Byzantium vs Eastern Roman Empire?

[Doxapar Orumf]

It's not a single historian, it's the historical consensus of the majority of historians, who regularly use "Byzantine Empire" as a valid name for the polity because it's deemed correct and descriptive of what it's referring to. If two thousands years from now the historian community will see it fit to come up with a new name for historical Prussia, that's going to be the name used in historical analysis for their time.

And yelling "corruption" because you don't like or fail to properly understand what historical research has concluded is just childish behaviour.

about historians-in recent centuries huge chunk of "historians" was propagande workers,and many parts of history was successfully falsified by them,
Today majority of "historians" recieve funds from government or political organizations to write custom history,
And to describe nowadays historians-there are words...very very good bad words that can describe their existence,and they are pests, who recieve
government(country) money to lie in your face.
And i will not talk more with a person,who curve conversation to push his saying,disregards facts and praise historians pests,by this,advocating for lie and
deceivement, and father of lie is satan.

 

[Moppy771]

It's not a single historian, it's the historical consensus of the majority of historians, who regularly use "Byzantine Empire" as a valid name for the polity because it's deemed correct and descriptive of what it's referring to. If two thousands years from now the historian community will see it fit to come up with a new name for historical Prussia, that's going to be the name used in historical analysis for their time.

And yelling "corruption" because you don't like or fail to properly understand what historical research has concluded is just childish behaviour.

No one is confused by what's meant with the term Eastern Roman Empire and it's arguably more descriptive.

Better than a weird term that was popularised among the same historians who prefer to call the golden age of the Eastern Roman Empire "the DARK ages" because they don't know what was happening in Romano-Celtic-British-Mercian-Anglo-Saxon-England at the time. They like the idea of "Rome" dying with the start of their dark ages despite everyone calling the Eastern Roman Empire Roman and the people who lived there Roman and the people themselves calling themselves Roman a thousand years after the 5th century.

Appealing to authority isn't going to work.

 

[A Pink Duck]

No one is confused by what's meant with the term Eastern Roman Empire and it's arguably more descriptive.

Better than a weird term that was popularised among the same historians who prefer to call the golden age of the Eastern Roman Empire "the DARK ages" because they don't know what was happening in Romano-Celtic-British-Mercian-Anglo-Saxon-England at the time. They like the idea of "Rome" dying with the start of their dark ages despite everyone calling the Eastern Roman Empire Roman and the people who lived there Roman and the people themselves calling themselves Roman a thousand years after the 5th century.

Appealing to authority isn't going to work.

The ERE is certainly a descriptive name and likely wouldn't cause confusion. Although personally, I think Byzantine sounds better.

Isn't "The Dark Ages" falling out of fashion? Not just because of the ERE but also because we are discovering way more cultural and technologic flourishing going on elsewhere in Europe.

 

[viola]

No one is confused by what's meant with the term Eastern Roman Empire and it's arguably more descriptive.

There seems to be ample confusion actually, because we constantly have people here who have decided to interpret the name "Byzantine Empire" as deliberately denying the Roman character of the state, when this hasn't been the case in centuries, and the actual experts in the fields clearly think otherwise on what's adequately descriptive.

Better than a weird term that was popularised among the same historians who prefer to call the golden age of the Eastern Roman Empire "the DARK ages"

They don't.

I don't think any modern historian takes the term "dark ages" any seriously, if not in a purely technical term when referring to periods of history that lack historical records compared to other periods of history, like the Greek dark ages after the Bronze Age Collapse.
Either way, no one calls the Middle Ages "the Dark Ages" seriously anymore, maybe in the '90s pop history and even then the historiography was already past that.

Appealing to authority isn't going to work.

To convince other people, maybe.
I really don't care about convincing though. The matter of the fact is that the actual experts of the field, a group of people you don't belong to, have determined otherwise, and your opinion on the matter, lacking any sort of credentials, is simply worthless. Just like my own personal musings on physics and the nature of the universe are irrelevant and worthless to the field of physics, so are your ramblings about "true" Romans and outdated ideas of what you think historians believe.

Believe what you want. It literally doesn't matter.

 

[BugStupidDummy]

A very vague idea upon which your entire point rests. And even then it's still just the emperor with a Serbian aristocracy.

The native Greek institutions were also famously involved and supportive in the administration of the Ottoman Empire, but that didn't translate into the Ottomans just being a Turkish dynasty of a Roman Empire. As much as you want to fanfiction about Serbs being the new head of Eastern Rome, the conditions for that do not exist in 1337 as I already explained. It would take many centuries and a lot of assimilation of literally being ruled by Eastern Rome as an integrated province, only then to coup the Greeks much later while being subjects of them, for what you're suggesting to be possible.

Had Dushan taken Constantinople it would be seen universally as a Serbian Empire by everyone else and their citizens. The Russians famously attempted to also be seen as the "Third Rome" but we all know that was seen by everyone as a larp. Greeks had been Romans for more than 1000 years, Romanians saw themselves as literal Romans. Serbs by and large did not see themselves as Roman, neither did Russians.

I agree, I was wrong in thinking of how else it could have turned out mainly because I was trying to come up with an empires survival scenario without them actually winning.

 

[BugStupidDummy]

The ERE is certainly a descriptive name and likely wouldn't cause confusion. Although personally, I think Byzantine sounds better.

Isn't "The Dark Ages" falling out of fashion? Not just because of the ERE but also because we are discovering way more cultural and technologic flourishing going on elsewhere in Europe.

"The Dark Ages" is falling out of fashion, although there are historians very seriously pushing back against the revision, for example Bryan War Perkins talks extensively about tech and quality of life lost, and to say nothing of trials by ordeal, rise of illiteracy beyond the very high levels of the Roman Empire due to warrior aristocracy replacing qualified magistrates etc.

Western Europe wasn't flourishing during what has traditionally been called the dark ages.

Actually Eastern Roman Empire wasn't flourishing either, I wouldn't wan to be Roman when the Persians show up to extract a labor force to be deported into Persia for use on the King of Kings estates. Neither do I think very many of them longed for their trade links being lost and their wealth and quality of life declining dramatically.

Even ignoring the depopulation that accompanied the Fall of the Western Roman Empire the Dark Ages are not a good time to be alive even by the low standards of most of human history.

 

[Superdark33]

what if corrupt "historian" invent words to describe a country and nation?Totally never been(roman empire and byzantium)..
Anyway i dont want to continue this dispute.Or ill get brainrot...

You keep saying "corrupt" and "politics", what do you mean by that? Who are the "historians" driven by what "corruption" to use the name Byzantine Empire trying to emact what sort of "political" belief?

 

[A Pink Duck]

"The Dark Ages" is falling out of fashion, although there are historians very seriously pushing back against the revision, for example Bryan War Perkins talks extensively about tech and quality of life lost, and to say nothing of trials by ordeal, rise of illiteracy beyond the very high levels of the Roman Empire due to warrior aristocracy replacing qualified magistrates etc.

Western Europe wasn't flourishing during what has traditionally been called the dark ages.

Actually Eastern Roman Empire wasn't flourishing either, I wouldn't wan to be Roman when the Persians show up to extract a labor force to be deported into Persia for use on the King of Kings estates. Neither do I think very many of them longed for their trade links being lost and their wealth and quality of life declining dramatically.

Even ignoring the depopulation that accompanied the Fall of the Western Roman Empire the Dark Ages are not a good time to be alive even by the low standards of most of human history.

For sure. Flourishing may have been an overstatement. But it also wasn't the post-apocalyptic hellscape where everyone wore drab brown and could only watch as the remains of Rome's grandeur collapsed around them that it's often portrayed as. They were still making art and writing things and building things.

 

[BugStupidDummy]

You keep saying "corrupt" and "politics", what do you mean by that? Who are the "historians" driven by what "corruption" to use the name Byzantine Empire trying to emact what sort of "political" belief?

The history of how it became the Byzantine Empire is itself interesting.

The "Byzantine" Empire was actually seen positively when the term came into existence. It wasn't even the term that brought it into disrepute in the West. Louis XIV loved the Eastern Roman Empire and the Enlightenment thinkers despised the Eastern Roman Empire. There is no evidence for the term "Byzantine Empire" originally being coined to deny the Eastern Roman Empire was Roman (it clearly was and if you brought Hieronymus Wolf the man who coined the term back from the dead he would be surprised people deny it).

Anyone pro-enlightenment hated an empire that they saw as the originator of exactly the current values they opposed in their own day while kings like Louis XIV absolutely loved it (his favorite Roman Emperor was Justinian). The hatred of enlightenment figures who considered the Byzantines to be the basis of everything they hated, alongside the apparent love of figures like Louis XIV for them conspired to remove their Roman identity in the eyes of people who saw the Romans as something to be revered, not the absolutist despots who came up with the foundations of what was wrong with Europe in their own day.

That said the term predated the turn of western public opinion against the Eastern Roman Empire during the enlightenment, prior to the enlightenment the Eastern Roman Empire had a good reputation in the west with the first of the alt history genre being how a truly chivalric group came to Constantinople, their leader married the princess and in turn saved a great empire with great wisdom under a great wise and just emperor. In other words Renaissance Europeans invented alt-history in order to imagine the empire surviving to their day. The culprits for how the reputation declined, and people started denying their real identity belongs to the enlightenment not the 16th century.

 

[BugStupidDummy]

For sure. Flourishing may have been an overstatement. But it also wasn't the post-apocalyptic hellscape where everyone wore drab brown and could only watch as the remains of Rome's grandeur collapsed around them that it's often portrayed as. They were still making art and writing things and building things.

Well Europe was depopulated without plague so that depends on definition of post-apocalyptic.

Trade links that had made Europe prosper got destroyed by the end of the Rome causing all of Europe Eastern Roman Empire included to undergo major declines.

Even on building you find quality declines dramatically.

Art quality is opinion and dark age Europe loved aesthetics so I will agree there although the no-art is more Hollywood and was never part of historiography. Even in Hollywood you find that is more late 20th century, go back to the 1950s and you could find very beautiful European Dark Age settings with everyone looking very good (and being actually intelligent in the movie).

There is still a belief that the end of the Roman State resulted in illiteracy going up a great deal.

So depends on your definition of post-apocalypse but living through the Dark Ages was much worst than what came before or after so I am fully with Bryan Ward Perkins in thinking the term Dark Age is still useful.

That the Europeans saw the Roman Empire as a better period I think speaks for itself.

Hollywood definitely exaggerated what the Dark Ages meant by doing the ridiculous by say depicting Europeans not knowing how to count, but I don't see why that should eliminate a useful and accurate term.

Similar to how Renaissance shouldn't be eliminated because Hollywood depicts Renaissance people as modern surrounded by barely human peasants (i.e. in Da Vinci's Demons you find obviously enlightened upper class Italian Renaissance people know homosexuality is just a difference people have in sexuality not to be feared while those evil horrid peasants you could find a mile outside of Florence in every direction wants to burn them).

Hollywood fails every historical period.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

The correct answer here is Byzantine Empire, for the obvious and only valid reason that it sounds cooler.

I'm quite sure that those who use Eastern Roman Empire are also the sort of socially awkward people who start too many sentences with "Well, actually..."

As in:
"Can I have a Coke please?"
"Well, actually, that name is rather misleading. You see, it was originally coined as a reference to the French coca wine due to the presence of cocaethylen in the drink, but as that ingredient has since been removed, its no longer a truly appropriate name. Furthermore it.... um... wait... where are you going? Why does no-one want to talk to me? Do you still want you cola flavoured beverage?"

 

[Keksburg]

"Can I have a Coke please?"

No thanks. I prefer Pepsi.

 

[Koopatin]

No thanks. I prefer Pepsi.

you monster!

 

[Ulpia Batavorum]

Truly gamebreaking decision to be made, as if anybody wouldn't know it is that purple part on the map that gets eaten by the green blob no matter what name Tinto slaps on this purple part.

My solution for Johan is to have a team member pick between Byzantium and Eastern Roman by picking a card, a second teammember pick one of two cards with either head or tails and just flip a coin to get the final result.

 

[BugStupidDummy]

The correct answer here is Byzantine Empire, for the obvious and only valid reason that it sounds cooler.

I'm quite sure that those who use Eastern Roman Empire are also the sort of socially awkward people who start too many sentences with "Well, actually..."

As in:
"Can I have a Coke please?"
"Well, actually, that name is rather misleading. You see, it was originally coined as a reference to the French coca wine due to the presence of cocaethylen in the drink, but as that ingredient has since been removed, its no longer a truly appropriate name. Furthermore it.... um... wait... where are you going? Why does no-one want to talk to me? Do you still want you cola flavoured beverage?"

You do realize the term Byzantine went from neutral pre-Enlightenment to a purely negative connotation enlightenment onwards right?

To most people you byzantine means a system of complicated procedures that have you speak to dozens of beaurucrats about a minor easily fixed issue and you are still at exactly the same place you started with no progress.

 

[A Pink Duck]

You do realize the term Byzantine went from neutral pre-Enlightenment to a purely negative connotation enlightenment onwards right?

To most people you byzantine means a system of complicated procedures that have you speak to dozens of beaurucrats about a minor easily fixed issue and you are still at exactly the same place you started with no progress.

What I'm hearing is that the true, correct name should be "DMV Empire" then

 

[bokorthedust]

To most people you byzantine means a system of complicated procedures that have you speak to dozens of beaurucrats about a minor easily fixed issue and you are still at exactly the same place you started with no progress.

Which sums this thread up perfectly, and hence should lend the name to the in game country

 

[Immortal Impi]

Scholars use Byzantine for legacy reasons. It's hard to change names in academia and trying can be seen as annoying, egotistical, and pretentious, because not everyone in the field will agree and then there's a semantic breakdown. These days half the books about Byzantium spend the preface apologizing for using Byzantium as the name, when it's actually the Roman Empire, but it's too confusing and etc. It's just easier to say Byzantine than Latter Roman Empire or Eastern Roman or whatever.

 

[Doxapar Orumf]

Scholars use Byzantine for legacy reasons. It's hard to change names in academia and trying can be seen as annoying, egotistical, and pretentious, because not everyone in the field will agree and then there's a semantic breakdown. These days half the books about Byzantium spend the preface apologizing for using Byzantium as the name, when it's actually the Roman Empire, but it's too confusing and etc. It's just easier to say Byzantine than Latter Roman Empire or Eastern Roman or whatever.

But they could name it roman,explain in the beginning and later,but little,that byzantium is name used in 15 century by hre,and go by that.
True historian will no use politically driven forged name.

 

[Doxapar Orumf]

65 pages....that is.......so low,when this thread will got 165 pages?
Clearly bad job,dissapointing,needed to post more actively.