The "empire of the greek" was more Roman than you, because for them it was their primary identity, one that survived for centuries after the fall of the Empire. Would your children, or grandchildren, call themselves Roman if you moved to a different city?
Yes, I have cousins born in Australia who call themself romans. But how can a roman of Rome be less roman than a greek of Athens? And while the greeks stopped calling themself romans the romans (like me) still exist
First, I generally agree with your post. I like the acronym ERE, but for a full name Empire of the Romans or Byzantine Empire works best.
Hi Lele,
I strongly disagree, the people of Rome never stopped to call themself roman and the nobility of the city had direct legacy to the roman aristocracy. That's one of the many reasons why the Papal state is often refered as one of the successors states of the Roman Empire.
You are speaking with a Guelf my friend, I have a pope in my family tree lol
Of course, but just in Rome. Italy and the west empire was not just the city or Rome. In italy Longobards were evrywhere except far south, Rome and ravenna. Evrywhere the people, not just the nobles, begin called themselves Longobards after few centuries of domination. Romans don't disappear, the just begin to call themselfes in other ways.
The Popes started acting like kings even before the deposition of Romolo Augustolo, throught all medieval times and beyond they acted -and sometimes proclaimed- to be the only guide to humanity on earth. They opposed the emperor of Constantinopoli very early. The history of the papal state is very wild
I'm offended by the ignorance of a few people about the roman empire. You are speaking like the city don't exist, I don't trace my ancestry to them, I am roman, and that is an indisputable fact: that's the the term for the people of Rome.
And it didnt in the 15th century! Thats why its called the Byzantine Empire
Yeah no, the romans existed before the empire and continued to exist after. Or do you think before Augustus they weren't romans? Or that after Romolo Augustolo they abruptly changed ethnic background? This is the most illogical and delusional thing I read on this thread
That's simple. A Lombard/Gothic/whatever-descent person born in Rome is going to be less Roman than a person born in Roman Athens, with Roman citizenship, with multiple generations of their ancestors identifying as Roman.
They claimed to have it, everybody can do that and a lot of people did. Being roman is not only a legal status, if the king of Spain start giving roman citizenship would you claim them to be legitimate? I don't think so
Are we already to the point I have to prove to be "pure-breed" roman? My citizenship is provided by the city of Rome, is that not enough? Do I have to resurect a random roman emperor to give me his blessing?
Which is completely unrelated to the citizenship of the Roman Empire (the empire which is the topic of the thread).
I think almost every one with a wester european ancestry has a couple tbh
The first one is a real ethnic background (it's an undenayble fact), the second is based on the claim of a greek person (in the case of the late byzantine empire). Easy to understand
