Since there was no Byzantine equivalent of 2.28 and White Terror, and no Mainland Roman elites elevated at the expense of the Greek locals, the Byzantines never ceased to identify themselves as Romans.
[POLL] Is the Byzantine Empire a continuation of the Roman Empire?
- Thread starter Stolengood
- Start date
- Status
Of course it's China. It's the legitimate government of the entire country.
In technical legal terms, maybe. In practice, I'd say that the cultural and political changes brought about by the crisis of the seventh century were such that the Empire after that period ought to be considered as one of the successor states, rather than the same entity as that ruled by Romulus and Augustus.
(For that matter, I'm not entirely sure that in practical terms the Empire from Diocletian onwards ought to be considered the same as that ruled by Romulus and Augustus, due again to the huge political and cultural changes it underwent.)
(For that matter, I'm not entirely sure that in practical terms the Empire from Diocletian onwards ought to be considered the same as that ruled by Romulus and Augustus, due again to the huge political and cultural changes it underwent.)
Justinian II's reign of terror is comparable minus the last point.
Well... yes, why not? We are used to see historiographic names (Byzantine, Eastern Roman, Nicean, Latin, etc.) as if it was the the official name of the states and the policies, but it wasn't, once Theodosius divided the Empire, he didn't create two states, the Roman Empire was simply ruled by two guys within their respective zones of authority. The Western half collapsed later and the Eastern remained the sole ruler of the Empire.
"But they were Christians!", so was the unified Empire since Constantine, "they didn't rule from Rome!", so did Constantine, also after him Rome never was the capital again, "they spoke Greek, not Latin!", Greek was already a very influential language since the Republic, but now the Empire ruled a land that was predominantly Greek, so nothing more natural than the government to adapt to it's ruling demographic, or were the Franks not Franks by the time of Charlemagne?
"But they were Christians!", so was the unified Empire since Constantine, "they didn't rule from Rome!", so did Constantine, also after him Rome never was the capital again, "they spoke Greek, not Latin!", Greek was already a very influential language since the Republic, but now the Empire ruled a land that was predominantly Greek, so nothing more natural than the government to adapt to it's ruling demographic, or were the Franks not Franks by the time of Charlemagne?
Thats how I think of it, but better articulated than I have ever been able to do.
1) They were a different kind of Christian. The Eastern Church deviated significantly from the Roman Church and the gap between the two grew until the official split in the 10th Century.
2) It's more than just Rome. In the Golden Age the Italian peninsula was considered the hearland of the Empire. That's why it wasn't a province It was considered an extension of Rome itself and the Provinces existed originally as colonies to be exploited for the benefit of the Governors and the Italy.
3) Greek was important, but not as important as is often implied today. What's more, Greek wasn't the official language in any way. It ws official policy to keep Greek out of official documents and the Senate. Tiberius chastised Roman politicians for using Greek loanwords.
Empires evolves folks , it influence his surrounding and get influenced by his neighborhood. For exemple the iconoclast ? Probably because of Islam.
Stolengood
Banned
In case anyone was wondering... yes, the two Nos were on purpose. 
(Because I'm sick of hearing about Byzantium, to be frank [no pun intended], and how it WAS THE ROMAN EMPIRE, ZOMGS!!!, U GUYZ, F'REAL. Seriously. It damn well was fucking not.)
(Because I'm sick of hearing about Byzantium, to be frank [no pun intended], and how it WAS THE ROMAN EMPIRE, ZOMGS!!!, U GUYZ, F'REAL. Seriously. It damn well was fucking not.)Well, someone saw a connection between this topic and Hitler's referendum.
Oh. Oh, we're gonna play this game, huh?
Alright, fine. I motion that the United States of America hasn't existed since the 1860's. Both the political shift from state to federal government and the social changes the civil war brought, plus the succeeding demographic shifts from immigration during the late 1800's, the rise of unions and other effects from the industrial revolution, and the eventual creation of a full-time professional military marks the creation of a brand new state that in no way resembles the union established in 1776.
And as long as I'm unraveling the very fabric of spacetime, I also motion that France is really Germany and that since evolution is an ongoing organic process, species don't exist and we're not human.
Alright, fine. I motion that the United States of America hasn't existed since the 1860's. Both the political shift from state to federal government and the social changes the civil war brought, plus the succeeding demographic shifts from immigration during the late 1800's, the rise of unions and other effects from the industrial revolution, and the eventual creation of a full-time professional military marks the creation of a brand new state that in no way resembles the union established in 1776.
And as long as I'm unraveling the very fabric of spacetime, I also motion that France is really Germany and that since evolution is an ongoing organic process, species don't exist and we're not human.
Last edited:
- Status