identity. They knew what was going on, they just still thought of themselves as Romans unlike the mainlanders, who somewhat artificially adopted the name Hellenes for themselves.