The Byzantine Empire was not Roman. After Justinian the Byzantine

File: pepe.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>After Justinian the Byzantine Empire had nothing in common with the ideals or culture of the Roman Republic
You seriously think that the Roman Republic and the Empire were in any way similar in "ideals and culture".

You seriously think that Rome had a continuously the same laws, the same language, the same religion and the same laws just until Justinian?

Why are you people always so uneducated?

>>1443100

>and the same laws
and the same culture*

File: lorica hamata.jpg (763KB, 1671x2226px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 1671x2226px

>>1443100
There was a continuation of culture.

The details may have changed but there was a common thread connecting both the late Roman empire (~300 AD) and the late Republic.

The Byzantine Empire lost this thread and all claims on being Roman.

Educate yourself.

>>1443109
>There was a continuation of culture.
>The details may have changed but there was a common thread connecting both the late Roman empire (~300 AD) and the late Republic.

There wasn't, sorry. Rome was a large empire at that point and had varying cultures inside it. I'm going to gloss over the fact that we don't even know what Roman culture was outside of superficial stuff like food and clothing, because defining culture outside of material stuff is extremely hard.

Could you tell me what books you have read on the subject? What are your qualifications for making these bold claims? And please give me an example of the "thread" you are talking about.

>>1443121

And as for your claims about law and religion, Basileia Rhomaion practiced Christianity (as did the Romans) and followed laws directly based on Roman laws. They also followed key Roman concepts, such as private property. They spoke Greek, true enough but.. so?

Your whole claim stands on the fact that they were "culturally different" which is a shitty argument since their material culture was largely similar, but the other side of culture the "psyche" is extremely hard to define.

>>1443121
This
It's pretty weird to talk of "roman culture"
What is Roman culture? People who speak Latin? Inhabitants of the Empire were all the same? Person from Gaul shared the same values and pro-Roman traits that a person from Egypt or Dacia did?

I swear OP is making this thread every 2 days or something

Literally every historian who specialises in the period disagrees with you. This is the equivalent of telling a bunch of mathematicians that 2+2=5

File: tjtjcqi.png (3MB, 600x2363px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 600x2363px

They look Roman to me ese

File: 1467252140131.png (112KB, 353x296px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 353x296px

The Byzantine Empire maintained the bureaucratic framework laid down by the Romans, whereas the Latins/Franks lost all this and devolved into a simpler feudal arrangement that could not support such things as standing armies - aside from a few bodyguards - or logistics or even efficient and standardized taxation.

In this respect, I would say the Byzantines were Romans: the Byzantine administrative institutions were those founded by the Romans themselves, but maintained by the Greek-speaking East.

>>1443092
Weak bait, you'll still get replies though. I hope you fucking die.