>>616706 >'Byzantine' is fucking Enlightenment bullshit I agree. The more I read up on the history of late antiquity, the more I grew to despise the term. I tend to switch off between Roman or Eastern Roman depending on the context. I.e., I'll say that Roman empire fell in 1453, but if I were talking about the reign of Constantine VII, I'll say Eastern Roman Empire.
>>616749 Because they were continuation of the Roman administration in the east. The Empire split administration between east and west roughly 200 years before the West's fall. And while there were periods of a single person ruling the empire, from Diocletian until the fall of the West in 476, most of the Roman administration was split between East and West. The Western administration fell, but the Eastern didn't. If Manhattan sank into the ocean, would we stop calling Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island, New York City?
The only reason that it's even called Byzantium is because Europeans tried to disown the state for various political reasons.
>>616773 And the Ottomans were a continuation of Roman continuation, once you get down to it. The fact that bugs me isn't your autists' belief that it went on that long, but your adamant denial that it continued after that if your conditions are true.
>>617798 No, it's not really the same at all. Rome was basically Greekboos, the Empire. They conquered Greece and a lot of other places, and grew into a massive state, the citizens who actually had heritage stretching back to Latin ancestors were dwarfted by other citizens considered Romans by the government. The Western half fell, the Eastern half, which had an administrative capital set up a long time ago, still remained, with everyone still Roman citizens, and having a Caesar. It would be like if the original 13 Colonies fell, the U.S. could still be called the U.S.
The Ottomans were foreign invaders, they never had Roman citizenship, and they shared zero cultural heritage or continuity with the Roman identity.
>>617813 >legal inheritance >of an institution with no clear line of succession, which had been seized by force literally AT LEAST a dozen times before
>>617811 All wrong, read your history. Rome was GreeksBTFO: The Empire. Roman citizenship was never a prerequisite for anything, you had fucking Emperors that started life as slaves ruling by the 200's, let alone the 1400's. Saying that the Turks shared no cultural heritage (administrative apparatus, regalia, Abrahamic religion) and continuity (the sultans were descended from Byzantine Emperors) is wrong.
>>617808 I think that was just so he'd be closer to the campaign, making for way more effective communications.
>>617807 >Civil Wars greater than the number of men Metella Calva fucked >civil strife and eunuchs fucking over other eunuchs and generals left and right >peaceful transition
If anything you should argue that it ended in 1204, with your position.
>>617830 >Rome was GreeksBTFO: Militaristically. Culturally, they were fascinated with the Greeks.
>you had fucking Emperors that started life as slaves ruling by the 200's Who got to be emperors by the support of Roman citizens
>Saying that the Turks shared no cultural heritage (administrative apparatus, regalia, Abrahamic religion) and continuity (the sultans were descended from Byzantine Emperors) is wrong. They didn't. They weren't Christian, they didn't speak Greek or Latin, they never emulated Greek or Roman culture.
>>617870 That's because the Roman Empire didn't have schizophrenia yet. Even when the Western half fell, the Eastern emperor still largely held himself to be the legitimate ruler. The HRE contested that though, so the Double Headed Eagle was a way of asserting the Western half was still rightfully his.
The Medieval Roman Empire was the exact same state with less territories than the Classical Roman Empire known to the masses, but in over 1000 years of existence it changed a lot compared to what it had been. I'm not saying this as a criticism as some people do, but as a fact. Going from Antonine Rome to Macedonian Constantinople, nobody would think they're the same people, much as America from the 1700s is nothing like that of today. Byzantine is very useful, therefore, as a term of convenience. When you mention Byzantine people will think of one thing, when you say Roman they'll think another. The important thing is to educate people that these were the same state, the same Roman Empire.
As for I how I personally refer to them it depends on who I'm talking to. Discussing history on /tv/ or /v/ I'll use Byzantine, on /his/ I'll use Roman, and in real life I don't talk about the Roman Empire.
>>616697 Byzantine, but merely out of convenience, not to imply that they're not the direct continuation of the Roman Empire after the Ostrogoth king gave the Western Empire's throne back to Constantinople.
>>617895 >By the 1200s >After the Fourth Crusade Yeh, no shit that the Western knights who conquered Constantinople imposed some forms of feudalism. On the topic of the main issue, I use Roman. Though they experienced massive losses of land in the West, that doesnt mean they stopped being the Roman empire. If the Roman empire had lost the East instead, no one would complain about it retaining its name.
>>618666 Interesting, but why the distinction between Roman and Eastern Roman when the Muslim conquests came into play? Surely it was actually LESS Eastern afterwards, having lost the Levant, Syria, and Egypt.
>>618423 From the Slavic and Muslim invasions of the 6 and 700's up until the loss of all territory except the city, Thessalonica, and the Peloponnese, the empire was very not-cosmopolitan, and feudally governed. One of the reasons the aristocrats hated Basil I so much was that he broke up the power of the large landowners in favor of small scale soldier-farmers, indirectly showing that it was basically a feudal system (a few lords owning all the land, peasant tenants).
>>617845 The Eagle actually became a symbol of the legions only during and after the reforms and reorganizations of Gaius Marius.
Before and after that, I'd say a more enduring symbol of the state is either the suckling she-wolf, or simply SPQR.
>>617840 Yes, they were fascinated, as by the time of Roman contact with Magna Graecia and the comfortable Greek cities, the Greeks were the online other worthwhile civilization in the Mediterranean, and did not threaten Rome at all, unlike Carthage (which was, in addition, Semitic and not Indo-European).
But to call them Greekboos...it did eventually become a must to know the language, but that was more for the pride of it, and to be able to read preeminent Greek literature.
Any Roman so far removed from the Republic that he would support an ex-slave as emperor is undeserving of the citizenship in my opinion.
Turks had an Abrahamic religion that was basically Eastern Orthodoxy 2.0, they spoke Turkish (what does language matter anyway?), and they sure were fascinated with the domes, statues, and colonnades everywhere to at least be influenced by them.
I just call them Byzantine for the sake of clarity when mentioning it to others, even though I believe them to be the Roman Empire. Otherwise I'd have to explain why they're still Romans and at that point most people stop giving a shit.
>>620351 I really appreciate you playing devil's advocate. People like you keep threads alive.
>>620351 After Heraclius, they seemed to have lost interest in Italia which consisted Rome. I meant Basil II- the bulgar eater. The empire after him I refer to as the Byzantines starting from Komnenos dynasty.
>>617798 The Ottomans weren't a continuation. They were invaders who conquered Rome. The Roman empire had 2 administrative centres for 200 years prior to the fall of the Western half. >>617806 That's just an arbitrary demarcation, and belies what really went on in history.
>>617830 >you had fucking Emperors that started life as slaves ruling by the 200 Name an emperor that started out as a slave that didn't become a citizen or at least a freedman? All the emperors during the 200s were military men or barracks emperors unless they were the relative of a previous emperor (talking about the Severin line in particular). Caracalla already granted universal citizenship before the crisis of the third century.
I call them Byzantines, but not because of the western Church butthurt. I think they are, by the late Middle Ages, something like a world in itself, in that they are nor Greek nor Roman, but a mix of both plus Eastern influence, much like Russia is not really European nor Asiatic, imo. They are something entirely different. But, of course, legally, the Byzantines ARE the Eastern Roman Empire, heirs of Rome itself. No doubt about it. I just feel they are deserving of an unique title as something new, instead of trying, like the flawed Holy Roman Empire, to dwell on the past and try to imitate in vain the glory of Octavian Rome.
>>620905 >conquered Rome Rome was over at least 600 years before the Ottomans became relevant.
In any case, there is no good argument that the Ottomans weren't a continuation, if you somehow think that the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire.
Mehmed was a Turk (as others had been Illyrians, Armenians, in the time of Rome there had been in addition Spaniards, a Moor or two, Arabs, etc.) of a different religion (as Elagabalus, Constantine, Zeno, etc. had all been either schismatics or outright heathens in comparison to previous emperors) who ascended to the throne violently (I really don't have to give examples of this, do I? They're so prevalent) and was even (BONUS) related to the previous dynasty (as opposed to the myriad of emperors you'd call legitimate)!!!
>>620922 That's all well and good for you, but for somebody who's an expert on the late Republic, being a slave at any point in life should disqualify somebody from any government position, let alone the top one in a society.
>>621021 Again. Name me a Roman emperor who at any point in his life was a Slave? >>621021 >the continuation of one administrative portion of an empire is the same thing as another empire's hostile invasion and conquering of an empire Bruh. The said Illyrians and Armenians were all Roman citizens first and foremost and were top members of the Roman army. Mehmed was not a Roman citizen nor was he in any part of the Roman administration. While he had connection to a Roman princess, he himself was not Roman. And those same Illyrians ruled Rome at a time when no one would argue that it wasn't the Roman Empire. No one, save for the most nationalistic and brainwashed Germans would call the HRE a continuation of Rome for the same reason that no one would call the Ottomans a continuation of Rome. You're making yourself sound like an idiot.
>>621058 I must have misremembered something. However, Pertinax's dad was a freedman, and Basil I was a slave in Bulgaria in his childhood (if he's to be counted as a Roman emperor, and I'm humoring you here).
>>621058 Imagine if an Albanian or Armenian who barely spoke English became president for life of the United States. That's the situation you're talking about. Byzantium was one mixed up hell of a world and there was nothing Roman or Greek about plenty of its emperors.
>>621078 Rome barely had a Roman emperor since Trajan. Did Rome stop being the Roman empire when Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius were emperors? Did England stop being England when the Normans came into power?
I find Eastern Roman Empire/Medieval Roman Empire/Greco-Roman Empire to be the most accurate terms (even though the last one is partly flawed, it still denotes the main cultural influences of the Eastern Roman Empire much better than "Byzantine").
Also, why does everyone speak so highly of Constantine XI? His ancestor Manuel II was by far the most competent Paleologos and the one to be most highly regarded among Western European courts.
>>616697 I use both ERE and Byzantine Empire because they're both useful historiographical terms. I try to avoid Byzantine before Heraclius, though. Roman empire is also valid but it can be unoptimal without context, Eastern Roman Empire is pretty much always better.
>>616697 I consider them to be the Roman empire until essentially the end of Heraclius' reign. The following changes in administration and the attitude of the people distinguishes it from the Romans. After that I consider it Byzantium.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.