why is it even an argument whether or not the Byzantine empire was Roman? they were literally the Roman empire, they weren't even a successor state.when Rome was "split", nobody viewed it as two separate empires, it was a single empire ruled by two, sometimes more, emperors. The only reason we portray it as two empires is for convenience's sake and simplicity. Arguments like "they didn't hold Rome" or "they didn't speak Latin" are completely irrelevant, it was quite literally the same empire that Augustus founded The absolute most you can say is that 1204 was the permanent end of the Roman empire, but the empire very much existed before then
>>18063193>t. wants to be ruled by a w*man who blinded and murdered her own sonWhat kind of Roman are you bruder?
>>18063193It's the difference between the real thing and a despotic LARP.Let me guess, all the slavic "tsars" in the Middle Ages were really "Caesars" right?
>>18063193History major here. The big thing is well because they didn't speak fucking Latin. I would argue that the Early Byzantine Empire was certainly Roman. But remember Belissarius was the last General to recieve a Roman era triump. Just as Rome changed a lot from Principate to Dominate, the Byzantine empire changed alot from its early days to the Post Justinian era. I feel like after Justinian the Byzantine Empire began to feel like its own culture.
>>18063193>why is it even an argument whether or not the Byzantine empire was RomanFor the same reason we call the principate empire rather than republic.
>>18063304>But remember Belissarius was the last General to recieve a Roman era triumpTriumph's in the Imperial period for anybody other than the Emperor essentially did not happen at all, Belasarius was exceptional because he got one. It was an exception to the norm, in normal imperial tradition it would be Justinian heading the triumph.
>>18063304>Just as Rome changed a lot from Principate to Dominate, the Byzantine empire changed alot from its early days to the Post Justinian eraOkay, so? You can as well argue that it was no longer Rome after Diocletian, or Octavian because the system changed. But it's like arguing that France stopped being France when it became a republic.>The big thing is well because they didn't speak fucking LatinLatin remained the official court language until Heraclius. Afterwards the Empire was limited to Greek-speaking territories only so keeping Latin just for the sake of it would be nonsensical.
>>18063193Trolls and people that are influenced by Gibbons' writings
>>18063304>Rome is when you speak Latin
>>18063304>The big thing is well because they didn't speak fucking Latin.why does this matter? being Roman isn't dependent on what language you speak. If under Hadrian Rome just abandoned Latin, would they no longer be Rome? It's just an arbitrary qualifier that isn't based on anything
>>18063193https://youtu.be/Okph9wt8I0A?si=MyTnJN7B19eJ30PLIt’s kind of like when your favorite show has a good few seasonsBut then the main character leaves and the show carries on for a few seasonsIt’s the same showIt just feels differentI’m Basque/Sicilian but still a big fan of ByzantiumMostly because of Constantine I and his legacy
>>18063193It is absolutely cope. The Western Roman Empire itself had political changes and by the end was unrecognizable from the Empire of old. People who try to deny the Eastern Roman Empire are coping based on vibes and illegitimate claims.
Are the modern French full-tilt Franks? No.Is France the continuation of Francia, or the Frankish Empire? Unfortunately yes.For some reason people have a different relationship with Rome and Byzantium.
Hi, I am trying to learn about Roman History and I've started to listen to Mark Duncan's History of Rome. Can anyone recommend a few books, that I could read in parallel to the podcast?Generally, I am trying to learn more about Ancient History, Antique Greece and Ancient Rome. I am a Germanfag, so german book recommendations are fine as well.Also, does anyone have a few tips on how to retain all the information better in the long run? I have a terrible memory and I don't want to forget everything I've read. I appreciate any help and recommendations.
>>18063304>History major hereStopped read there. Opinion discarded.
>>18064354Hello anon. Duncan is good if you are just getting started but really surface level normie stuff. My favorite Roman historian is Adrian Goldsworthy. You honestly can't go wrong with any of his novels but I particularly enjoyed his biographies of Caesar and Augustus. His military history of the Punic wars is incredibly in depth. His more recent work on Rome and Persia was the most interesting history book I have read all year. Peter Brown is another good historian. Tom Holland, a bit of a reddit historian writes some good pop history. And for me, I still believe Gibbon is required reading, but I wouldn't start with him if you are only at the Mike Duncan phase.As far as retaining what you learn, for me it's reading the same period of history from different authors. Also you will generally retain what you find interesting.
>>18064354>Can anyone recommend a few booksPrimary sources, unironically. Ancient authors tend to be very clear and skilled writers. Polybius is one of the greats. Plutarch's Parallel Lives is good for biographies on many of the main actors of Republican history. Appian covers the period of the civil wars very well nearly up to Actium. Sallust and Caesar are great (seriously, read Caesar). Tacitus is just as good as Polybius in terms of writing and covers the entire Augustuan period as well as the year of Four Emperors. Otherwise like the other anon said, Adrian Goldsworthy has some pretty readable books on the Romans. Any specific period and I could give a better answer.>I have a terrible memory and I don't want to forget everything I've read. I try to conceptualise what I read into their main arguments. You just aren't going to remember the details off the top of your head outside of recalling them when you get reminded, but you probably can with the arguments of a given work. It's also a lot of just reading as much as you can, things don't stick in your head until you do it over and over again. There's a good reason people can spend decades studying single periods.
>>18064775>>18064819thank you both for the recommendations, I've written down the authors and will look them up. For now, I am trying to get a general oversight over the Roman History.I've actually read Commentarii de Bello Gallico (a german translation) last year and thoroughly enjoyed it, which got me even more interested in Ancient warfare. I think I will take notes of the podcast's episode and the various things I've read with Obsidian or something similar.
>>18065070There might even be some good historians writing in German. I would avoid Mary Beard, injects too much of modernity into her arguments. Not many historians do a general history, it's more specialized. If you have Audible, I recommend the Great Courses.
>>18064624Yeah m8 you should only get your opinions on ancient and Medieval European history from Pre-Med dropouts and guys who work as truck drivers for a living and get their historical knowledge from r/HistoryMemes and 5-minute quick snappy summary videos.
>>18063448Having Romans in your empire is a pretty significant part of being a Roman Empire, and the Romans spoke LatinIf I was going to get a Danish Empire off the ground, I better make sure there's at least some Danish-speaking Danes on the team. It would embarrassing for the Danish Empire to speak Malay and be made up entirely of Malaysians
>>18065362>Having Romans in your empire is a pretty significant part of being a Roman EmpireAnd the Byzantines were Romans. Being Roman isn't speaking Latin, unless every person that ever spoke Latin in history was Roman.>It would embarrassing for the Danish Empire to speak Malay and be made up entirely of MalaysiansYou are completely confused on what it means to be Roman then. Roman isn't a race or language, if you were a citizen of Rome, you were a Roman.
>>18065419NTA>if you were a citizen of Rome, you were a Roman.That's how it works in Denmark these days too, but it doesn't make it true.
>>18065427nationality vs ethnicity. You're comparing a modern nation state to a state founded in the iron age
>>18063193why is there a sudden uptic of this fuckin subject lol, was reading somthing about this in vg before I went to bed, wake up go here and this is the first thing i see
>>18065419this shit woudve been weird back in the day no? like italians would eventually just forget/let go that they were the original roman civilization/population, while in the east you had the greeks continuing as the last vestiges of the actual surviving roman empire
>>18065429>you're comparing a modern knife to a knife made in the iron ageYes. Refute the point if you like.
>>18065419>if you were a citizen of Rome, you were a Roman.Not even the Romans thought that. This is some civil nationalism projection onto a people who did not believe it. To be a Roman you had to be ethnically one, being a citizen never meant being a Roman.
>>18064775seconding this, Goldsworthy is gold-worthy
>>18065504Nta but you're arguing that only Latins originating in the city of Rome specifically are worthy of being called Romans? Or maybe from surrounding towns too? Surely not all ancient Italians I hope, with all their Greeks, and Gauls and Samnites?
>>18065492our notion of nationalism is a pretty modern idea
>>18064354>how to retain all the information betterTake notes on highlights of the periods you are studying. It helps jog the memory. It does not even really need to be that substantial, but it helps. Bullet points even.
>>18065504>>18066062stop trying to apply modern nation-state logic to ancient Rome you fucking retards. Roman isn't a racial ethnicity. Being a citizen of Denmark and being Danish are two different things, one is dependent on the government and the other is based on your DNA. Yes, being a citizen of Rome made you Roman. When the western half of the empire was overrun by barbarians, it didn't suddenly make the eastern half no longer Roman.
>>18066572>Roman isn't a racial ethnicity.It was actually. That's how they defined themselves.>Yes, being a citizen of Rome made you Roman.According to literally nobody in antiquity. Armenians, Isaurians, Samaritans, Jews and Numidians were all Roman citizens and nobody ever pretended like they were Roman. Because being a Roman citizen did not make you a Roman. You are telling us that we are applying modern logic to the past when that is what you are doing yourself. >When the western half of the empire was overrun by barbarians, it didn't suddenly make the eastern half no longer Roman.Because these people believed themselves to be ethnic Romans. They didn't base their Roman identity on their citizenship, they did so based on their supposed ancestry.
>>18066584>It was actually. That's how they defined themselves.it wasn't, being born from Roman citizens did make you a Roman citizen by birth, but there isn't much beyond that. Rome wasn't a nation-state for the Roman ethnicity, it was an imperial power where being "Roman" changed over time. By the 3rd century, just not being a slave in Rome made you a citizen.>According to literally nobody in antiquity. Armenians, Isaurians, Samaritans, Jews and Numidians were all Roman citizens and nobody ever pretended like they were Roman. Because being a Roman citizen did not make you a Roman. You are telling us that we are applying modern logic to the past when that is what you are doing yourself. Being a Roman citizen did mean you were Roman. You're hearing "Roman" and trying to apply modern racial logic to an ancient identity. Why do you consider the other people of the Italian peninsula as Roman when they were only considered Roman when the definition expanded? >Because these people believed themselves to be ethnic Romans. They didn't base their Roman identity on their citizenship, they did so based on their supposed ancestry.In the sense of ethnicity as we see it today, no. It literally was not about ancestry. The Byzantines for example, knew they were the descendants of the ancient Greeks by blood, but they still considered themselves Roman, because Roman isn't a race.
>>18066598>Being a Roman citizen did mean you were RomanAnd absolutely nobody believed this in antiquity, by the way.>You're hearing "Roman" and trying to apply modern racial logic to an ancient identityThe Greeks and Romans had a remarkably similar view on race as we do today. It was viewed as a largely immutable part of who one was and included things which we abandoned during the 20th century, like race imbuing one with certain characteristics. Plutarch's ideas about the Romans revolves around his heavily especially in regards to education, in that they had to learn Hellenic culture and education but even as they are not Greek it is not an inbuilt part of who they are and cannot be taken for advantage, as it would for a Greek.>Why do you consider the other people of the Italian peninsula as Roman when they were only considered Roman when the definition expanded? These people already believed they shared ancestry and culture and talked of an Italian race which encompassed them. Becoming Roman was easy for them to reconcile because they already shared the ideas that they were connected peoples by ancestry. People further out adopted this same reasoning that they shared an ancestry in an attempt to legitimise their Roman identity.>The Byzantines for example, knew they were the descendants of the ancient Greeks by blood,They absolutely did not. The first appearances of such rhetoric come from a small group around the 13th century Nicean court. They quite literally believed themselves to be ethnic Romans by their ancestry. That their race was that of the Latins and ancient Romans, not the Greeks. They were wise to the meanings of Hellenic as well as both an ethnicity and religious term which they rejected in both ways. Constantine VII even comments on a community which referred to themselves as Hellenic and disproved of it as he believes that their ancestors were the ancient Romans, and explicitly not the Greeks.
