Explain to me why the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire,

Neither were

>>1433453
One was Christian the other was Barbaric

>>1433458
Orthodox Christian, that is, not Catholic.

Rome split into two

The Byzantine empire was one of these halves

>>1433467
Except it didn't contain Rome.

Pretty sure it had something to do with that Jesus fella.

>>1433476
Rome wasn't even the capital of the Western empire for a lot of time. Many emperors only visited Rome once if at all.

>>1433458
Rome lost the right to be called Rome when it adopted Christianity.

>>1433495
>adopted Christianity.
It didn't have a choice. It spread like a plague, despite all the efforts to contain it.

>>1433491
that's just wrong.

>>1433453
One effectively had political and social continuity with ancient Rome and the other did not have that at all really.

Ottoman Empire is a simulacrum of Rome.

>>1433491
explain fucking nero then????!!!

>>1433457
/thread

>>1433541
come on you fuckers!!!!!!

lets see you explain nero then!!!!!

>>1433457
>>1433559
OP here and I agree.

>>1433491
>>1433541
Rome was actually in the Byzantine under Justinian

Nero was born and raised in Rome, their is no explanation required.

>>1433453
Well if the USA suddenly collapsed but the Southwest remained intact and the federal government moved to LA would you say that's not the USA?

Furthermore if it got conquered by Mexico would you say that is the USA?

>>1433453
>>1433457
The Byzantine Empire was called The Roman mpire, that was its official name.

Western Jewish cuckods later dubbed it "The Byzantine Empire"

>>1433453
rome was latin based (italic), greeks were greek based
ottoman were savage muslim pig fucking dogs.

>>1433453
Roman Kingdom -> Roman Republic -> Roman Empire -> Western Roman Empire, Eastern Roman Empire

Seljuk Empire -> Sultanate of Rum -> Ottoman Empire

>>1433467
It didn't split - it just moved to east, then after some time managed to conquest the west - which was no longer Roman.

But then plague struck and the fate of Byzantine empire was sealed from that point to be segregated for a long time, until annihilation.

>>1433495
Rome didn't just adopt Christianity, it created it's own state version of Christianity (which at the time was just a popular pleb-cult).

The Ottomans invaded and imposed their own religion on another empire. Two totally different things.

>>1433453
The Roman Empire splits into 2 mostly because the empire is too massive for one person to control. You get the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire.

the Western Empire collapses within 150 years, while the Eastern Empire continues on business as usual, even reconquering Western Empire lands.

the Eastern Empire continues on uninterrupted until 1204 where Constantinople falls. the Capital is moved to Nicaea, and Constantinople is recaptured 50 years later. They continue on for 200 more years until the Fall in 1453.

What people don't really get is that Roman is a status of citizenship, rather than a nationality or identity. A Gaul, an Egyptian, and a Greek were all Romans as long as they held citizenship within the Roman state, the city had little to do with it other than it being the birthplace of the state.

Rome moved its capital multiple times. Including Ravenna, Mediolanum, Constantinople, and Nicaea, but the status of Roman citizenship still remained, with or without Rome, the Roman state still existed.

>>1433506
>>1433541
He means after the start of the 3rd century crisis. If you deny the Byzantine Empire from being Rome, you should also deny Late Roman history being roman.

"Byzantine" is an arbitrary word anyway. Justinian is much closer to Constantine that he is to Basil. If there's a Byzantine Empire distinct from Rome it should start around the 7th century.

>>1433583
I bet there would be Ameriboos in tge year 3000 obsessed with Washington who would deny the "Californian States" (term coined in the 28th century) being the USA. People is just like that.

because the turks were barbarian (still are) invaders and the Byzantines were the eastern roman empire

>>1433667
>The Roman Empire splits into 2 mostly because the empire is too massive for one person to control.
This is what I still don't get.

You had China, Russia, the Ottomans... which were huge authoritarian blobs, and they never split.

>>1433687
China was split up until relatively recently.

Do you understand how massive the empire was? Both for it's time and still to this day.

jesus, they were barbars

end of story

>>1433687
That's where imperial politics gets in the way.

you can say the split is a direct result of the crisis of the Third Century, where generals in charge of their armies could set up states in the provinces far from the Capital, and getting information to and from the legions could take months to effectively respond, dividing the empire was seen as a compromise to better be able to respond to both internal and external threats on Rome's far-flung borders.

Internal politics plays a role because Emperor after Emperor would die in assassination attempts or just plain overthrown by a general who marched his troops and took power. An Emperor needed tight control over his generals and his legions if he wanted to die peacefully in his sleep.

Dividing the Empire was seen as a way to lessen this risk, with co-emperors each having a handle on separated legions instead of one man desperately trying to control all the legions, just to end up being killed by them.

this does a bit better job explaining:
https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-causes-of-the-split-of-the-Roman-Empire-into-Western-and-Eastern

There was never even a split, not a split like people imagines it. Both with Diocletian and after Theodosius the Empire was one. The was an eastern emperor and a western emperor (or two of each in the tetrarchy), but just one roman empire that today we would represent as just one country in our maps regardless of internal administrative divisions. Eastern Rome was not an independent polity and therefore cannot be considered as separated from Rome. When Odoacer captured Ravenna and Rome, the emperor of Constantinople became sole emperor in both west and east.

>>1433453
Simple dear friend, the Byzantine Empire was an uninterrupted political continuation of the Roman state while the Ottoman Empire was a separate state which conquered and claimed the Roman mantle.

>>1433687
It was just an administrative decision. Those empires you mention did "split" too, they just didn't try to experiment with dual or multiple monarchy. Or maybe China did, I don't know.

>>1433506

No, it isn't. One of the most influential Roman Emperors in fact hated Rome and visited it once for like an hour an never returned.

>>1433463
>One was Christian the other was Barbaric
>Orthodox Christian, that is, not Catholic.
You can't be this retarded.

>>1433583
This

File: 1446371859002.jpg (338KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1024x768px

One was a direct successor to Rome and the other killed that direct successor

Like if somebodies son declared he was a descendant of his father and then somebody else came along and killed the son and went around wearing his skin and then he claimed he was a descendant of the same father

idk maybe it was a shit analogy

Because Byzantine Empire succeeded, or remained as the only Roman state after the Western side of the Empire fell.
Ottoman Empire on the other hand conquered of what remained bits of Byzantines. It's like killing someone and wearing their skin, then calling yourself the person you killed.

>>1433687
China and Russia also did very little hands on administrating outside of a small area around the capital. In Imperial China many villages and cities were essentially independent polities until the taxman or the recruiters came by. They controlled their own activities, defended themselves, and chose their own leaders.

Likewise, Russia outside of the Western portion, especially around Moscow, was pretty much left to it's own devices.

Authoritarian =/= Micro managing bureaucracy

>>1433813
China also broke up and had rebellions and overthrowings of dynasties a lot.

>>1433453
Like asking why if the West Coast survivee a nuclear attack and the East didn't, why the West Coast gets to be called USA 2.0 bu mt the Ruskies invading through Alaska don't.

>>1433802
It wasn't the son, it was the same man. Just way older, financially broken and with a couple of amputated limbs. This made him an easy prey for another man who killed him and occupied his ruinous house.

The murderer first tried to pretend to be his victim, but he soon moved on that and tried new ways to justify his acts. Repairing the house or at least trying being one.

>>1433817
The roman 'split' was peaceful.

>>1433506
No that's actually correct.

Rome was irrelevant from the late third century onwards. Ravenna was the capital in the west for a while and Nicomedia and Constantinople were far more relevant as a whole.

>>1433635
No it did split. Read a history book.

>>1433842

Splitting is vague concept. Technically the Eastern Emperor was still superior and Western Emperors had to be approved by the Eastern Emperor (legally, though de facto this didn't happen that often)

One could claim that Rome split several times during all the triumvirates and tetrarchies.

>>1433620
>muslim
>pig fucking

pigs were haram, not harem.

>>1433718
true

>>1433615
Yup. Hence Seljuk Turks calling their captured bits of Anatolia the Sultanate of Rum (Rome). That's what it was called in those days.