Building of New Rome took 6 years, from 324 to 330. It was more than just a new name put on a place, it was a huge construction and logistics project. The intention was to build a new Imperial capital in the East, you cannot do that by simply saying so. Think of how much work Atatürk needed to do to make Ankara a proper capital city.You only mean in name, right?
Careful - I suggest you do not throw around derogatory and pejorative slurs such as this so casually.
What's funny in just stating the obvious truth? Do you find gravity or spherical shape of Earth funny as well?
Did you read the rest of my post? I explain what I meant by that. You may disagree, if so you could explain your counter arguments.
So they wanted to be called Romans, that's why they said to people who called themselves Romans that they are not Romans, anymore
Wow, a lot to unpack here.
True only in the most general sense. The Ottoman state was composed of multiple "nations" (millet) identified by their religion and language. Turkish Muslims and Greek Orthodox Christians were the main (or core) "millets." In a sense, the Ottoman Empire was a Turkish-Greek empire with today's terminology. The demographics of Roman lands didn't change immediately just because the head guy is now a Muslim, and Byzantines vs Ottomans was a political struggle rather than an ethnic or religious one.
Ottomans took over a lot of laws and state instutitions from the Byzantines. They started keeping state records, history, etc. One can suggest that they became a proper "state", which they went on and named "the Grand State." It is such a pivotal point that from then on we call it the "Ottoman Empire." It was much more of a continuation of the Byzantines than a continuation of the Ottoman Beylik. But at the end of the day it was neither.
It changed a lot
Yeah. It was some rant about "Byzantines destroying their legitimacy themselves".
How could you justify Justinian's actions then? He conquered Roman successor states with Roman citizens that recognized him as Emperor. It was his actions that broke the sense of a common Roman identity, specially in the Italian peninsula, where people couldn't understand why was the Emperor attacking them, as they viewed themselves as Romans at the time.
Lol
True, it wasn't just renaming. A lot of stuff got built in the city; some of them among the most brilliant structures of their age.I know, no worries; I am from "the City"
I agree, also with "Roman Empire" as opposed to "Eastern Roman Empire." But if this is going to be a thing, then similar options should exist for at least the other major states of the time. (I think that's what they are going to do, anyway.)
Was this "recognition" as good and effective as direct control?
Yeah, my initial post almost implied that the Byzantion was razed and Constantinople built there... or Constantinople built next to Byzantion... that's nto what i intended to say. I should have been clearer on the get-go.Lol
That's why I was confused. But reading it again it isn't necessarily what the post says so that's ok.
he liberated Roman citizens from barbaric oppression, and it should also be remembered that the Germanians were mostly Arians and persecuted the orthodox. in Italy and Africa, Roman forces were hailed as liberators
thousands of colonists from the west were brought to Constantinople, the city was mostly Latin-speaking, This actually changed only after the massive influx of Greek-speaking immigrants from Syria and Egypt after the Arab conquest. the empire abandoned Latin as its official language only after the loss of Dalmatia and Africa for the same reason
If the Ottoman conquest looked like the Mongol or Manchurian conquest of China, where the invaders adopted the language and culture of the conquered, I would agree with you, but it wasn't like thatSo they wanted to be called Romans, that's why they said to people who called themselves Romans that they are not Romans, anymore
Wow, a lot to unpack here.
True only in the most general sense. The Ottoman state was composed of multiple "nations" (millet) identified by their religion and language. Turkish Muslims and Greek Orthodox Christians were the main (or core) "millets." In a sense, the Ottoman Empire was a Turkish-Greek empire with today's terminology. The demographics of Roman lands didn't change immediately just because the head guy is now a Muslim, and Byzantines vs Ottomans was a political struggle rather than an ethnic or religious one.
Not everything changed with respect to laws and customs, either. millets (except Muslims) had autonomy and were ruled by their respective religious leaders. So subjects of the Greek Orthodox Church were under the rule of their patriarch. They had their own laws, lands, etc. This meant that they continued some laws and customs from the Byzantine Empire.
Ottomans took over a lot of laws and state instutitions from the Byzantines. They started keeping state records, history, etc. One can suggest that they became a proper "state", which they went on and named "the Grand State." It is such a pivotal point that from then on we call it the "Ottoman Empire." It was much more of a continuation of the Byzantines than a continuation of the Ottoman Beylik. But at the end of the day it was neither.
It changed a lot
"Thousands of colonists" lol
The language and culture of Byzantine Empire was not the same as the Roman Empire. So does this logic apply there as well?
