At what point did the Byzantine empire stop been roman?

File: Horses_of_Basilica_San_Marco_bright.jpg (531KB, 1920x1362px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 1920x1362px

They were never Roman.

To be Roman you have to be from Rome. Venice was more Roman than the Byzantines ever were, because they were founded by actual refugees from the City of Rome.

PAX VAN TIBI GELI MAR STA CE E MEVS

>>952533
1453.

>>952533
It started after the death of Justinian and was set in stone by Heraclius.

When Greek became the language of the court around Heraclius' time.

It didn't. The term Byzantine Empire is just a tool used by historians to refer to the empire in a specific point in history where the Western Roman Empire no longer existed.

Judging from your own metric the Western Roman empire barely qualifies as Roman itself.

It is the spiritual successor of Rome and was until its downfall.

>>952563
>Spiritual successor
Wew lad that's a heavy meme there.

>>952533
Define Roman

>>952568
I'm getting too old for this shit.

Either address the point or don't bother m8.

>>952603
The vast majority of the population was culturally Greek, their soldiers were Greek, their aristocrats were Greek and everyone in the world has claimed to be the "spiritual successor of the Roman Empire," including the Seljuks and Ottomans.

The Pope was more of a representative of Romans than the Emperor.

File: serveimage.jpg (28KB, 250x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 250x300px

When it converted to cuckoldianity.

Pagan Rome = best Rome.

File: 1426210356171.jpg (69KB, 450x516px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 450x516px

>>952621

>>952621
>>952638
http://faculty.smu.edu/jmwilson/r2.pdf

Literally never. Believing that Roman = Latin is wrong.

It'd be like saying modern Britain is no longer Britain because they don't speak in old English.
Cultures change, languages change, that doesn't mean X nation or Empire stops being X nation or Empire just because it experienced a gradual shift over the course of many centuries.
You might as well argue that Rome stopped being Roman when it stopped being Pagan.

>>952663
If one is not Latin one cannot be Roman. The Romans were a Latin people.

>>952616
Except there was barely a Roman culture. There is no Roman ethnicity.

Caracalla made literally everybody living in Roman lands, Roman. Even the original romans when the city was founded were a collective makeup of outcasts from nearby peoples.

Romans aristocrats in their own day mainly spoke Greek. And dozens of other languages elsewhere in the Empire.

The Roman empire barely fielded Roman citizens for hundreds of years in its existence and a good majority of its Emperors weren't born in Rome. Hell some of them never even saw the city.

Like said, by your own standard the Western Roman Empire stopped being Roman in the 200's if it was ever truly Roman at all.

>>952570
From Rome

>>952651
Literally glorified damage control.

Byzantine empire was a crap sequel about which we forgot.

>>952665

Most people who lived in Western Rome weren't Latin either, this is fucking stupid.

If you're arguing that in order for something to be considered Roman that the ruling class must speak Latin then I'd point out that Greek was also commonly used among aristocracy.
The way I see it Roman is an umbrella term that includes both Latin and Greek, in the same way British is an umbrella term that includes both English and Scottish.

This idea of an Empire where everyone looked like your classic Roman with the big nose and silly helmets and spoke Latin never existed, that was always just Rome itself. So if something is only Roman if thats what the majority of the population was like then Rome stopped being Roman when it started to expand into the rest of Italy.

>>952689
When they stopped following the Roman Church they stopped being Roman and started being something else.

>>952698
>When they stopped following IVPITER OPTIMVS MAXIMVS they stopped being Roman and started being something else.
Fixed it.

>>952698

>Roman Church

You mean the one founded by Constantine? Cause Paganism didn't really have a "Church".

>>952704
>>952704
I'm talking about the one founded by Jesus and headed by the Bishop of Rome.

>>952707
Most people of the Roman empire didn't follow the Roman church you shithead.

What the fuck are you even doing on a history board?

>>952709
The people of Rome, the standard of being Roman, did. You sure are retarded.

>>952724
So the Roman empire isn't Roman. Gotcha.

>>952731
You can't separate the idea of being Roman from the idea of being associated with the city of Rome. You guys are ridiculous with the Byzantineboo shit.

>>952731
The Roman Empire stopped being Roman the moment its lands where not "owned" by Rome.

This doesn't mean the Roman Empire wasn't Roman when the capital was Milan or Ravenna.

The Eastern Roman Empire stopped being Roman when the Byzantines stopped trying to defend or retake the city.

>>952736
Oh yes you can, because Rome wasn't just a city, it was a large state, called Romania, and everyone within it was a citizen, therefore Roman. The empire outgrew the city, and the city became irrelevant long before Constantinople was built. The Byzantine Greeks weren't ethnic Romans, but their state wad the Roman Empire, the very same one that began with Augustus, and therefore their nationality was Roman. To say otherwise is the same as saying that a white guy isn't an American because he isn't Native American.

>>952533
The Byzantines did have an emperor.

beginning around about 200 ad when marcus aurelius regrettably made the decision to make his son his successor, the roman empire headed down a track of repeated and severe periods of severe hardship and series of unfortunate events in between which it would sometimes regain some relevance before the next devastating blow broke off some more of its foundations. This totally ended in the late 15th century when a tiny greek fragment city near modern-day sevastopol off a fragment of a fragment of the reinstated byzantine empire was crushed as the ottomans enveloped it finally kind of like when you push something under water until there's a tiny dry speck left and then the water pops over it.

people in this thread have been giving a lot of dates around many of those periods of hardship, but a couple that haven't yet been mentioned besides the two i just did are the most official last date the byzantines possessed the city of rome (around 800 ad, when the pope crowned charlemagne and was given the city of rome and some other land in return) or a little before, and around 900 ad give or take a century when an emperor was doing some reforms of laws and decided the purely ceremonial and completely obsolete roman senate and consuls were maybe a millennium or so out of date and abolished them.

>>952672
Then nobody except people from the city of Rome were ever Roman

>>952796
This is the correct answer. I'd give it a radius around the city too, though.

>>952790
i forgot to say also when the capital was moved to constantinople, or around 300 when some major reforms took place

OP here, damn goyim. This thread got fiery. Roman I mean culturally. Some of these arguments sound like I could walk around calling myself a Celt, or pict. At what point does a culture shift become so apparent you can't say you a what you used to be anymore.

>>952779
America is a white man's word. And unlike the Native Americans, the Romans were not displaced by Greeks.

The Byzantines made the switch from the Roman title of Emorer to the Greek term for King.

>>952556
Greek was the language of the court in Julius Caesar's time.

>this thread
God damn, anti-byzaboos are insufferable.

File: 1458999992174.png (931KB, 800x770px) Image search: [Google]

931KB, 800x770px

>>953872
>mfw m.a. in byzantine studies
I like them φαμ. More people interested in Byzabooistan more likely I will have job security.

>>952540
Constantinople was founded by Romans. Hell, it's original name was "New Rome."

>>952800
Have you heard of the concept of, y'know, *citizenship?*

>>952540
>because they were founded by actual refugees from the City of Rome.
Venice was probably founded by Roman citizens fleeing from the huns, but I doubt they were founded by people previously living in Rome

>>952533
We need to first ask what is Roman

Rome was founded 0bc by twin sisters called Roman and Ruman. They were raised by a bear. Once the city was founded they declared war on Punican in which Hannible lector enlisted the help of the hippopotamus empire. He forcemarched the hippos across the swamps of southern Italia. Rome realises the weakness of the Hippos and flooded the countryside with hamsters, which Hippos are deathly afraid of, which led to Scorpion Africamans epic victory at Cannoe. But with this victory came great cost, Scorpions brother Subzero Justinicus was wel jel of his brothers success so split the eastern empire into his own relm.

>>952533
Romans
Just like the HRE, Turks and Russians were romans

Always wanted to know this. But, did the Byzantines lose the knowledge from Ancient Greeks and Romans, such as concrete and the like?

>>952868
>At what point does a culture shift become so apparent you can't say you a what you used to be anymore.
This is irrelevant. American republicanism now is a completely different beast to what it was when it was first founded. The Founding Fathers would not recognise modern America in the slightest.

Does that mean that somehow modern America isn't the exact same state as Founding-era America? No, of course not, the former is a direct continuation of the latter, all social, cultural and political changes be damned.

How you autists can't wrap your head around this is beyond me.

>>953282
I'm sure Caesar wrote his works in Greek, just as Cicero, and that they used Greek for they orations in the forum and the senate

>>952540

>To be Roman you have to be from Rome.

This means that 90% of the time Rome wasn't the Roman Empire then. Several emperors came from the provinces, especially during later years and a large bulk of Italian emperors were not from Rome.

Truth is, trying to tie the idea of "Roman" to ethnicity is ludicrous.

>>952556

Greek was the language of the court during the Republican Period, though only a few senators were native speakers. But within aristocratic company, Greeks was preferred.

>>952616

Define culture then. Late imperial Romans were nothing like early Roman republicans when it comes to morals and cultural values. If we in the other hand look at more "stagnant" cultural aspects like law Byzantium (only using this term to make comprehension easy) wasn't that different.

>>952621

"Pagan Rome" ceased to be a thing long before Constantine. Eastern mystery cults and religions always appealed Romans and only the most hard core conservative senators got pissy about it and eve then it was just an excuse to get mad. Only the most heinous crimes against Greco-Roman paganism were taken seriously, like marrying a vestal virgin.

>>952665

By that logic the main bulk of late-imperial Romans were not Romans. The term "Roman" has nothing to do with ethnicity.

>>952704
Yeah they did. The position of pope derives from early traditions of the Roman Kingdom.

>>952924

Basileus means ruler in general, but the meaning in Byzantine context is Imperator. Heraclius directly replaced "Imperator" with Basileus.

Every argument against Byzantium = Rome can be easily rebuffed with reason and logic. It is especially easy when you take into consideration the fact that the Roman Empire didn't "split" in the same way as history represents it splitting. It's just a simplification to streamline history and keep the narrative shorter.

Are there any other examples of

>Empire expands
>loses the land from where it originated
>polity continues on in conquered territory business as usual

or is the Roman Empire unique in this?

>>952533
29 May 1453

>>952533
It's not something you can pinpoint to the day, it's a process.
If you want a landmark, you can use when they switched from latin to greek officially.

>>953956
Romans themselves believed to be refugees from Troy.

>HOLY

>>952790
Justinian abolished the consulatus in the middle of the 6th century.

>>954853
Yeah. I always like 528/529 though.
Codex Justinianus + closing of the academy in Athens. They was something else in 528 but I forgot.

Would you have liked to have been the Eastern Roman Emperor, Anon?

>>953999
No. The Byzantines were the only ones in the world who retained knowledge of how to make concrete after the fall of the Empire. However, I think the knowledge was somewhat lost after 1204, and the concrete they produced afterwards was of lower quality since the imperial records at Constantinople had been destroyed or misplaced.

>>954847
The Roman Empire is pretty unique in this as the Empire just lasted so goddamn long and the Empire was never really thought of as being under "Italian occupation" once you get into the Imperial period.

Greco-Roman civilisation started dying in the first century AD, and being replaced with something new.

The Pantheon in Rome started in 118 AD with its circular shape and dome, built by a Syrian architect, joins the spread of Christianity and other Eastern cults as a sign of the beginnings of a new civilisation, centered in the East, between Syria, Persia, and Judea, which would become the civilisation of Byzantium and Islam.

>>955094
What about the Iberians, Gauls, and Germanics?

>>954847
The Seljuks might count, as their state in Anatolia survived the collapse of the greater sultanate in Iran.

>>952563
>Judging from your own metric the Western Roman empire barely qualifies as Roman itself.
If it was run by Gauls and Germans

>>954832

I'll just add this:

The issue why so many people disagree with Byzantium being Rome (although there is nothing to disagree with) is that they perceive Imperial Rome as the Republic. Valorous men doing their best for the state with a lot of red. Then they perceive ERE as a decadent and corrupt with a lot of purple.

In truth the Roman Empire resembled ERE a lot more than it resembled the Republic

The definition of Roman changes as the Romans changed their consensus on what it is to be Roman. Whatever Caesar thought a Roman was was slightly different than what the next generation thought. By 1000 AD a Christian Greek was automatically considered a Roman because that's how Roman identity was carried down to that time.

>>955273
It was run by Iberians, North Africans, Illyrians, and Vandals.

Several Emperors wouldn't qualify as Roman if you'rw strictly staying being from the City of Rome. Hell they weren't even from the province.

At one point and for quite some time the emperor wasn't "roman" and Rome wasn't even the capital. It had no relevance in the political picture.

The Roman empire apparently wasn't Roman. Rome itself has very little influence or politicsl relevance for well over a hundred years.

>>952616
If you go by that logic then the difference between Julius Ceasar and founders of Rome would just be as great. The near 500 years between founding and Caesar would have changed the culture, the language and the people incredibly.

>>952533

The aristocrats spoke Greek in the Byzantine Empire, but were the remains of the Roman Empire, and had all legal systems of the earlier Roman Empire. Everyone referred to them as the Romans, including the Persians and Muslims.

>was different

It's like saying 500 years ago, Britain wasn't Britain because nothing looks like it does now.

You are technically correct, since titles and empires and people and cultures change constantly and are never the same thing, and change drastically sometimes in less than a decade.

They then stayed the same, but basically converted to Islam and started speaking Arabic more than anything else. But to this day, they are still more like the Romans than even Italy currently is.

I mean, except for the invading Saudis pretending to not be Saudis and calling themselves ISIS.

>>955263

not even. Muslim factions were loosely united, sort of like the current European Union (with less bureaucracy) or the early United States, when States had more power than the central government.

Muslims had internal conflicts constantly, but the conflicts never got as bad as European ones did. The biggest wars where when Muslim Caliphs were great at convincing local kings and Imams to join in a war. this type of thing waxed and waned.

File: 1429180215977.png (27KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 625x626px

>>952540
>PAX VAN TIBI GELI MAR STA CE E MEVS

Pax tibi Marce evangelista meus

There I unscrambled your shit for you, faggot.

>>955346
>>955660
In short, they were Roman, just not the good kind most Romeaboos like.

I'd say the Justinian dynasty was where it degraded, Justin and especially Justinian were pretty Roman, but Phocas was definitely not Roman