[Poll DONE RIGHT]Is the 'Byzantine Empire' a continuation of the Roman Empire?

Is the 'Byzantine Empire' a continuation of the Roman Empire?


  • Total voters
    451
Uhm...did...did you even read what you linked?
"I also conceded that the Italians living in Latium today are likely the same people genetically"
What?
That's where you said it. So again, I'm going to have to ask... where's the break?
At some point between the 7th century and the 9th century A.D
Now I will ask you a similar question, when did the Franks become French? Let's see if you can find a specific date like you dare me to do (which is impossibile) if it's that easy.
2) You keep calling the Latins barbarians. No doubt, if the Romans saw the Byzantines they'd say the same thing.
You will agree that according to the Roman definition post Caracalla, that people who don't live in the Roman Empire are non-Roman barbarians correct?
In fact, they weren't considered barbarians by the Byzantines until later. If yo look at earlymedieval documents, they were referred to as Romans after Odoacer.
Give me a quote and a date. That statement is far too vague for me to make any kind of rebuttal.
3) No. Constantinople was the heartland of the ERE.
Really, last time I checked Constantine moved the capital there when he was sole emperor (not Eastern Emperor SOLE Emperor) in 330 A.D. According to you the Roman Empire ended in 395, so yes after 330 the heartland of the Roman Empire was Constantinople and it would remain as such for a subsequent 1000 years.
5) There it is. Latin isn't a foreign language. Latin was their language. Greek was the alien language and many aristocrats learned it (but not all).
Heraclius changed the language of the Roman state from Latin to Greek via legal edict in 620. From that point onwards the language of the Roman state was Greek, case closed, argument over.
Are you really saying that Cicero would agree with the Byzantines that his language was barbaric and scythian?
He probably wouldn't but I honestly don't care because it's irrelevant.
 
@Lee-Sensei :

Just. Leave. The. Site.
I know little about Rome. But I do know that harassing a user brings no particular benefit whatsoever to the forum. So, if you (and this is 'you' generally, not Dragos Cel Mare specifically) are making this thread unduly aggressive, please do stop.

And to be frank, I consider it posting in bad faith if you're tagging users to posts personally attacking them.

E: DCM deleted his post, good on him.
 

Red Orm

Banned
There is no one specific year! The process of becoming a different people is so gradual you can barely tell it is happening until it is already done! What was the year when Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders stopped being British and became those things? There is no answer! It happened slowly.

So like how the Romans eventually became Greek, instead of remaining so until 1453.
 
I know little about Rome. But I do know that harassing a user brings no particular benefit whatsoever to the forum. So, if you (and this is 'you' generally, not Dragos Cel Mare specifically) are making this thread unduly aggressive, please do stop.

And to be frank, I consider it posting in bad faith if you're tagging users to posts personally attacking them.

E: DCM deleted his post, good on him.

Should I delete my other post above yours' as well?
 
6) You're muddying thee waters here. Latin was the language of the Romans. Greek was the language of the Greeks. You can call Greek the Roman language if you want, but there's no comparison. Latin was to the Romans, what French is to the French or Russian is to the Russians. Latin was their language.
No, Greek is to Latin what French is to English. Greek loaned many words and even an alphabet to Latin.
 
The alternative answers are ambiguous. For instance, someone might answer that it is not a continuation, because it IS the Roman Empire. Personally I choose to understand this as meaning that it is a continuation.
 
For instance, someone might answer that it is not a continuation, because it IS the Roman Empire.

Thanks for the question.

Of course it was. This is the reason why I voted NO! There was no byzantine empire or even a division of the roman empire in East and West. Such shit never happened. Not in roman times. It happened amongst historians more than 1000 years later. A successor of the roman empire is fully impossible! Because it existed in every manner you can imagine until the Fall of Constantinople. Well, perhaps a little bit earlier.

There was always just one roman empire. The one and only roman empire. We may discusss seriously, if it fell 1204. But everything earlier is just pure nonsense.

Of coure some guys who define "roman" not the political way, like ancient romans always did, but the rassistic way, which I thought was obsolete after WW2 amongst historians, might disagree.

Honestly, from the point of view of e.g Augustus, there is no doubt, that a so called Byzantines of the year 1000 AD were romans. The city of Rome and Italy became so unimportant during the 3rd century. No need to discuss about that with modern racists. Not for Augustus and not for me.

Some guys here in this thread tried to define roman in a ethnological, geographical and cultural manner. But this is ecxactly, what the roman never did. Everybody who got the roman citizenship was a roman. No matter how and why. Actually "Integration" into roman culture or any ethnological proximity was NEVER really needed for roman citizenship. All you needed was patronage.

So everybody, trying to argue with such modern terms, is just sooo fully wrong and misled.
You have been a roman, because somebody decided, you are one. No matter what. Simple like that.
 
Last edited:
Top