Byzantium as THE Roman Empire

And yet we still call the Republic of China (Taiwan's) citizens Chinese. Similarly it was still the Empire of China when ruled by the Yuan or Qing (neither a Han dynasty).
The Yuan and the Qing were strong states, the Yuan were bigger than the Song and the Jin, and the Qing were bigger and stronger than the Ming.
 
You're dodging the point.


Yeah actually. That's the whole point of vernacular. Now tell me, should we erase "Persian Empire" from our vocabulary in favour of Eranshahr? How about getting rid of Hungarian in favour of Magyar (after all we wouldn't want to slander the Magyars as Huns)? How about dropping Georgia in favour of Sakartvelo?
On the first point no the basis of the Roman Empire was cultural not ethnic, so this is precisely the point. Secondly the point of vernacular may well be to simplify it is not to wilfully mislead by for eg saying that for eg the Inquiition burnt witches (a popular belief but untrue) or that the puritans fled England to escape persecution (another popularly presented scenario) but again totally untrue, . They left in order to be free TO PERSECUTE. Again the vernacular is no excuse for indulging ignorance and stupidity ie the idea that vaccines cause autism . on the second point there actually is a case for using the terms above as they are in fact motre accurate. ..
 
The Yuan and the Qing were strong states, the Yuan were bigger than the Song and the Jin, and the Qing were bigger and stronger than the Ming.
Yes and i would call them Chinese too But in the European context the Eastern Roman Empire for much of its history was although fallen from the heights still a large and rich state. If one argues that The Roman State ceased to be Roman simply because it reduced in relative size and power surely then Britain and France are no longer British or French, having undergone the same process. Of course this is nonsense and so it is with Rome.
 
On the first point no the basis of the Roman Empire was cultural not ethnic, so this is precisely the point.
First off, I never brought up ethnicity, please refrain from strawmannirg.

Second off,
The point about Rome was that to a large extent it was not about subjugation, in the longish term,. Citizenship was hardly limited to italians
This is an argument that reduces Rome to an exclusively civic entity. Now you're trying to argue that Rome is explicitly cultural (and somehow that culture isn't Latin).

Please cease moving the goal posts and present a consistent argument.

Secondly the point of vernacular may well be to simplify it is not to wilfully mislead
What's so misleading about calling it Byzantium? It accurately reflects the geographic reality of the empire, and pretty well everyone understands what it refers to.

I'll also note how you've completely dodged my question about your opinion on other states similarly "mislabeled" in vernacular.
 
First off, I never brought up ethnicity, please refrain from strawmannirg.

Second off,

This is an argument that reduces Rome to an exclusively civic entity. Now you're trying to argue that Rome is explicitly cultural (and somehow that culture isn't Latin).

Please cease moving the goal posts and present a consistent argument.


What's so misleading about calling it Byzantium? It accurately reflects the geographic reality of the empire, and pretty well everyone understands what it refers to.

I'll also note how you've completely dodged my question about your opinion on other states similarly "mislabeled" in vernacular.
I am going to end this discussion as you appear to be unable to understand or accept an answer unless it sagrees with your preconceptions. I have not moved the goal posts. It is my position that Rome and the Roman Empiire were cultural constructs, not ethnic ones, that that construct evolved over time but retained the essential "core" of that identification, and that peoples or cultures have the right to define themselves, and that definition has nothing to do with the size or power of tbe relevant state Finally i did not actually dodge the question on the names of other states i specifically said that i actually dont think the Persian Empire is the correct term, how is that dodging?.
This is because there has never been such a thing as a Persian. (unlesss you are referring to rugs or cats) btw. And finally since when was being a civic entity incompatible with being a cultural one. I think the Republique Franchaise might want a word with you about that.
 
and that definition has nothing to do with the size or power of tbe relevant state
Strawman, I've said nothing to the contrary.

i specifically said that i actually dont think the Persian Empire is the correct term, how is that dodging?.
You're welcome to command F the bellow, you won't find Persian Empire in it.
On the first point no the basis of the Roman Empire was cultural not ethnic, so this is precisely the point. Secondly the point of vernacular may well be to simplify it is not to wilfully mislead by for eg saying that for eg the Inquiition burnt witches (a popular belief but untrue) or that the puritans fled England to escape persecution (another popularly presented scenario) but again totally untrue, . They left in order to be free TO PERSECUTE. Again the vernacular is no excuse for indulging ignorance and stupidity ie the idea that vaccines cause autism . on the second point there actually is a case for using the terms above as they are in fact motre accurate. ..
I apologise for overlooking your final sentence though, maybe it wouldn't have happened if you didn't spend most of your post equating the use of the term Byzantium with perpetuating the Black Myth, genocide apologia, and being an anti-vaxer.

And finally since when was being a civic entity incompatible with being a cultural one. I think the Republique Franchaise might want a word with you about that.
It's not, you're the one who made the reductionist argument that citizenship was the sole matter determining who was Roman.
 
Yes and i would call them Chinese too But in the European context the Eastern Roman Empire for much of its history was although fallen from the heights still a large and rich state. If one argues that The Roman State ceased to be Roman simply because it reduced in relative size and power surely then Britain and France are no longer British or French, having undergone the same process. Of course this is nonsense and so it is with Rome.
Apples and oranges.
 
The Roman Empire was the empire where Romans live. The subjects of Byzantium identified themselves as Romans till the last day. Their Roman identity continued even under Ottoman rule.

Whereas subjects of the HRE did not have such an identity ( except for inhabitants of Rome).
 
Would France that fights on from Algeria still really be France? But not in 1941 or 1945, but in say 2145 or 2245?

At least that's my opinion. Roman Empire can exist just fine without Britania or even Hispania, but not without Rome/ Italy.
Actually, if you think about it, France is named for the Franks, a Germanic nation. But French people don't speak Frankish, and Aachen (the seat of Charlemagne's court) is not located in France at all. But no one disputes the name "France" for this country.

I dunno - you get people saying Sublime Porte for the Ottoman Empire.
"Sublime Porte" normally refers not to the empire, but its government.
 
Last edited:
Actually, if you think about it, France is named for the Franks, a Germanic nation. But French people don't speak Frankish, and Aachen (the seat of Charlemagne's court) is not located in France at all. But no one disputes the name "France" for this country.
No, I agree. But, I don't think that today's France puts a lot of the forte on it's Frankish "origin".
 
It's like India and other colonies of the UK continuing to call themselves as British Empire, with maybe having the (Southern) Ireland as well. Without ruling any of the UK or white dominions.
 
Emperor Michael III actually called latin barbaric and Pope Nicholas called him out on for bashing the language of the Romans while calling himself the Emperor of the Romans.
 
Last edited:
The Roman Empire was the empire where Romans live. The subjects of Byzantium identified themselves as Romans till the last day. Their Roman identity continued even under Ottoman rule.

Whereas subjects of the HRE did not have such an identity ( except for inhabitants of Rome).
At what point did people in Western Rome stop identifying as Romans? The Senate even continued to exist into the 7th Century AD.

Actually, if you think about it, France is named for the Franks, a Germanic nation. But French people don't speak Frankish, and Aachen (the seat of Charlemagne's court) is not located in France at all. But no one disputes the name "France" for this country.

"Sublime Porte" normally refers not to the empire, but its government.
I don’t think that I’ve ever seen a French person called a Frank. I’ve seen them called Gallic or Latin though.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone here believe that Byzantium at some point stopped being the real Roman Empire and turned itself into a wannabe? I perceived that the great majority of the forum admire the Byzantines and would even argue against this name choice, but there's anyone here who would say that the empire centered around Constantinople at some point wasn't really roman anymore but just Greeks pretending to be Romans? Want to understand both sides of the argument.

Please, don't turn this into a Byzantium-HRE comparison, its obvious that the Byzantines had more legitimacy than the HRE, that's not the point.
Looking at the previous posts I can say that yes there are some who consider the East, Greek, or Byzantine Romans as not being "real" Romans at some point in their history.
It seems the arguments centre around the transmission of Roman civil and religious authority and how legitimate said transmission is, including post facto/jure legitimatisation, and how exclusive/divisive the transmission can be.
 
I don't think there is a single point where "Rome" ends and "Byzantium" begins. Certainly there are no breaks in continuity at least until 1204. I generally call it "Rome" until the Arab Conquests and "Byzantium" after, but that is just to prevent confusion. It is not a statement of the legitimacy of the Roman state or anything like that.

I guess if you look for a singular date, you're just not going to find one. The Roman Empire evolved very gradually and were its territory to still encompass Rome I'm sure there would be no reason not to call it Rome. A lot of the traditions and trappings of the Roman Empire survived all the way to 1453.
 
At what point did people in Western Rome stop identifying as Romans? The Senate even continued to exist into the 7th Century AD.


I don’t think that I’ve ever seen a French person called a Frank. I’ve seen them called Gallic or Latin though.
Not exactly Frank (franc) but français is very clearly a derivative term.
 
Emperor Michael III actually called latin barbaric and Pope Nicholas called him out on for bashing the language of the Romans while calling himself the Emperor of the Romans.
So? What’s got language to do with anything in a pre-modern setting?
At what point did people in Western Rome stop identifying as Romans? The Senate even continued to exist into the 7th Century AD.
Who said that the people living in Rome weren’t Romans? As far as I understand, the matter in dispute is whether Charlemagne and his successors are to he considered Roman emperors and whether the Papacy inherited the imperial authority of the Western Empire. I personally think that both are bullshit, but Rome Romans didn’t just disappear from Rome and neither did they stop being Romans, at least until the final defeat of the Rome Commune.
 
At what point did people in Western Rome stop identifying as Romans? The Senate even continued to exist into the 7th Century AD.


I don’t think that I’ve ever seen a French person called a Frank. I’ve seen them called Gallic or Latin though.
They most certainly do and are called Franks both historically and today. Gallic notions were post-nationalistic understandings, they are political in nature and in some ways, a cope for the failure of France to truly fulfill its destiny as Lords of Europe as Pierre Dubois once spoke of in 1298. In other words, it is an acceptance of an insular relation to its other historic partners, namely Germany, Italy, Middle Francia, etc...

The Frankish identity was inherently a universal rendering by the Middle Ages surely. Even as a byword in other lands, it referred to a united Europe, such in the Arab world or some of the sensational Papal praising of the Empire and Crown of France.

Latin too, is more or less co-equal to Frankish at least on the continent. Through the medieval era, the Papacy never once distinguished between the crown that Clovis I wore in 509 and that of the kings of Paris. Nor did they understand the French tongue as a new tongue different from Frankish (same goes for the forms of German then common). This seems odd, but it is due to most western audiences being unfamiliar with the idea of true cultural intermingling and fusion. What occurred in post Western Imperial France and Germany, was a German to Latin version of what occurred in ancient Mesopotamia between Akkadian, Sumerian and lower Hurrian. They absorbed together and became indistinguishable to the folk at the time.

The difference, the break of the Papal universal rule over Europe, the decline of universal entities within Europe (the Empire, Angevin Realms and traditional French/West Francian kingdom) and its repudiation, led to new cultural movements, that instead of affirming older notions of cultural fusion and universality, embraced cultural and societal localism and a thin veneer of commonality. Such cultural assertions never existed in ancient iraq, hence if one looks to the records, one finds legitimately no difference or point to break Akkadian from Sumerian or vice versa except in strict and meaningless linguistic categories.

@funnyhat this goes for you as well regarding your recent posts on the topic.
 
Last edited:
So? What’s got language to do with anything in a pre-modern setting?

Who said that the people living in Rome weren’t Romans? As far as I understand, the matter in dispute is whether Charlemagne and his successors are to he considered Roman emperors and whether the Papacy inherited the imperial authority of the Western Empire. I personally think that both are bullshit, but Rome Romans didn’t just disappear from Rome and neither did they stop being Romans, at least until the final defeat of the Rome Commune.
You think this, but others do not. Do not purport your position to be the clear cut truth of matters. At least have the nuance to recognize that in the year 760, there were different opinions on the matter and choose a preferred position. Rather than labeling things as ‘bullshit.’
 
Top