They were a Greek empire With Greek language, Greek culture and Orthodox christian religion
No normal person considers them to be Roman
>>18025774.
>>18025774They were fully Roman until the death of MauricePh*kas fucked everything up
>>18025781Otto I is still spinning in his graveIt was not supposed to be like this
>>18025781KEK
>>18025779Most historians think do
>>18025774Makes sense. When the Latins took over Constantinople the Emperor Baldwin was crowned in the Roman tradition and went around the empire claiming to be the Roman emperor.
>>18025803By the time the Byzantine Empire replaced Latin with Greek language almost the entirety of Italy had already been assimilated by German tribes so yeah the Byzantines were the only thing even remotely resembling the Roman Empire especially it's 4th century AD history when it had already adopted Christianity as it's official religion under Constantine
>>18025853>when it had already adopted Christianity as it's official religion under ConstantineThis isn't true, it was Theodosius.
No but it's become a minority position, sort of like people who don't like feathered dinosaurs and will flat out deny they ever had them. I don't blame people who don't want to think the byzantines are Roman, they are very different tonally from the empire of the 1st century AD. Sort of like expecting people to enjoy and treat both the original and prequel star wars movies equally>>18025779>>18025803Historians aren't normal people, which is a good thing because normal people have an abysmal understanding of history.
>>18025995>>18026020Why 1st century AD? The big shift happened in the 4th century as I've said before and it was in 2 phases the 1st was Constantine and the 2nd was Theodosius the Byzantine Empire came as a direct successor of the Roman Empire it wasn't the same but it was it's medieval equivalent unlike Charlemagne. For example Parthians Sassanians and their Muslim successors weren't the same as the Persians that Alexander defeated but they essentially were their only worthy substitutes
>>18025774>Greek cultureHow is it Greek culture unless you are projecting today onto them?>Orthodox christian religionThat's how the Church was under the Romans.
>>18026033Also good to note that Constantinople was intended to be a Christian city. While he didn't make it the official religion of the empire, he did make the new Roman capital. I date the East Roman/Byzantine Empire to the founding of Constantinople.
>>18026200Yeah I agree the original Roman Empire lasted for 3.5 centuries from 20 BC to 330 AD that's shorter than the Roman Republic that existed in the previous 5 centuries or the Byzantine Empire that survived for almost 9 centuries until the 4th Crusade of 1204 while the Palaiologos dynasty was a rump state that existed for the next 2.5 centuries just like the Western Roman Empire that only lasted for 8 decades from 395 to 476 just like the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1991 of course the HRE didn't surpass the Byzantines since dating starts from the Ottonian dynasty near the end of the 10th century it can't include the reigns of it's Carolingian rivals who were closer to the Capetians of West Francia the predecessors of Napoleon who finally ended that German version of the European Union at the beginning of the 19th century
>>18026222I don't know enough about the HRE, any good places to start? I'm primarily a Byzaboo with emphasis on the Macedonian dynasty, and Rome from the Punic wars to the death of Augustus.
>>18026245If your into podcasts the history of byzantium
>>18025774Rome was a Greek Empire. It's literally the Greek word for strength. Western Rome was a Penninsular hating Greek Empire Eastern Rome was a Italia hating Greek Empire.
>>18025853>>18026269Italy was Greek until it was assimilated by Lombards in the 7th century AD which was the end of late antiquity at around the same time we saw Arabs assimilate the ancient nations of Egypt and Babylon while Bulgarians did the same in Macedonia
>>18026249I have listened to that twice. I was looking for more Holy Roman Empire stuff, any decent historians?
>>18026296Can't help you there
>>18026296Mannfred of Sicily from Games Workshop's Warhammer Fantasy
>>18025774they were the legal continuation of rome though, that's an objective fact. there was no discontinuity between constantine establishing nova roma, diocletian formally splitting the empire into eastern and western halves, and justinian going west to liberate italy from the barbarians. there was no point of rupture in the eastern government, they just kept chugging along
>>18025774The conjugation of 'do not' for the first person is 'doesn't' not 'don't' ESLanon.Also you're not alone.I think it makes sense to call the Byzantines something else, since they were so far away from what we think of as Rome that the label 'Rome' is really unhelpful
I value state continuity.
>i as a person living in the 21 century will act as the arbiter for what specific nominator this civilization shall be considered regardless of what they themselves considered
>>18026222The Roman Empire suddenly didn’t end when Constantius II came to power, he didn’t rule much differently from Diocletian or Constantine. That’s just a completely arbitrary date >>18026296Different eras have really different things. Peter H Wilson has a general book on it. If you’re interested in the Salian and Ottonian periods there are biographies for just about every king. There’s a good biography on Frederick Barbarossa by John Freed. After the 13th century there is a lot less biographical works because the kings simply didn’t matter as much as they did before, the Great Interregrum destroyed royal power.
>>18025774It's pretty much impossible to describe what a Roman is by the "Roman people's" standards. It changed government type, religion, demographics, language, form of legitimacy, etc. multiple times during it's history. Earlier Romans would have defined it as the territories that owe allegiance to the city of Rome. After the empire got started being Roman was defined as following the Caesars, but the title had severe legitimacy issues on who a Caesar was, to the point where really you can only define it as someone who calls themselves Caesar and isn't successfully killed for it. If we don't care about what Romans considered Roman it gets a bit easier, as it's just largely about continuity of government, but that's a surprisingly murky issue. Because again, there's no continuity in Roman history of demographics, language, religion, government type, etc. and if you want to say that it's purely about continuation of government then it becomes nearly impossible to say that the Ottoman Empire wasn't Roman. It would just be Rome changing government, religion, population, etc. once again. Fuck not even the royal title stays the same in Rome, so you could say the Caliph was truly the new Roman emperor.But what most people do is ignore all that shit and "fuck it, we all know what a Roman is- it's a south Euro dude who speaks Latin and stuff", which ironically is the most clear cut and undebatable position to take. By this argument the Roman Empire is an empire run by those difficult to define yet easy to identify Romans, which doesn't leave much room for the Byzantines.Take your pick lads.
>>18026931>No continuity in government Outside of 1204 there was no single disconnect or rupture of the Roman state that destroyed the state. Reforming doesn’t make a new government
The only people who don't consider the Eastern Romans romans, are people who either don't understand historical states at all, people who unironically consume the medieval German propaganda, or people who only consume memes about history.Literally a reading about Procopius, Alexiad, the Strategikon of Maurice, Plethon or any other "byzantine" source created in any period when the empire was still alive will show you they considered themselves romans.
>>18027126>they considered themselves romans.Romanian also call themselves that. Is Romania the modern Roman empire?
>>18027133Do you even know why they are called Romanians?I'll give you a hint, which empire was in the area at the time of the first Romanian tribes, which was in the early medieval period?
>>18027126Historians who specialize in Byzantine history have no problem calling it that, its just the brownest spic turds on 4chan with no formal education who insist it was the "Roman empire".
>>18027146Bulgaria
>>18027151No, but close
>>18027152I am well aware of the origin of the name Romania, but you're point is a stupid one, they are no more the continuation of Rome than France or Spain. Your arguement that if someone calls themselves Roman they must be Roman is stupid, afterall the HRE also called itself Roman.
>>18026296https://youtu.be/ESEatUwMJ8I?si=Hj79CVZYh5WnUr4chttps://youtu.be/EtSmesfHYHM?si=ovEvTH78SLdf2qDo
>>18025774>>18025779>literally the same Roman state institutionally but they decided to write their documents in a different language so it's a different country Your low IQ is showing
Not only were they the Roman Empire, but they were the Roman Empire without barbarians. A purer version of Rome, if you will.
>>18027239India is institutionally the same as during the Raj, they've just changed the language used in documents India is the British empire
>>18027296India literally fought a revolution to separate.No, it isn't the same.
>>18027299India literally fought a revolution to separate.And lost. Greece also fought wars against Rome to, and lost. >No, it isn't the same.It's the exact same
>>18027301If India is still part of the British Empire why does it follow different policies over Ukraine and the Iran-Pakistan war?
>>18027312It's not a part of the British empire. It IS the British empire And in any case, even if there was another British empire around somewhere, it's not as if east and west Rome never disagree on anything or acted separately. And even back in the 1800s the government in Calcutta or Delhi often ignore what London wanted.
>>18027239>religiosly and culturally antithetical, meaning their values and traditions were opposed>same thing You're a liar.Christcuck shitholes have no right to the name of Rome.
Nearly everything that can be said about Constantinople can be said about Cologne - the capital of the HRE and where it's emperors were crowned>Named after Roman emperor Yup>Important administrative hub of the empire Yup>Capital of a breakaway autonomous portion of the empire Yup (the Gallic empire, Trier another major city of the HRE was also capital of a quarter of the empire during the Tetrarchy)>Areas rebuilt by Constantine the Great Yup>Housed the imperial family for a time, thus being the de facto capital of the empire YupThe HRE was essentially founded the same way as the Byzantine empire. Once unified Latin authority collapsed, locals took over regional administrative hubs (in one case Greeks, in the other Franks). In short both are equally successor states of the Roman empire
>>18027379The hre was essentially founded by franks like 200 years after the western provinces collapsed.It absolutely was not a direct continuantion, if at all.
>>18026296Heart of Europe is a good startnot chronological but still good
>>18027392No, they only received the imperial title 200 years later. The Frankish state was however a direct continuation of Rome. The Roman empire had been without an emperor before, so that in of itself does not make something not Roman.
>>18027379>>Important administrative hub of the empire Roman administration didn't continue in Cologne but it did in Constantinople >>Capital of a breakaway autonomous portion of the empireThe Eastern Empire wasn't a breakaway state though>>Housed the imperial family for a time, thus being the de facto capital of the empire There was no defacto capital other than Rome in the West and Constantinople wouldn't become one until the 5th century. >was also capital of a quarter of the empire during the TetrarchyThe Tetrarchs did not have capitals. They were constantly on the move. They had preferred residences but no 'capital'. >Once unified Latin authority collapsed, locals took over regional administrative hubs (in one case GreeksThat didn't happen at all. No authority collapsed in the East at all. Nor did authority just 'collapse' in the West, it was ejected out and destroyed by invading peoples. There was no more Roman administration in the post-Roman West outside of Italy. Even if you wanted to make some case like this you're still left with Latin speakers from Illyria and Moesia dominating the highest roles in government until the death of Justinian
>>18027398Imperial title which the pope had no right to give.Considering there was already an emperor.
>>18025774>kelt education
>>18027398>The Frankish state was however a direct continuation of Rome. How is a state which has no institutional continuity with the Roman state a direct continuation? >The Roman empire had been without an emperor beforeThe longest Roman interregnum didn't even last three months. And the Roman state was defined by the Senate, army and the people, none of which existed anymore in the West in past the 7th century.>so that in of itself does not make something not Roman.How can an emperor of the Roman state be made without a Roman state or any of the things which were actually used by the Roman state to make one official? Even Louis didn't even pretend that any of that mattered to him when being emperor. In a letter of his he legitimised his Roman title by the bravery of the Frankish people and the Papacy, even denigrating Michael II for being proclaimed by the Senate (as per Roman tradition) and not being made emperor by the Pope (which no emperor ever was)
>>18027399>Roman administration didn't continueDid too>The Eastern Empire wasn't a breakaway state thoughRegardless of how it separated from the central authority of Rome it did>There was no defacto capital other than Rome You're thinking of De Jure capital. The de facto capital changed quite often, especially in the late years of the empire. >The Tetrarchs did not have capitals. They were constantly on the move. They had preferred residencesRegardless of whatever terminology you woukd like to use, they had areas their administration was centered around. >That didn't happen at all. No authority collapsed in the East at all. I specified unified Latin authority. No doubt there's a better way to phrase it but I don't really care about that for a 4chan post. Regardless, the empire splintered and locals took over the leadership in the various roman administrations from the previous Latin elite. >>18027404Roman emperors were often appointed by the senate. At this point in time the Pope was elected by the people of Rome, so he had the same authority of the senate of old. >>18027411>How is a state which has no institutional continuity with the Roman state a direct continuation?It did though as seen through the survival of Latin as the administrative language, and the continuion of Latin offices and titles. True the church picked up much of the slack, but that was in of itself a Roman institution. >The longest Roman interregnum didn't even last three monthsI'm obviously talking about the republic >How can an emperor of the Roman state be made without a Roman stateSee above about the Pope/Senate
>>18027414>Did tooWhere? Show evidence that the Roman administration continued in the West outside of Italy as per usual.>it didHow? Nobody in the West thought so, no Roman thought so.>The de facto capital changed quite oftenThe official and real capital in most of the 5th century was Rome, there was no defacto capital in the 4th century as emperors didn't stay anywhere. The administration followed them.>they had areas their administration was centered around. Which didn't include a 'capital' >the empire splintered and locals took over the leadership in the various roman administrationsThere is no splintering in the East, office holders continued to hold their titles through the fall of the West without change.>At this point in time the Pope was elected by the people of Rome, so he had the same authority of the senate of old. So you're making up a connection which nobody believed in as justification. The Senate was more than just the people of Rome as well, it was made up of office holders and aristocrats across the Empire and it ceased to exist in the early 7th century.>survival of Latin as the administrative languageWhich has nothing to do with the actual institutions of the state.>and the continuion of Latin offices and titlesWhich are completely unrelated to the Roman offices. A Visigothic or Frankish Comes had nothing in common with a Roman one other than the vague sense the Germanic one also commanded soldiers, not Roman soldiers and they were also the head of the administration, which was completely adhoc and dependent on local communities as the local municipal councils ceased to exist after Roman rule and the Roman administration didn't exist anymore. There was no more Roman law courts either.>but that was in of itself a Roman institution. The Church had nothing to do with state administration.>I'm obviously talking about the republic The Republic had been defunct for 500 years by the end of Rome. It's irrelevant
>>18027476>Where? I already said>How? Nobody in the West thought so, no Roman thought so.Again, you're thinking of the de jure capital >The official and real capitalSo de jure? The emperor moved, the adminstration moved with him. Wherever that was the de facto captain was. >Which didn't include a 'capitalYou're entire argument here is one of semantics and you've said nothing of any real value. I don't care what terminology you want to use, the adminstrative facts remain the same. >There is no splintering in the East, office holders continued to hold their titles through the fall of the West without change.The offices continued everywhere. Office holders always change as people die. In the east the Latin holders died and they were replaced with greek ones. >So you're making up a connection which nobody believed in as justification.The pope believed in it. Charlemagne believed in it.>ceased to exist in the early 7th century.When the pope took over it's functions of the government of Rome, hence the successor to it's authority.>Which are completely unrelated to the Roman offices. A Visigothic or Frankish Comes had nothing in common with a Roman oneThey're the same offices anon, just a different office holder. Same as how the offices survived in the east when the Latins were slowly replaced by Greeks. >The Church had nothing to do with state administration.The church took on that role and begun to fill previously administrative offices. >The Republic had been defunct for 500 years by the end of Rome. It's irrelevantThat's cope anon, Rome is not the emperor, it is the state. If the Roman empire could exist without it before, then it could again.
No, it's just you, most of the western world, Turks, Russians...
>>18025774>greek languagegreek was pretty much lingua franca around the roman empire, even after the decline of the western part greek was still a international commerce language. The roman patricians spoke the language and wrote in greek>greek culturethe eastern provinces were more greek than roman even during the times of the unified empire, roman culture also was greatly influenced by greek culture>orthodox christian religionthe state religion of the roman empire
>>18027404>Imperial title which the pope had no right to giveIf the patriarch of Constantinople had the right and according to Quinisext Council the Patriarch of Constantinople is second place, it simply follows that the Pope had every right to give away the Imperial title especially when the throne was unoccupied.
>>18027591what about the bishop of Ravenna? after all it was the imperial capital of the western empire
>>18027526>I already saidNo you didn't, actually. You provided no evidence other than the title being the same, which means nothing.>the adminstrative facts remain the same. What administrative facts? You're just making shit up.>The offices continued everywhereThe entirety of the Roman legal system, Magisters, Praetorian Prefectures, tax collection system, Dioceses, municipal councils, the military and administrative counts all ceased to exist outside of Ostrogothic Italy. All of these continued to exist in the East without any change to their roles or discontinuation. You used Counts as an example, who were either military commanders of a professional army which did not exist anymore, so that can't be it, or they were members of the Praetorian Prefecture or managed the Imperial estates, which also no longer existed. So what do post-Roman Counts actually share with Roman ones?>In the east the Latin holders died and they were replaced with greek ones. Locals had been holding the majority offices in the East since the 3rd century with Diocletian's reforms. >The pope believed in it. Charlemagne believed in it.No they didn't.>When the pope took over it's functions of the government of Rome, hence the successor to it's authority.That doesn't make any sense. The Senate is more than the council of Rome and was tied to the state, unlike the Papacy.>They're the same offices anonThey are the same offices, but they just ceased to exist for decades, were recreated and had completely different roles and the majority of them never returned.>That's cope anon, Rome is not the emperor, it is the stateIt is the state. But mentioning the Republic is completely retarded. It has no relevance to the later Roman Empire.>If the Roman empire could exist without it before, then it could again.What the fuck are you talking about? The Republic ceased to exist because the Roman state became an Empire. Either you are trolling or are actually retarded.
>>18027591>If the patriarch of Constantinople had the rightThey didn't. The Patriarch was inferior to the Emperor. The Emperor chose the Patriarch, not the other way around. No Roman or Byzantine Emperor was ever chosen by a churchman.>>18027603Ravenna was a temporary residence of Honorius. It acted as his capital but no other emperor after him did the same. They lived in Rome instead.
>>18027608>Charanis has pointed out that throughout Byzantine history there are numerous indications that a patriarchal coronation alone conferred full legitimacy to an emperor. Thus in 1143, Manuel I Komnenos, although already crowned by his father, John II Komnenos, in the field, repeated the coronation upon his return to Constantinople. After the Fourth Crusade, Theodore I Laskaris, founder of the Empire of Nicaea, was unable to be crowned emperor until he had filled the vacant position of Patriarch of Constantinople; in 1261, the coronation of Michael VIII Palaiologos in Constantinople gave him enough legitimacy for the removal of the rightful dynastic emperor, John IV Laskaris, from power; in the civil war of 1341–1347, John VI Kantakouzenos crowned himself emperor in 1341 in the presence of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, but had to repeat the ceremony after his victory in the war, in Constantinople, after installing a willing patriarch there; and a few years later, the coronation of John VI's son Matthew Kantakouzenos as co-emperor had also to be postponed until a new, more pliable patriarch was found.[116] Another significant case demonstrating the leverage afforded a patriarch due to the necessity of a patriarchal coronation was the refusal of Patriarch Polyeuktos to crown the usurper John I Tzimiskes, who came to the throne by assassinating Nikephoros II Phokas in 969. Polyeuktos demanded that he cast off Phokas' empress, Theophano, who had conspired with Tzimiskes, reveal the name of the assassin, and repeal Phokas' laws restricting the autonomy of the Church, before consenting to crown Tzimiskes emperor.
>>18027616Your own passage starts with>conferred full legitimacy to an emperorNot with choosing the emperor. In all of these cases the Emperor was already the Emperor and the Patriarch was used for a crowning to bolster their legitimacy, not make them Emperor. Theodore was already Emperor, he just hadn't gone through the crowning ceremony. Nobody was doubting his position as Emperor, which he already held. Even in multiple of these cases it was the Emperor choosing the Patriarch to do the ceremony for him.
>>18027296Except Greekdom was a much more integral part of the Roman Empire. "Eastern Rome" was always Greek-speaking (and richer), even before the split. Using Scotland would be a better comparison.
>>18027629>conferred full legitimacy>choosing the emperorThere’s no legal distinction between these two things
>>18027642They were already Emperor and recognised as such. You didn't even read your own source.
>>18027629>>18027642Historically speaking being Roman was not a requirement for being an Emperor as there multiple non Roman Emperors. If the Patriarch can be seen as a source of legitimacy, then it simply follows that the Pope is also a source of legitimacy. I also can’t help but notice that you didn’t assert how the Emperor was chosen. If it was by the people of Constantinople, then Frankish Emperor are also legitimate as they were seen as Roman Emperors by the people of Rome. If it was by the Senate, then there weren’t any Emperors after Leo the Wise effectively made being a Senator an honorary position without any power.
>>18027666>Historically speaking being Roman was not a requirement for being an Emperor as there multiple non Roman Emperors.you're partially wrong, being ethnically roman or living in the city of Rome wasn't a strict requirement to be an emperor. But they have to be at the very least an imperial citizen. In the late roman empire they were many powerful barbarian generals on roman service and not a single one of them had the legitimacy to take the throne
>>18025774They were not an empire but a decadent reekjeet despotateUnironically the Ottomans had a much more Roman spirit than then (blobbing everywhere, Janissaries being akin to Praetorian guards, absolute power to the Padishah, Eyalets being literally the same as Pronoiars, etc...)
people look at how the Byzantines are different and go "Look! Look they're not wearing fucking togas and lorica segmentata!! not Roman!!" like culture doesn't change over time.The Western Romans in 475 were much different from the Romans merely 300 years before. Obviously the Romans 1000 years later are going to be way different. It's a series of slow gradual changes that add up over time. The English of 1950 are not the same as the English of 1150. Inb4 (but muh Greek!!!) the eastern provinces ALWAYS spoke Greek but nobody's saying the eastern half wasn't Roman in 395. If you're talking racial purity or whatever (only people from Latium are Roman!) then Aurelian isn't Roman either, along with many other emperors. Most of the people in the empire and who fought for the empire and kept it going weren't Romans, then. >>18027684this is partially true but their Arianism was also an important barrier
>>18027666>Historically speaking being Roman was not a requirement for being an EmperorBeing a Roman was in fact a requirement. Non-Romans did not become Emperors. You can point a Philip the Arab, who was actually called 'the Arab' as an insult after he died, he never called himself that. If you did not engage in the Roman state as a Roman you did not become Emperor. The only 'non-Roman' Emperor was Zeno who was thought of as an Isaurian by the people, and he tried as hard as possible to not associate himself with that identity. At no point does he ever even recognise it or describe himself as anything other than Roman.>If it was by the people of Constantinople, then Frankish Emperor are also legitimate as they were seen as Roman Emperors by the people of Rome. The 'people' was not just the people of Constantinople. While they were often the most relevant it was the Roman people as a whole which is meant by that. No matter where the Emperor made an appearance the people were expected to proclaim him as Emperor, it wasn't a one time thing and it wasn't just in Constantinople. Every member of the Roman state was expected to proclaim the Emperor in every public appearance he made. Many of the people living in the West just no longer even thought of themselves as Roman, or as part of the Roman state.>If it was by the Senate, then there weren’t any Emperors after Leo the Wise effectively made being a Senator an honorary position without any power.Senatorial proclamation by Late Antiquity was in reality a group of powerful office holders choosing who they liked best, it was in a way a lot closer to the proclamation expected from the army, but instead came from the administration. Of course top military officers were also Senators by distinction of their office. Only in the West was there still a powerful class of aristocrats who did not completely rely on their offices for wealth and power to distinguish themselves as important.
>>18027720Philip was mocked for being Arab and Christian by racially Romans, that's true
>>18027608>no other emperor after him did the same. They lived in Rome instead.This is a blantant lie
>>18027684>at the very least an imperial citizenWhich a majority of population was post Caracalla, and with the Franks having ruled Gaul for around 300 years in the time of Charlemagne, he would have likely had at least some Citizens ancestors if not Romans that were part of the aristocracy.>In the late roman empire they were many powerful barbarian generals on roman serviceIgnoring the political situation at time where power was divided between two courts, one in Ravenna and the other in Constantinople, to become an Emperor one would have required consent by the other court. Military power simply wasn’t as important as in the Crisis of the Third Century, it was all about political connections.>>18027720If think of Romanitas as a political identity see above, if you view it as ethnic then the example of Maximinus Thrax would be an example of a non Roman Emperors. His father was a Goth and his mother an Alan>Many of the people living in the West just no longer even thought of themselves as Roman, or as part of the Roman state.>the people living in Rome no longer viewed themselves as Romans>Senatorial proclamation by Late AntiquityWe’re talking about the early Middle Ages not Late Antiquity
>>18027858The main residence of Valentinian III was Rome, the shorter lived Emperors almost all came from Rome itself and were situated there, Majorian and Anthemius both lived in Rome. The only major one that didn't was Julius Nepos because he preferred his own Dalmatian lands which were loyal to him.>>18027897>Many of the people living in the West just no longer even thought of themselves as Roman, or as part of the Roman state.>the people living in Rome no longer viewed themselves as RomansThe first part is just true, these people simply did not think of themselves as belonging to a Roman state and many did not think of themselves as Roman anymore. Some did, but it wasn't really that many. And the second point is ignoring the entire second point I made. Proclamation as Emperor was not just based on a single one time one by a single city but on a constant one by all Romans. >We’re talking about the early Middle Ages not Late AntiquityThe Byzantine Senate in the Middle Ages operated almost the exact same as the one in Late Antiquity. The Senators were powerful office holders whom proclaimed the Emperor, even in the 12th century this remained the case.
>>18026296Check out History of the Germans
>>18025774Only american pop history fans think the Byzantines were "Roman".
>>18025774>Caracalla granted all inhabitants citizenship>Western empire with original latin inhabitants falls>Only remaining part is the eastern greek portion.>Maintain latin as an administrative language, but eventually cut the charade and just start using greek because that region had been primarily greek speaking since AlexanderThey are the direct continuation of the roman state which had split in 395. But reddit byzaboos get a massive stroke whenever you so much as insinuate there was any kind cultural or linguistic change in the empire. But at the end of the day, it became an empire of greek, aramaric, and egyptian roman citizens (later just greek/pontic) who managed to escape the shitshow that was happening in the west. They act like that "There is no war in ba sing se" meme but with the ERE, yet still have the gall to call the latins barbarians when discussing shit like the crusades. Byzaboos are beyond retarded, regardless, it is still the eastern roman empire (or rather, what was left of it for most of its history)
>>18025774>guaranteed replies
The Ostrogoths were the true successors of the West and the WRE fell with Justinian's invasion of Italy.
>>18030310I'll say if was the first attempt to reconcile and roman world with a germanic one. Theoderic the Great permitted the romans to keep their laws and custom while allowing his germanic followers to live with their own laws on the countryside
>>18030351the Romans always did great things when they worked together with Germans rather than fighting eachother. Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, the Varangian Guard, the First Crusade, etc.
>>18027239The Constantinoplitan empire had more in common with Ptolemaic Egypt than with the empire of Augustus.
>>18027334Constantine the Great won under the sign of Christ and established the greatest city of Europe until 1500 years laterHis seething nephew and your larpagan champion got a spear chucked through his chest and died like a bitch with no lasting legacy
>>18025774In the early centuries it was , Latin was the official language, later, with Anatolian regions dominating it became more Near Eastern in character with Greek becoming the official language.
>>18030690You don't know anything about any of those states though so your opinion isn't really relevant.
>>18030744FUCK OFF CHRISTKEKWODANAZ WOLVES WILL DEVOUR YOU ON THE DAY OF RAGNAROK
It's pretty far removed from the Republic, but so was the Western Roman Empire. Are we comparing an era where the city of Rome was a literal ruin at one point, and an era where the Pomerium meant something?
>>18030744Wrong and irrelevant. Christians are still subhumans who cannot create a worthy empire and must steal the glory of Rome.
>>18025774It just seems like you’re not very bright and haven’t even read much about any history whatsoever. You seem like someone who struggles with his schoolwork.
>>18026033See this just shows us that OP is a guy who has difficulty reading and maintaining his attention.
>>18025774Belisarius got a full on Roman trimph after he defeated the Goths, they were absolutely Roman
