Byzantium vs Eastern Roman Empire?

[Saat98]

Wait wait wait. I see that this is quite an intense discusion, but we didn't take the time to properly commemorate that this thread has arrived to the 1337 posts, the start date for our amazing secret Proyect Caesar. So, congratulations for all of you for this intense, passionate discussion!

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Thanks, the greeks are not romans

Medieval Romans tend to disagree and I prefer to believe rather them than you.

The other way? If the byzantines are romans because the greek empire is the successor of the roman empire, are the russian (TODAY!!!) soviets?

It's difficult when you mix improper terms like the "Greek Empire" (it was never a "Greek Empire") and consider Soviet Union as something completely different from other stages of the evolution of the Russian state with "soviets" apparently living there instead of Russians and all other ethnicities.

But ok.

Imagine a Russian family, living in Moscow under tzar Nikolai II. They were Russians.
Times change, bolsheviks won the war, there's Soviet Union now.
This family still lives there. The state is called Soviet Union now, but they never ceased to be Russians and never replaced their identity with "Soviets".
Soviet Union fell apart, there's Russian Federation now. This family still lives in Moscow. Nothing changed, they are still Russians, as they were 50 and 100 years earlier.
They experienced switching to a successor state two times but remained who they were - Russians.


Now the Roman state.

There was a Greek family, living in Byzantion (let's play as Greeks here ) under the reign of Hadrian. They spoke Greek at home and considered themselves citizens of Byzantion (their polis).
Caracalla said, that all free people in the empire are now Roman citizens. Therefore our Greek family from Byzantion acquired Roman citizenship and became Roman citizens. They still spoke Greek at home.
Hundred years later Constantine I arrived and renamed their city to Constantinopolis. Family members had the Roman citizenship for 100 years by now. Therefore they call themselves Romans now, but speak Greek at home (though maybe they learned a bit of Latin, why not? It was probably helpful sometimes).
Another hundred years passed. Theodosius died, Arcadius ascends to the throne. They still live in Constantinopolis. They consider themselves Romans, as everyone else around. They speak Greek at home.
More than 100 years passed again. Justinian builds Hagia Sophia. They still live in Constantinopolis. They consider themselves Romans. They speak Greek.
500 years passed. They still live in Constantinopolis. They still consider themselves Romans and speak Greek.
204 years passed, barbarians captured the city. They still consider themselves Romans and don't want to call themselves "Latins" or "Genoese" or whatever else. They speak Greek.
Few decades passed, Constantinopolis was reclaimed by Romans. They still live there and still speak Greek, while still considering themselves Romans, because few decades wasn't long enough to switch culture for them.
200 years of considering themselves Romans passed and finally Mehmed the barbarian captured the city. This time there was no Romans anymore to reclaim it. They still considered themselves Romans and still spoke Greek.

What happened next? Two possibilities:

They still considered themselves Romans and kept Greek language (there was a lot of people speaking Greek in the Ottoman Empire)
They adopted Ottoman culture and after some time became Turks.

Before that at no point the chain was broken. Since acquiring the Roman citizenship and becoming Romans - they did not lose it in any way. The state continued to exist and wasn't replaced by something foreign. That happened only in 1453 and that's where succession breaks.

Again, the death of Theodosius is the broadly accepted historic moment for the starting of the process that would lead the eastern empire to be a greek empire. It's not that hard to understand

No, the historic moment for the starting of the process that woud lead the Eastern Roman Empire to be a Roman Empire - the sole survivor of the Roman empire (when there's no "western" there is no need for "eastern" anymore). It's not that hard to understand.

If you have a cake, cut it in half and eat half of it - the other half is still a cake, it won't become spaghetti just because of it.

I'm sorry, did you miss the entire fourth crusade and the Latin empire?

And did you miss the so called "Empire of Nicaea" which was the direct continuation of the Roman Empire? It wasn't something completely new. It's not that people living there considered themselves Romans and the next day suddenly said to themselves "oh, okay, we're not Romans anymore, we're Nicaeans now". They were still citizens of the same state, just the imperial court was temporarily located in Nicaea now and not in Constantinopolis.

 

[Ispil]

I mean, if we really want to be pedantic...

 

[Lele]

Medieval Romans tend to disagree and I prefer to believe rather them than you.



It's difficult when you mix improper terms like the "Greek Empire" (it was never a "Greek Empire") and consider Soviet Union as something completely different from other stages of the evolution of the Russian state with "soviets" apparently living there instead of Russians and all other ethnicities.

But ok.

Imagine a Russian family, living in Moscow under tzar Nikolai II. They were Russians.
Times change, bolsheviks won the war, there's Soviet Union now.
This family still lives there. The state is called Soviet Union now, but they never ceased to be Russians and never replaced their identity with "Soviets".
Soviet Union fell apart, there's Russian Federation now. This family still lives in Moscow. Nothing changed, they are still Russians, as they were 50 and 100 years earlier.
They experienced switching to a successor state two times but remained who they were - Russians.


Now the Roman state.

There was a Greek family, living in Byzantion (let's play as Greeks here ) under the reign of Hadrian. They spoke Greek at home and considered themselves citizens of Byzantion (their polis).
Caracalla said, that all free people in the empire are now Roman citizens. Therefore our Greek family from Byzantion acquired Roman citizenship and became Roman citizens. They still spoke Greek at home.
Hundred years later Constantine I arrived and renamed their city to Constantinopolis. Family members had the Roman citizenship for 100 years by now. Therefore they call themselves Romans now, but speak Greek at home (though maybe they learned a bit of Latin, why not? It was probably helpful sometimes).
Another hundred years passed. Theodosius died, Arcadius ascends to the throne. They still live in Constantinopolis. They consider themselves Romans, as everyone else around. They speak Greek at home.
More than 100 years passed again. Justinian builds Hagia Sophia. They still live in Constantinopolis. They consider themselves Romans. They speak Greek.
500 years passed. They still live in Constantinopolis. They still consider themselves Romans and speak Greek.
204 years passed, barbarians captured the city. They still consider themselves Romans and don't want to call themselves "Latins" or "Genoese" or whatever else. They speak Greek.
Few decades passed, Constantinopolis was reclaimed by Romans. They still live there and still speak Greek, while still considering themselves Romans, because few decades wasn't long enough to switch culture for them.
200 years of considering themselves Romans passed and finally Mehmed the barbarian captured the city. This time there was no Romans anymore to reclaim it. They still considered themselves Romans and still spoke Greek.

What happened next? Two possibilities:

They still considered themselves Romans and kept Greek language (there was a lot of Greeks speaking Greek in the Ottoman Empire)
They adopted Ottoman culture and after some time became Turks.

Before that at no point the chain was broken. Since acquiring the Roman citizenship and becoming Romans - they did not lose it in any way. The state continued to exist and wasn't replaced by something foreign. That happened only in 1453 and that's where succession breaks.




No, the historic moment for the starting of the process that woud lead the Eastern Roman Empire to be a Roman Empire - the sole survivor of the Roman empire (when there's no "western" there is no need for "eastern" anymore). It's not that hard to understand.

If you have a cake, cut it in half and eat half of it - the other half is still a cake, it won't become spaghetti just because of it.



And did you miss the so called "Empire of Nicaea" which was the direct continuation of the Roman Empire? It wasn't something completely new. It's not that people living there considered themselves Romans and the next day suddenly said to themselves "oh, okay, we're not Romans anymore, we're Nicaeans now". They were still citizens of the same state, just the imperial court was temporarily located in Nicaea now and not in Constantinopolis.

It's hard to argue with someone who completely ignores you in your point, last attempt than I'll have to assume you are a troll or you are just arguing to reach 1453 comments.
You are calling the people living under the byzantines emperors "roman" because the byzantine empire is the successor state of the roman empire. This is a fact, you are doing this. Now, there is the russian federetion that is a successor state of the soviet federation; my question to you is this: the people living in Russia today, do you consider the soviet citizen? Ethnicity is not a factor in this simple question

 

[Lele]

I mean, if we really want to be pedantic...
View attachment 1198796

Yeah, as I said the claim to be the roman empire from the greeks was only a political (maybe religius too) one

 

[Aquila SPQR]

I mean, if we really want to be pedantic...
View attachment 1198796

Nothing here says that Romans stopped being Romans (or, for those not accepting this - that "Byzantines" stopped being "Byzantines").

French haven't stopped being French and France was still France when they removed the head of the king.

Even if the procedure was not fulfilled to the letter - the state was still the same, and the citizens were still the same.

It's hard to argue with someone who completely ignores you in your point, last attempt than I'll have to assume you are a troll or you are just arguing to reach 1453 comments.

I don't ignore it - my replies are quite long. I simply disagree with it and provide arguments.

Reaching 1453 posts is just a fun goal after which all faithful will be lavishly rewarded by our God and Savior, Johan al-Gaib.

You are calling the people living under the byzantines emperors "roman" because the byzantine empire is the successor state of the roman empire. This is a fact, you are doing this.

Yep, but more precisely:

I am calling the people living under the Roman emperors (that was their formal title since forever) "Roman" (because that's how they were calling themselves) because the Roman empire is the successor state of the "ancient" Roman empire. That's a fact, I'm doing it, you're perfectly right.

Now, there is the russian federetion that is a successor state of the soviet federation; my question to you is this: the people living in Russia today, do you consider the soviet citizen? Ethnicity is not a factor in this simple question

You keep asking the same when I answered you at least two times already.

There are no "soviet citizens" now, as there is no Soviet Union. No Soviet Union = no soviet citizens.

At no point in history between 27 BCE and 1453 the Roman Empire ceased to exist. No Roman emperor came out and said "let's dissolve our Roman empire and call ourselves "Byzantine Empire" from now on." There was always part of good, old, ancient Roman Empire continuously existing. Therefore there were Romans out there as well.

"Roman Empire" never switched into "Byzantine Empire", therefore no Roman became "Byzantine".

It's just a term used by some people when referring to this polity at this particular time, nothing more. It has literally no impact on what the state or its people were officially called back then.

Do you see the difference now?

 

[Lele]

There are no "soviet citizens" now, as there is no Soviet Union. No Soviet Union = no soviet citizens.

Finally an answer, the argument is done. You are contradicting yourself as anyone who ever argue about the byzantines. Good luck about the 1457 comments.

(because that's how they were calling themselves)

False, some of them did, some didn't (A famous exemple is Anna Komnena, who identified herself as an "Hellene"); it was a political statement nothing more, nothing less

PS I'll stop reply to you, you're going circular with an argument I demontrate to be wrong

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Finally an answer, the argument is done. You are contradicting yourself as anyone who ever argue about the byzantines. Good luck about the 1457 comments.

Where exactly I'm contradicting myself?

False, some of them did, some didn't (A famous exemple is Anna Komnena, who identified herself as an "Hellene"); it was a political statement nothing more, nothing less

"It was a political statement, nothing more, nothing less"

Ah, ok, sorry.

I thought that people when asked who they are simply answer who they consider themselves to be but I haven't considered that simple fishermen or bakers will issue a political statement instead. Silly me.

PS I'll stop reply to you, you're going circular with an argument I demontrate to be wrong

You demonstrated nothing of that sort, only kept repeating the Soviet Union argument thinking it's a good one.
It isn't.

When asked about the "breaking point" you pointed to a wrong one (when it was still 100% Roman) and then insisted that "long process which changed it" (that's what you admitted) isn't just an evolution of one and the same state but "replacement".

You were so close, but you just refused to admit that this long process is, in fact, evolution. The same evolution that guided Rome from etruscan backwater through the early republic, late republic, early empire, crisis, late empire and then into medieval empire.

 

[Lord Lambert]

I always found people that argue about the terms usage are just trolling for engagement, and usually know they are wrong. Thanks to confirm this once again

Well just as with every other comment you've made in this thread, you are wrong

 

[Lele]

and then insisted that "long process which changed it" (that's what you admitted)

Man, I really don't want to write a wall text while being called silly every other post so I'll be very short (and sorry about possible spelling or gramatical errors, I'm not very fluent in english):
Like many events in history it was not a clear cut separation, the rule of Arcadius more than the death of Theodosius did start a series of reforms and cultural changes that will completely de-romanize the eastern empire. Their reign also started the rivalry (not a completely right term tbh) between Rome and Costantinople marking the end of great cooperation. To me personally the order to destroy all pagan temples is a great exemple of the deromanization he started.

I said it in one of the first comment, I din't "admit" (lol) it I just explained. The death of Theodosius is the event usually indicated as the separation of the byzantine from the roman (and I agree). It wasn't a clear cut process but a long one. I still can't understand how you can't understand this simple statement
Yeah sorry this is the last comment (I hope), I really can't stand when people accuse me of changing what I wrote

 

[Lele]

Well just as with every other comment you've made in this thread, you are wrong

Oh no, the funny man on the map game forum said I'm wrong... I'll have to revaluate my entire life

[I really think you're funny in most of your videos, I'm not making fun of you. ndr]

 

[viola]

"Soviet people" were not an ethnicity/culture. In the Soviet Union there were Russians, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and so on.

"Romaness" wasn't an ethnicity or culture either, if you insist on using the legal status of Roman citizenship as the benchmark for what constitutes a "roman" instead of concrete ethnic and language lines. "Roman" in the sense of citizenship means exactly the same as a "Soviet" citizen, and it's merely a legal status, while "Roman" in the sense of ethnicity refers to something else and it's very specific.

The Roman ethnos originates in Central Italy and spoke Latin, while the dominant ethnicity of the "Roman-Empire-Of-The-Medieval-Period-Except-The-Part-When-The-Crusaders-Occupied-Constantinople", also known as "Byzantine Empire" for convenience, was, in fact, very much Greek. People originating from the Hellenic and Hellenized parts of the Eastern Mediterranean (the Greek peninsula, Constantinople, Anatolia, Egypt, parts of Southern Italy).
Roman citizenship, on the other hand, is a legal status, that exists regardless of ethnicity and language. It's a matter of law, and anyone from Nubia to Caledonia could be elevated to Roman citizenship if whoever was in charge felt like it. The Byzantine Empire was the direct continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire and thus it inherited its laws and legally acknowledged itself and its people as "Roman", although ethnically speaking it wasn't Roman at all. They literally weren't, it turned into a rather obvious Greek polity.

Indeed, there was this very interesting moment in history from the year 400 to 700, between the division and fall of the Western Roman Empire and roughly the reign of Heraclius, or possibly all of the 7th century, when the Roman State, that had been traditionally dominated by Latin culture with a greatly influential Greek side to it, lost its Latin territories and the centers of power solidified in territories that were culturally and linguistically Hellenized. Consequently the relevance of Latin slowly fade away in favour of Greek, and the "Roman" state of the Medieval period took a clearly Greek cultural character while still retaining the legal identity of the "Roman Empire".

To talk about this factual event that indeed happened, and you can notice it by the fact that after a certain point in time Greek becomes the only language used in the Empire while "Latin" starts being used a slur to talk shit about the Papacy and the Franks, historians use the name "Byzantine Empire" that very succinctly describes the legal entity of the Roman Empire in the period of time when it took on a Greek character in the Middle Ages, and was ruled from "Byzantium". It's truly a quite remarkable name in that it that it quickly describes the specific period and characteristics of the Roman period in that specific period. It seems fairly simple and uncontroversial.

Unfortunately, it seems this very simple and clear terminology is controversial to some people, who feel like we obsessively need to respect legal definitions of dead empires from the Middle Ages whose laws haven't held any weight in ages, and use the same generic term "Roman Empire" for the same polity spanning almost 1500 years of history because... They think if we don't use generic and vague terminology we'd be devaluing its "legitimacy". or something.

Because a murderous empire from the iron age, ruled by violence and wrecked by constant civil wars caused by a military completely out of control, has "legitimacy" now.

 

[Superdark33]

Because a murderous empire from the iron age, ruled by violence and wrecked by constant civil wars caused by a military completely out of control, has "legitimacy" now.

"Roman" "Legitimacy" was so important that the Byzantine Crown and Nobles preferred to fight each other and waste their armies on petty squabbles for a throne that barely ruled over more than one city, without care that those very territories they were losing provided them with the wealth and soldiers that they used to fight each other, leaving them even less prepared to defend tge territories they had left.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

Oh good, we are onto analogies, my favourite:

Lets start with: Same polity, different time, different aesthetics, different language, different culture. Useful breakdown. 'Same polity' is obviously wrong, but who cares, lets run with it. We take Roman Empire. We keep the same polity (Empire), we make use of the different culture (Change Roman to, lets say, something based on their different geography), and we end up with Byzantine Empire. Makes sense.

But if we're doing the 'everything is totally different but there is a loose common strand' approach, then we can enjoy that too. It means I get to call the USA the Western United Kingdom and Brazil gets to be Western Portugal. I'm sure no-one will disagree with that.

And I'm also going to demand a game rule that allows the Byzantines to be named the Ship of Theseus, because that is objectively the most correct analogy.

Its all moot anyway. Its been definitely proven by this thread that Byzantine Empire is one of the coolest names in history, and the Eastern Roman Empire is one of the dorkiest names ever. Which is all that really matters.

 

[Lord Lambert]

'Same polity' is obviously wrong, but who cares,

Well, you're wrong here lol

 

[Aquila SPQR]

I said it in one of the first comment, I din't "admit" (lol) it I just explained. The death of Theodosius is the event usually indicated as the separation of the byzantine from the roman (and I agree). It wasn't a clear cut process but a long one. I still can't understand how you can't understand this simple statement
Yeah sorry this is the last comment (I hope), I really can't stand when people accuse me of changing what I wrote

There was no "separation from the Roman state". Eastern part of the Roman Empire was the Roman state. As Roman as the western part. They were two parts of the same. When western ceased to exist - only eastern remained, and since then it's no longer necessary to add the "eastern" part to differentiate it from the "western".

"It was a long process"

Yes, there was a long process. The only difference is that you prefer to see some "separation", "de-romanization" or "replacement" there, as if Roman state was replaced by something completely else / became something completely else and I just say it's a simple evolution of the Roman state - because that's what it was.

As if "Roman" state is only when people speak Latin, wear togas and worship Jupiter in a temple with marble columns, so if those Romans become Christians they are not "true Romans" anymore.

"Romaness" wasn't an ethnicity or culture either, if you insist on using the legal status of Roman citizenship as the benchmark for what constitutes a "roman" instead of concrete ethnic and language lines. "Roman" in the sense of citizenship means exactly the same as a "Soviet" citizen, and it's merely a legal status, while "Roman" in the sense of ethnicity refers to something else and it's very specific.

Not quite. Perhaps in the beginning, but after some time "Roman" became one of the genos, like all other ethnicities surrounding them. In the XIV century Roman historian Nikephoros Gregorias complained in his book, surprisingly called "Roman history" that, during the reign of Andronikos III (1328-1341 - ideally during our start date), all people wore different types of hats - of Syrian, Serbian or Bulgarian type, and because of that “one could no longer tell whether a person was a Roman or belonged to some other genos.”

In short - to him Romans were a nation just as Serbs or Bulgarians.

In various lists of nations present in Roman documents - "Romans" are listed among other nationalities as one of them.

Even Latins noticed it. A text about Constantinopolis, written under their rule, says that "the City contained many gentes - Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Lombards, English, Dacians, Amalfitans, and Franks - but the Greeks occupied the largest and best part of the City."

Of course they couldn't force themselves to use the proper "Roman" term, but noticed that "Romans/Greeks" are one of the nations, not just "people having some legal status".

"Empire of Nicaea" also quarreled with Bulgarian empire over a city of Melnik. Both Romans and Bulgarians lived there. One of the Roman historians wrote about the speech given in that city:

“the emperor of the Romans has rights over us, seeing as our territory belongs to the empire of the Romans [...] moreover, we all originate in Philippopolis [they had been resettled in Melnik by a previous tsar] and we are pure Romans when it comes to our genos." while Bulgarians "wanted to side with people of the same race as themselves (homophyloi) and cast off the yoke of those who spoke a separate language (alloglossoi) the Romans for whom they harbored a deep hatred.”

Romans here are a nation, just as Bulgarians.

The Roman ethnos originates in Central Italy and spoke Latin, while the dominant ethnicity of the "Roman-Empire-Of-The-Medieval-Period-Except-The-Part-When-The-Crusaders-Occupied-Constantinople", also known as "Byzantine Empire" for convenience, was, in fact, very much Greek. People originating from the Hellenic and Hellenized parts of the Eastern Mediterranean (the Greek peninsula, Constantinople, Anatolia, Egypt, parts of Southern Italy).

That's another thing worthy of a mention here. If we wanted to be purists - only citizens of Rome and vincinity could claim "Roman ethnos". What about Etruscans? Sabines? Umbrians? Samnites? In the times of Constantine they were all long gone, romanized. People could have legends passed down from parents to children regarding their Etruscan heritage, but it didn't matter anymore. They were Roman. So, if some people insist on calling medieval Romans "Greeks" - should we apply the same logic and call majority of Romans according to the assimilated peoples?

And "Greeks"? What "Greeks" actually? A lot of "Byzantine" "Greeks" weren't ethnically Greek either. They came from Hellenized people of modern Turkey and other parts of the empire, as you mentioned.

Just as peoples of Italia were romanized and became Romans and peoples of Caria/Mysia/Anatolia and so on were hellenized and became Greeks - I see no reason to refuse the people who started to consider themselves Romans, both as citizens of the Roman state and Roman people, the right to consider themselves Romans. Especially since they lived in a Roman Empire after all, which you admit.

Unfortunately, it seems this very simple and clear terminology is controversial to some people, who feel like we obsessively need to respect legal definitions of dead empires from the Middle Ages whose laws haven't held any weight in ages, and use the same generic term "Roman Empire" for the same polity spanning almost 1500 years of history because... They think if we don't use generic and vague terminology we'd be devaluing its "legitimacy". or something.

Or the desire to use the original, historical terminology is controversial to some people, who feel like we obsessively need to deny others the use of those historical terms in a game about XIV century reality, because.... They think if we use them we'll all form a dangerous parasocial relationship with dead empires. or something.

Because a murderous empire from the iron age, ruled by violence and wrecked by constant civil wars caused by a military completely out of control, has "legitimacy" now.

All empires and even average states were murderous when they had the chance. Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian, Roman, Mongolian, British, French, Russian, Italian, Turkish, Japanese and so on and so on. I think you focus your attention on the Roman one a bit too much, trying to remind us how "murderous" it was, but that's your choice how you spend your free time.

 

[Streamlet]

This discussion is so funny to me, we don't get 70 pages of debate about whether Delhi should actually be called "Hindustan", or Naples "Sicily", because it's obvious to people that these aren't good historiographical terms.

Maybe I should start up a thread in the EU4 forum about whether "Mongolia" (ridiculous!) should be called "Northern Yuan" (their historiographical name) or "Great Yuan" (what they really called themselves during Taisun Khan's reign), we might as well be consistent! In fact I'd go a step further and call it "ᠳᠠᠢ ᠦᠨ"

 

[Baphomet enjoyer]

This discussion is so funny to me, we don't get 70 pages of debate about whether Delhi should actually be called "Hindustan", or Naples "Sicily", because it's obvious to people that these aren't good historiographical terms.

Maybe I should start up a thread in the EU4 forum about whether "Mongolia" (ridiculous!) should be called "Northern Yuan" (their historiographical name) or "Great Yuan" (what they really called themselves during Taisun Khan's reign), we might as well be consistent! In fact I'd go a step further and call it "ᠳᠠᠢ ᠦᠨ"

Byzaboos will always find a way to get special treatment for their turkish speedbump

 

[honkajoki]

This discussion is so funny to me, we don't get 70 pages of debate about whether Delhi should actually be called "Hindustan", or Naples "Sicily", because it's obvious to people that these aren't good historiographical terms.

If I count correctly, Scandinavia got 12 messages. Even though the time from its formation to game end can be much longer than time from game start to Byzantium's demise.

 

[Superdark33]

Byzaboos will always find a way to get special treatment for their turkish speedbump

Id respect byzboos if they were actual byzboos and not romeboos who are too sentimental to let go, respecting the byzantine empire on its own terms rather than whatever "rome" preceded it with the "legitimacy" of a throne as the sole deciding factor.