Eastern Roman Empire is Best Roman Empire

Years of cuckoldry does that to you.

File: 1454808216313.png (1MB, 840x2610px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 840x2610px

>Eastern

>>867717
My bad, Anon. Truly, I should have simply referred to them for what they were - the Roman Empire.

>DEM FRANKS DINDU NUFFIN! DEY WERE GOOD BOYS!
>WE WUZ CRUSADERS N SHIET

>>867701
Regardless, what does the sack have to do with the ERE, which ended about AD 640 after about two thirds of the empire had been lost permanently?

>>867988
Bitch some Greeks were still calling themselves Romans in 1912

When did it change from Eastern Roman Empire to Greek Empire? After Justinian?

>>867988
>>868037
It never changed - it was always Roman.

The Roman Empire ended in the 1460s when the last of the Roman successor states in Crimea and Trebizond were annexed by the Golden Horde and Ottomans, respectively.

>>868028
So? I can call myself a Martian, doesn't make it true.

>>868037
In AD 640, when the culture, society, and economy of the empire fundamentally changed with the Muslim conquests of Africa, Egypt, the Levant, and Syria.

>>868067
Okay, going by that logic, how was the Ottoman Empire not the Roman Empire as well? A man descended from a previous emperor claims it for himself; he's a different religion, that's okay, emperors had been different religions before; he's a different ethnicity, that's okay, emperors had been different ethnicities before.

If you believe that it lasted until at least 1453, why not believe that it existed until 1922? What's the difference here? Why discriminate against Mehmed?

>>868117
Because it was a (Roman) Emperor Theodosius who installed the East-West divide. The creation of the Eastern Roman Empire was an explicit act of Roman law. Roman institutions such as the Senate continued to exist in Constantinople, up until the Fall in 1453. The Greeks had been a province of the Roman Republic and of the Roman Empire, one of their first acquisitions: Roman rule of law had become entrenched there. In the 2nd Century, the Constitutio Antoniniana made all freemen in the provinces full-fledged Roman citizens. The Ottomans/Seljuks- having been nomads from outside of Anatolia, hailing from somewhere in Central Asia - were never such.

The Ottomans had no relation to the Romans. They merely adopted a title. Nobody bequeathed the title of 'Roman' upon them but themselves.

>European medieval empire, not Asian
>Best

>>868177
You do know that the Edict of Caracalla (Constitution Antoniniana) was simply a ploy to force more men into the army (since citizens had to serve a certain number of years/campaigns), right? Ironically it turned the army from a professional force to a glorified peasant militia.

In any case, it looks like our dispute is more philosophical than historical. The ultimate wellspring of law is force, whether it be physical or of tradition. If the Ottoman called themselves Romans and nobody could seriously dispute them, then under the law (which you argue so much for), they were the Romans.

>>868185
You don't need to bump less than three minutes after the last reply.

>>867701
>Eastern Roman Empire is Best Roman Empire
Proved wrong even just by the fact that byzaboos are still looking for justifications for being rekt in 1204 other than "you're weak, deal with it".
That's just embarrassing son.

>>868257
Even before the Caracalla edict, there was the Latin Rights, and the highest population of people with these privileges were centered on the Greek peninsula, due to the early Roman conquest of it and the great esteem that the Romans held for the Greek legacy. Greece was completely Romanized early on.

Besides, you didn't answer any of the other points: the ERE was created by a full-fledged Roman Emperor, simply dividing territory that was already Roman into manageable admin. divisions. The respective Emperors ruling over these divisions were Romans - sons of the previous Emperor - with a thoroughly Roman education and upbringing. The Roman Senate continued to operate in Constantinople. Greco-Roman culture continued in Constantinople.

Just because the official language became Greek in the 6th century does not mean it ceased to be Roman. It's not the fault of the (Eastern) Roman Emperors that the Western portions collapsed.

>>868257
>If the Ottoman called themselves Romans and nobody could seriously dispute them, then under the law (which you argue so much for), they were the Romans.
Actually, when you consider that names only have meaning within the context of multiple entities, if the ottomans called themselves romans but nobody else acknowledged them as such, they were not the romans. I mean yeah they had a right to call themselves romans as long as they didn't change their minds or someone didn't come along and coerce them into stopping, but it's not like it has any value. If I call myself the Grand Prince of Europe, nobody is really gonna bother opposing me, but that doesn't make my title any more real.

>>868284
I think you're wrong on the Latin Rights part, I'm pretty sure that those were colonies of actual Italians in Greece (and Spain and Africa and Gaul) who were given the Latin Rights. And Greece definitely WASN'T completely Romanized early on, the entire goddamn peninsula rose against the Republic and supported Mithridates, killing all Roman, Latin, and Italian residents they could lay their hands on, about 90 BC. So 150 years after domination by Rome, they definitely weren't Romanized "early on", and they never spoke Latin in the majority, so you can hardly call that Romanized.

I never claimed that Theodosius's division of the empire ended it, in the east or west or in totality; nor did I say it was the change in language. The end, which was a gradual process between AD 630 and AD 650, came from massive cultural, social, and economical upheaval and change.

>>868329
Exactly, which is my point! The Ottoman emperors were called Caesars of Rome in all polite diplomacy, it was one of their titles/styles after all. So why do the Byzantine emperors get a free pass there, when European rulers routinely called them "Emperor of the Greeks", and only polite diplomacy addressed them as "Emperor of Rome/the Romans"? Either way it's ridiculous.

>>868355
Butthurt Frank detected.
Did they kill your great-great grandsomething in 1182 or something?

>>867988
I'd say it's more about the reforms heraclius did. After that, the Empire was no longer Roman, but a Greek successor state

>>868373
It was Roman

t.knower

>>868355
>So why do the Byzantine emperors get a free pass there
Because byzaboos. I for one agree with placing the fall of the roman empire with the fall of the west, the east being merely a successor state like Nicea, Epirus and Trebzond after 1204, which however didn't manage to impose itself back like Nicea.
That said, even tho at some point (I think after France started dialogue with them against the Habs?) the west started using all the cordial diplomatic formulas, I'm sure you'll agree that no European ever considered the ottoman sultan as the Caesar of Rome.

>>868366
Excellent rebuttal cupcake.

>>868382
Eh, the empire had been ruled from Constantinople before, and even after the fall of the west, Italy was nominally under the Eastern Empire's suzerainty. From 476 to 477, and on all the way until the mid 7th century, the Empire retained its Roman character and land in general despite slight changes.

As for Europeans' view of the Ottoman legitimacy in using Caesar, I guess you're right, but what does that matter? They hadn't viewed the Byzantines as legitimate either, but even if you don't believe the Byzantines were the Romans, European opinion shouldn't trump fact.

>byzaboos are this butthurt

Stay mad

Dandolo did absolutely nothing wrong