/his/ - History

I know right? It should be called Eastern Roman empire, like it was

>>23685

Post pics or confirmed fraud

>>23685

>Eastern Roman Empire

>Eastern

>"Roman"

>>23714

Implying that it wasnt roman

>>23716

It was Roman early on but then it became not Roman.

>>23728

fug off turk :DD

>>23733

The Turks are as Roman as the Byzantines

>>23716

You're right, all Romans spoke Greek and have never seen Rome, and they all followed the Orthodox religion :^)

Come on, it's like the Russians, the Germans, the French and Turks claiming to be Roman, just because they claim it doesn't mean they really are

>>23741

Except that they were roman and the others werent. Tell me, when was the time that the HRE split from the emprie? Oh right it never was.

>continuity of institutions

>Roman citizenship

>Christian religion

>call themselves Roman

Germanic tribes don't have these, Turks don't have these, Slavs don't have these, no one except Romaioi have these. Eastern Roman Empire is Roman. Kebab go home.

>>23742

By that way of thinking all Indians are Proud British men because the British empire split voluntarily.

>>23744

>continuity of institutions

Doesn't mean they're Roman.

>Roman Citizenship

A piece of paper doesn't mean shit, I could call a nigger a Roman, does that mean he's Roman?

>Christian Religion

Like the Rest of Europe in the 700s.

Fuck off Gyros, stop trying to say that you're roman.

>>23741

except Moscow is the third Rome you fucktard, the Tsars are descendent of the Emperors, and given the Tsars' major fuckups just like the Emperors I do not doubt this.

>>23746

>Moscow

>founded in the 12th century by Russians

>"""""ROMAN"""""

Also to what Emperor are the Tsars descendent from? Is he just one of the tens of unknown emperors who got killed in less than a month? How did they come in contact with them? Slavs didn't arrive until after the WRE's fall, and if they are, how did they manage to climb the social pyramid to arrive at the monarch status without the help of any external force?

This thread is a shitposting hole.

>>23745

>Doesn't mean they're Roman.

Yes it does. Unbroken continuity, means you don't get to arbitrarily say "this is the last Roman".

>A piece of paper doesn't mean shit, I could call a nigger a Roman, does that mean he's Roman?

Yes, if the Emperor of Romans decides all niggers under him are Romans as well, they are. Especially if his culture is half nigger. Or do you think that in a multicultural empire the only real citizens live in Rome?

>Like the Rest of Europe in the 700s.

Converted by Romans.

>>23746

>Moscow is the third Rome

Kek, now this is clearly false, since Tsars were never citizen of the Roman Empire and there is no continuity of institutions. Easy.

>This thread is a shitposting hole.

But we couldn't have done it without your contribution, Anon! Keep up the great work :^)

>>23750

Byzantines were never considered Romans by any external faction, this ends the Argument.

>>23752

>Byzantines were never considered Romans by any external faction

Except Persians, Turks, y'know, those who had less of an interest in calling themselves Romans. The ERE was called Romania even in the West, the former Exarchate of Ravenna is called Romagna to this day, the Sultanate of Rum took its name from Rome despite being on "Byzantine" territory…

>this ends the Argument

Ha.

>>23753

>Except Persians, Turks, y'know, those who had less of an interest in calling themselves Romans

And who didn't know any better having only the Byzantines to tell them who or what was a Roman.

>>23753

>Except Persians, Turks, y'know, those who had less of an interest in calling themselves Romans

Probably because they only knew the "Eastern" part of the empire directly without trade and thought it was the whole image.

>The ERE was called Romania even in the West

Huh, documents from the Frankish empire say that they even called it "Imperium Graecorum"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annales_Fuldenses

>the former Exarchate of Ravenna is called Romagna to this day

The term was born before the fall of the WRE because of the fact that the Western Roman Capital was there.

>the Sultanate of Rum took its name from Rome despite being on "Byzantine" territory

Look up.

>Ha.

Yeah, ha.

>>23755

>Frankish Empire

Post Frankish empire.

>>23749

>Also to what Emperor are the Tsars descendent from?

Ivan III, who united Russia and defeated the Golden Horde, married Zōē Palaiologina, daughter of Thōmas, brother of Kōnstantinos XI Dragasēs Palaiologos, the last reigning Byzantine Emperor, who died childless. The remaining three Rjurikovič Tzars, Vasilij III, Ivan IV, and Fëdor I, were thus descended from Palaiologos Emperors through this marriage.

House of Romanov claimed the Russian Imperial title after a succession crisis, as they were descended from Nikita Romanovič, brother of Ivan IV's first wife, Anastasija.

>>23755

>Probably because they only knew the "Eastern" part of the empire directly without trade and thought it was the whole image.

No, it's because Persians had been dealing with the Roman Empire since when it was still one, and nothing changed from their perspective. Continuity.

>Huh, documents from the Frankish empire say that they even called it "Imperium Graecorum"

That's because the Franks wanted their empire to be Romania; later the term was restricted to Italy and finally to the former Exarchate (weird, huh?).

Similarly, in Venice the terms "Romania", "Romanum Imperium" etc. instead of simply "Constantinopolitanum Imperium" or "Terra Grecorum" were used depending on the more or less friendly relations with Constantinople. When they got part of the former ERE in their grasp, suddenly it was "Romania" again.

So, you can't expect to see loaded and prestigious names such as these all the time, but they weren't unheard of. Whether they wanted to accept it or not, Westerners knew that Constantinople was the New Rome.

>Yeah, ha.

Ha ha (^:

>>23758

>Kōnstantinos XI

By Analizing Kostantinos's Genealogical tree we arrive at Nikephoros Palaiologos, who was the first Palaiologos member, his origins are unknown but he may be of Armenian origins.

>No, it's because Persians had been dealing with the Roman Empire since when it was still one, and nothing changed from their perspective. Continuity.

Because they only saw the least Romanized provinces of the empire.

>That's because the Franks wanted their empire to be Romania

I already said that it was a Post-Frankish empire biography.

>later the term was restricted to Italy

Italy was always called Italia.

>and finally to the former Exarchate (weird, huh?).

I already said that the term was pre-WRE fall.

>Similarly, in Venice the terms "Romania", "Romanum Imperium" etc. instead of simply "Constantinopolitanum Imperium" or "Terra Grecorum" were used depending on the more or less friendly relations with Constantinople. When they got part of the former ERE in their grasp, suddenly it was "Romania" again.

The name was used to name the LATIN Empire, formed in the 4th crusade. Romania was used unofficially inside the empire.

>Westerners knew that Constantinople was the New Rome.

Because it was the new gate between East and West, this doesn't mean that the byzantines were romans

>Ha ha (^:

Ha Ha Ha :DDD

>>23759

>No, it's because Persians had been dealing with the Roman Empire since when it was still one, and nothing changed from their perspective. Continuity.

The Sassanids were not the Parthians.

>>23760

>Because they only saw the least Romanized provinces of the empire.

Nothing changed politically I mean.

>I already said that it was a Post-Frankish empire biography.

And?

>Italy was always called Italia.

The Italian provinces of the HRE, sorry for the ambiguity.

>already said that the term was pre-WRE fall.

As a word, yes. As a place, no. It's called like that because it was the last territory in northern Italy to be lost by the ERE.

>The name was used to name the LATIN Empire, formed in the 4th crusade. Romania was used unofficially inside the empire.

As I said, it was used well before (and well after) the Fourth Crusade.

>Because it was the new gate between East and West, this doesn't mean that the byzantines were romans

Constantinople = Nova Roma (as established even before the Fall of Rome), therefore the Byzantine Empire is Roman IMO.

>>23763

>The Sassanids were not the Parthians.

So what?

>>23763

Yeah, I forgot about them.

>>23759

>Whether they wanted to accept it or not, Westerners knew that Constantinople was the New Rome.

I'd say it was acceptance that made the eastern empire Roman or not Roman. That's what a lot of this was about in the end, title recognition. That's what Roman had come to mean by the Middle Ages, a recognition of diplomatic and cultural supremacy.

>>23764

>So what?

It means there was no continuity between the two dynastic empires, not even in its political and military culture. The Byzantines just called them both Persians, which is meaningless coming from the Byzantines who were fond of applying Classical terminology regardless of its accuracy or applicability.

>>23766

>I'd say it was acceptance that made the eastern empire Roman or not Roman.

I'd say it was continuity. At this point it's largely a matter of opinion I think. The ERE was more Roman than the HRE, that's for sure.

>It means there was no continuity between the two dynastic empires

And where did I state the opposite?

>>23763

>>23764

>And?

The document might not be Frankish propaganda.

>The Italian provinces of the HRE, sorry for the ambiguity.

The Italian provinces were part of the Regnum Italiae, aka Italian Kingdom.

>As a word, yes. As a place, no. It's called like that because it was the last territory in northern Italy to be lost by the ERE.

No it was the name of the place of the capital of the WRE, like Latium was named after the Latins, aka the Romans and surroundings, so was Romagna, Romans and the surrounding populations.

>As I said, it was used well before (and well after) the Fourth Crusade.

It was used INSIDE the empire before the Latin Empire and then was used by WESTENERS to call the Latin empire.

>Constantinople = Nova Roma (as established even before the Fall of Rome), therefore the Byzantine Empire is Roman

It was meant to be the new Rome because it was an extremely important center of trade, like Rome.

>IMO

There's the fucking bullshit, you come here to say that your opinion is a fact to say at the end that it should be considered as an opinion, fucking hell.

>>23767

>I'd say it was continuity

They completely changed their culture and language to the point that they called external populations "Latin".

>The ERE was more Roman than the HRE, that's for sure.

No one denies that.

>>23767

>I'd say it was continuity. At this point it's largely a matter of opinion I think. The ERE was more Roman than the HRE, that's for sure.

That's what it's always been frankly, a matter of opinion. The Byzantines argued continuity, being a successor state to the originally united Roman Imperium. The Latins argued prestige and ideology.

Personally, I would say Rome died with the Republic. What the Franks and Byzantines fought over was a name that had become synonymous with empire, the same way the Parthians or Sassanids claiming Iranshahr did not make them the Persians of Alexander's time.

>And where did I state the opposite?

I was commenting on this statement:

>No, it's because Persians had been dealing with the Roman Empire since when it was still one, and nothing changed from their perspective. Continuity.

Which presupposes a continuous Persian state from first contact with Rome to its later wars with the ERE. The Sassanids were not aware of the Byzantines as the same power the Parthians encountered centuries before.

>>23768

>The document might not be Frankish propaganda.

It was written before the 12th century, how could it not be? It still presents he official position of the HRE.

>The Italian provinces were part of the Regnum Italiae, aka Italian Kingdom

But some regions were referred to as Romania. The name stuck for the former Exarchate. You seem to think that everything only had one name at a single time, quoting one document as if it meant anything.

>No it was the name of the place of the capital of the WRE

Not at all. Its use came well after the WRE had crumbled, and Ravenna wasn't capital of anything.

>It was used INSIDE the empire before the Latin Empire and then was used by WESTENERS to call the Latin empire.

And, for the third time, it was also used outside the Empire, before the Fourth Crusade.

>It was meant to be the new Rome because it was an extremely important center of trade, like Rome.

>trade

It was an Imperial City, not a mere center of trade. A proper capital with its own Senate and Emperor of the Romans.

>There's the fucking bullshit, you come here to say that your opinion is a fact to say at the end that it should be considered as an opinion, fucking hell.

>implying this discussion is not about opinion

I'm using facts to support my opinions, and to counter false statements such as "Byzantines were never considered Romans by any external faction, this ends the Argument". Do you expect me to post a document signed by the Holy Ghost that says "the Byzantine Empire was Roman, gg no re"? When did I say that my opinion is a fact? Of course I'm going to state my opinions, should I add "IMO" to all of my posts? Bah.

>>23771

>Personally, I would say Rome died with the Republic.

Sad but true man.

>Which presupposes a continuous Persian state from first contact with Rome to its later wars with the ERE.

The Empire was split by Diocletian, and Carus, who reigned before him, had already led a campaign against the Sasanids. The Parthian rule ended in 224 AD.

>>23773

>It was written before the 12th century, how could it not be? It still presents he official position of the HRE.

The HRE was formed in the 900s.

>But some regions were referred to as Romania. The name stuck for the former Exarchate. You seem to think that everything only had one name at a single time, quoting one document as if it meant anything.

Only Romagna was named after Rome.

>And, for the third time, it was also used outside the Empire, before the Fourth Crusade.

Show me the proof.

>It was an Imperial City, not a mere center of trade. A proper capital with its own Senate and Emperor of the Romans.

It was built near to Byzantium (thus the name), as the next Rome BECAUSE it was an important center of trade.

>and Ravenna wasn't capital of anything.

Are you kidding me? Ravenna was the last capital of the WRE fucboi.

>>23770

>The HRE was formed in the 900s.

And those annals were written in the 1000s. Also the pretension of being successors of the Roman Empire was of the Carolingian Empire too.

>Only Romagna was named after Rome.

The name Romania was applied to the region around Rome too, at least.

>Show me the proof.

The Chronicum Altinate speaks of the "Romanum Constantinopolitanum Imperium", "Romania" for the ERE is used in the "Annals" of Bernardo Maragone, and also in some chansons de geste. These are but examples.

>It was built near to Byzantium (thus the name), as the next Rome BECAUSE it was an important center of trade.

Byzantium was a center of trade, Constantinople was much more. The hills of Rome weren't special either, what's your point? New Rome doesn't mean "new big center of trade".

>Ravenna was the last capital of the WRE fucboi.

Can you read?

>Its use came well after the WRE had crumbled

So we have Italian cities and Persia, who call the Byzantines Romans. Here are your "external factions".

I live by the principle;

>if it ain't Latin, it ain't Roman

Around Greeks, stay on your feet.

>>23714

>Western Roman Empire

>capital Ravenna

>"Roman"

>>23681

but it was an empire anon, till the kebab stole everything away from them

>>26515

>Ravenna

>literally in the Romagna part of Emilia-Romagna

>not Roman

>>26528

>ravenna

>literally named after a species of corvidae

Birds can't be romans I don't care what you say

>>23681

The Byzantine Empire, was indeed, byzantine - thus making the name entirely appropriate.