Byzantines were roman

>byzantines were roman

"The Greeks, though, had their own memories of independence – and a commonly acknowledged sense of cultural superiority – and, instead of seeing themselves as Roman, disdained Roman rule.[60] What the Greek oligarchies wanted from Rome was, above all, to be left in peace, to be allowed to exert their right to self-government”
This was during Trajan's rule.

Mussolini acknowledged it though and said Italy is the Third Rome.
If not for that I'd probably be willing to call them Greeks LARPers.

>literal direct continuation of the ERE
>don't want it to be roman because it hurt muh feels :(
Letting your feelings overcome the facts is tumblr-tier.

>Byzantines weren't Roman

Interesting. Centuries later, they ardently saw themselves as Roman.

Except Russia is the Third Rome.

Imagine for a second this scenario: Confederacy wins the civil war and becomes independent. Remaining Union get's annexed by UK but confederacy conquers some land back from UK. Is the CSA now the USA because it was once a part of it and had many in it who considered themselves American or it is Confederate?

yes

>byzantine existed

>byzantine
t.pseudo kraut historian from 19 ceuntry.

the confederacy broke away because they specifically did not want to be "American" under the US Constitution
the byzantines did not try to break away from rome

maybe he meant the papal state was the second rome

italian nationalists claimed there was "rome of the caesars, rome of the popes and rome of the people(meaning modern italy)"

Rome's Spiritual Successor: Holy Roman Empire/Frankish Empire
Rome's Dynastic Successor: Byzantium

Confederate States of America was as "American" as the United States of America.
Just different governing bodies.

The whole "continuity" argument is silly. The current British government is continuous with the government that ruled the British Empire, if anyone tried to claim the British Empire currently exists they would be laughed at, even though the government is at least based in Britain rather than a different place altogether.

The idea that the Byzantine Empire (which by then was a city state at best), in Eastern Europe that finally fell to the Ottomans was still "THE ROMAN EMPIRE DUM DUM DUM" is retard tier.

I have e better scenario

>USA moves capital in Los Angeles for strategic purposes
>500 years later most of north america is destroyed in a nuclear holocaust, only California and the southwest remain
>500 years after that official language is switched to spanish because spanish speakers are majority in this part
>now you have a spanish speaking country with los angeles as capital that calls itself USA and follows the US constitution and has a continuous unbroken chain of elected presidents from George Washington

Is this still USA or not?

Reminder that Constantine brought huge numbers of Roman citizens to Byzantium when he made it Constantinople. The huge influx of profoundly Roman peoples into the region changed the relationship between the Greeks and Romans, as did Greek Orthodox Christianity.
The Byzantians WERE Romans, but they developed into a unique culture, system of government and society as the Western Roman Empire faded.

>The current British government is continuous with the government that ruled the British Empire, if anyone tried to claim the British Empire currently exists they would be laughed at
jesus christ

Shit tier comparison.

It's more like:

>If the UK conquers the North down to DC is the South still the USA?

Which it is.

No they weren't. The culture, systems of government at the State level, and general organization of society was vastly different in the South up until Reconstruction, and you can still feel echoes of it today.
For example, Louisiana uses an entirely different law paradigm (Napoleonic) than every other state.
The Confederacy never did manage to truly unify State cultures though.

Fuck off Kimball, Hoover Dam belongs to the Bull

Yes, that could be a theoretical outcome of that

this

>H >R >E
>more in common with the spirit of Rome than Byantium
Lfuckingmao
The HRE was literally invented out of thin air by the Papacy to serve their own purposes

>the British Empire still exists

The ERE was a major regional power for hundreds of years after the WRE fell. Not a city state.

Do you know what the A in CSA stands for? You fucking idiot.

>geographical location is all that matters in this situation
Lmao I guess the USA owns Canada now
You fuckwit

It's government still exists, even if it lost it's Empire

Canadians don't identify as Americans, the Confederates did. In fact they saw the secession as the 2nd American revolution, in the tradition of Washington.

>britain of today and britain of 200 years ago are two completely different and unrelated countries

I didn't say it was I said it was a city state when it fell. However if you are looking at the most appropriate place in history to call an end to the Roman Empire then it is when the WRE fell and the ERE became the Byzantine Empire.

It seems ridiculously illogical to claim the Roman Empire existed right up to the point when a minor city state fell.

>leave the Union
>DURR THEY SAW THEMSELVES AS PART OF THE UNION
They saw themselves as legitimate successors of the American ideals proposed by Washington and co. but Confederates never saw themselves as the same as, say, New Yorkers. And that North/South cultural schism still exists.

Did Egypt stop existing when it was Ptolemized?

>making my exact point for me

Thank you for your complete agreement and support.

You seem to be ignoring the entire basis of what I said, i.e, continuity is not an argument.

it seems equally ridiculous to say that the Rome of the Punic Wars was the same Rome as that of the Caesars, but nobody argues they aren't the same country. There's still an unbroken continuity there. The WRE held that continuity up until it collapsed, but even then the continuity was still going in the ERE. Change, even significant change, doesn't break continuity.

Well Ptolemaic Egypt was radically different in government, social and societal structure, and pretty much every other facet of the country than Late Period Egypt. So your argument boils down to geographical location, which is moronic.

>it seems equally ridiculous to say that the Rome of the Punic Wars was the same Rome as that of the Caesars, but nobody argues they aren't the same country.
Does it? Was the Roman Republic (which I wouldn't count as the Roman Empire anyway) in Scandinavia or something?

I'd say yes, just a very different USA

yeah, see britian of 200 is the same country as today, i was mocking you for saying otherwise, because that's a brainlet thing to say, but im sorry you're too brainlet to realize

The CSA was still American, like how PRC and RoC are both chinese

That doesn't mean they didn't see themselves as American

In fact, the South the most people that identify as American above any hundreds-year-old Old World origin today

I didn't say it wasn't the same country, my entire point was that it was the same country but it isn't the British Empire.

If you would mind making a thread boasting that the British Empire still exists then go ahead and we can all have an enormous laugh.

The Greek culture took over rome. Latin came from greek language. People spoke greek over latin. Constantine was a thracian. Byzantines didn't call themselves Byzantine, but Roman. Constantinople became the capital.

>Latin came from greek language.

>Eastern Roman Empire isn't Roman Empire
>They actually were "Byzantines" (name which was created after their collapse by westerners)...
Im convinced that brainlets need to be shot on sight.

Did the Roman Law saved itself against the barbarian trash?

Wow user, that's actually the best summary example I've seen.

I'm going with yes. Capital, language, and even culture change does not imply civil change. If the fundamental law and type of governance hasn't drastically changed, then, civilly, it remains the same entity.

USA and Rome are just names. You can't summarize what a state's people were, are, or will be in its name alone, despite what you personally may want to envision when you hear a name like "Rome."

so what you're saying is, they shouldve renamed themselves to the kingdom of rome because they were not an empire anymore?

you're not making any sense, user, your analogy is way off

I dont know it's complicated

to me, the byzantines were the continuation of the ancient greco-roman world into the middle ages, on a political and civilizational level, to me they are both roman and greek(but mostly greek)

on the other hand i also consider the italains and their city states and of course the roman catholic church to also be a successor to the old rome, on a more ethnic and cultural level, and then in a broader sense the enitre european christendom are successors of rome because lets face it, all the european peoples were civilized by the greco-romans and we're mostly continuing their civilization

I'm saying..

a) It is ridiculous to call the city state that fell to the Ottomans "the Roman Empire" just because it could claim to be a continuous state with the actual Roman Empire. Just to be clear I am acknowledging there is a solid and legitimate claim to it being a continuous state.

b) As a related but separate point (i.e. if you disagree with b) it is not an argument a) is incorrect) we need to set a point when the Roman Empire ended. The obvious and logical point is when the WRE fell.

can we nuke r/byzantium already

>THEY CALLED THEMSELVES ROMAN HENCE THEY ROMAN UR BRAINLET XDD

kill yourself

>It is ridiculous to call the city state that fell to the Ottomans "the Roman Empire" just because it could claim to be a continuous state with the actual Roman Empire
Was Rome not Rome when it consisted of a single city state?
Sure the Byzantines lost their Empire, and at some point shouldn't be called an Empire at all, but that's the de jure title (and the same is true of the HRE, which was barely an Empire at all, but that's its fucking title).

>Capital, language, and even culture change does not imply civil change

This. Before we start these stupid debates, we need to clearly state what it is we're talking about. Are you saying that the state called Byzantine Empire was not the same state as the Roman Empire? There's only one right answer here, it was the same state.

Or are you saying that the "Byzantine" people were a different nation? There's a definite argument to be made there, over the centuries the culture and ethnic makeup of the empire changed enough that it isn't too irrational to say that Byzantines weren't Romans. Much as we can say that the English nation today is not the same as the English nation of William the Conqueror, the values and culture are entirely different.

at least read up on the subject if you're gonna act like an expert, long after the western empire fell, the eastern empire reconquered and controlled the entire Mediterranean, Rome was reconquered as well and was a large empire for centuries, it only became a "city sate"(even then it wasnt a city state as it controlled other cities even though Constantinople itself was enclaved) in the 14th century

>Was Rome not Rome when it consisted of a single city state?
It was Rome, but it wasn't the Roman Empire.

>Are you saying that the state called Byzantine Empire was not the same state as the Roman Empire? There's only one right answer here, it was the same state.
>Or are you saying that the "Byzantine" people were a different nation?

I just made abundantly clear it had a legitimate claim to being a continuous state. Why are you asking me to clarify something I just made incredibly clear to you

>Much as we can say that the English nation today is not the same as the English nation of William the Conqueror, the values and culture are entirely different.

No one would claim the British Empire existed under William the Conqueror.

here's a map for you, Justinian reconquered Rome from the goths

I know the Byzantine Empire achieved all of that.

then stop contradicting yourself you fucking brainlet, the debate isnt even on wether it was an empire or not, it's widely recognized as an empire

I'm not contradicting myself, you are a retard with poor reading comprehension.

Hello, brainlet, are you paying attention? You said it's not an empire.

>I dont know it's complicated

This. Simply stating that sets you a score above most of the brainlet posters on this topic. Also, well said.

Thanks man, i appreciate it.

Aug.Heisenberg: "Byzantium is a christian 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 hellenic civilisation instead of a latin one."

Ostrogorsky: (About 7th century Heraclus era) "Byzantium, although it tries to 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" instead of eastern roman (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 called it Greek Empire in his book.

Adrian Goldsworthy called it a lesser successor.