Byzantium vs Eastern Roman Empire?

[Anna_Gein]

And the reason why they did this went way, way over your head because you've stuck it in the sand like an ostrich, eh?

This does not even make sense.

It is exactly as accurate as the rest of the insipid dribble you've been posting; 0%


The irony.

Probably because that is not what I was doing. I was merely pointing out how ridiculous your comments are. I know full well what is going on here; you are writing ignorant, ahistorical nonsense and pretending that you're some intellectual, and are pretending that any comments to the contrary of your posts are made by "crying history nerds" instead of the reality, which is "people who know what the fuck they're talking about"

All you seem to want to do is argue against strawmen, probably because you have no actual arguments of your own, other than, of course, ones that are completely unrelated to the topic.

We haven't had anyone this misinformed in this thread in quite some time so congratulations on that. Your squishy red nose is in the post and on its way to you.

Bro, you dont even understand the word "empire" yet here you are wildly throwing insults.

repeating "irony" does not change the fact that you manifestly never took academical teaching, let alone read actual valuable book. Or maybe you were too stubborn and too ignorant to understand the few you read (which would be worse).

 

[Lord Lambert]

This does not even make sense.

Yes it does.

Bro, you dont even understand the word "empire"

Just because you say I don't understand something, does not make it true.

repeating "irony" does not change the fact

The irony here is you keep repeating delusional takes that have little basis in fact, expecting, somehow, to change the fact

you manifestly never took academical teaching, let alone read actual valuable book

You expect people to believe you did? Now that is funny. Maybe you should spend some time actually reading the kinds of books you accuse others of not reading, eh?

Or maybe you were too stubborn

Finally. An accusation that lands true. Yes, I am too stubborn. I find it very difficult to let it go when someone is wrong on the internet about something I know about. This is one of those cases.

too ignorant

This once again applies to you. What with you being the one that doesn't have the first clue about what they're talking about


Anyway. I am once again reminded that I really need to not engage with people like you as it will go nowhere nice.

I hope you pick up one of those books you pretend to have read, some day. It will do you the world of good.

 

[treb]

This does not even make sense.

No particular side in your little back and forth with Lambert but, it reads fine to me...

 

[Lord Lambert]

No particular side in your little back and forth with Lambert

idk, reading your other posts I think it's pretty obvious which side you come down on if you were pressed about it

 

[treb]

idk, reading your other posts I think it's pretty obvious which side you come down on if you were pressed about it

Yeah im a byzanaboo but im also self aware enough to know when to step back and leave other arguments to other people because I frankly cant be bothered to read 10 pages of back and forth to catch up. I have no idea what all this arguing between you two is over specifically. Just pointing out that particular bit made sense to me.

 

[Anna_Gein]

No particular side in your little back and forth with Lambert but, it reads fine to me...

Then please enlighten me.

It seems to me Lord Lambert said I struck my head in the sand like an ostrich because I read historian explain why they prefer to use the name "Byzantine Empire" and thought it made sense so I might follow it as well.


That sounds like a self-own by Lord Lambert as he disagrees with it (with strong feelings to say the least) but whatever.

 

[AntarcticRanger]

So the French also stopped being French in 1940 when they lost direct control of Paris? And of course modern France completely lost its legitimacy, because "true France" was destroyed in 1940 and was replaced by "Vichy"? I've just found out I have a very distant cousin living in Paris (our great-great-great-greatgrandparents were brothers), I can't wait to inform her that she's not French, but... hmm... "Vichian"?

France wasn't destroyed, but the 3rd Republic was. Holding Constantinople to the same standard, the post 1204 state would be the 2nd (at a minimum, you probably could mark Diocletian and Justinian as founding a 2nd and 3rd empire) empire.

Continuity of nation and Continuity of state are very very different things, just look at China and Iran.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

109 pages arguing over a dead empire damn

 

[Anna_Gein]

France wasn't destroyed, but the 3rd Republic was. Holding Constantinople to the same standard, the post 1204 state would be the 2nd (at a minimum, you probably could mark Diocletian and Justinian as founding a 2nd and 3rd empire) empire.

Continuity of nation and Continuity of state are very very different things, just look at China and Iran.

But then why do you decide that Western Romans ceased to be Romans when the state collapsed in their land but Eastern Romans did not ?

France was not a multi-national empire. Neither were China or Iran.

 

[AntarcticRanger]

But then why do you decide that Western Romans ceased to be Romans when the state collapsed in their land but Eastern Romans did not ?

I'd actually say they continued on as Romans for quite some time after the date we usually give for the end of the WRE, at least up until the Gothic wars in the case of Italy. National identity is a complicated process, putting a start or end to any identity is rather hard.

I'd also say the Papal States kept being Roman and solely Roman for a very long time well into the modern era, ever since they became independent of the Eastern Roman Empire. Actually, considering that the inhabitants of the City of Rome are Romans as well as Italians and there are citizens of the Vatican that aren't Italians, I guess the domain of the Pope is still solely Roman.

 

[treb]

Then please enlighten me.

It seems to me Lord Lambert said I struck my head in the sand like an ostrich because I read historian explain why they prefer to use the name "Byzantine Empire" and thought it made sense so I might follow it as well.


That sounds like a self-own by Lord Lambert as he disagrees with it (with strong feelings to say the least) but whatever.

because I wasn't judging off context, all I saw was you saying it didn't make sense, so I read the quoted bit and as a sentence of English I understood it.

 

[treb]

I'd actually say they continued on as Romans for quite some time after the date we usually give for the end of the WRE, at least up until the Gothic wars in the case of Italy. National identity is a complicated process, putting a start or end to any identity is rather hard.

I'd also say the Papal States kept being Roman and solely Roman for a very long time well into the modern era, ever since they became independent of the Eastern Roman Empire. Actually, considering that the inhabitants of the City of Rome are Romans as well as Italians and there are citizens of the Vatican that aren't Italians, I guess the domain of the Pope is still solely Roman.

In that case there are still Romans in the Greek state to this day, a minority of Greeks still self identify as "Rhomanoi" as the reforms to the Greek state and cultural identity that realigned it to its current "hellenist" axis was after the loss of the greco-turkish war of the 1921 which was obstinately aiming to retake Constantinople and the Anatolian coast. because it was byzantine and the majority of Greeks still then identified as Romans.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

France wasn't destroyed, but the 3rd Republic was. Holding Constantinople to the same standard, the post 1204 state would be the 2nd (at a minimum, you probably could mark Diocletian and Justinian as founding a 2nd and 3rd empire) empire.

Continuity of nation and Continuity of state are very very different things, just look at China and Iran.

In the case of Roman Empire there was continuity of both. Romans acknowledged the loss of western territory and their capital, but it did not strip them of their Romanness. Romans under Latin rule were still Romans, Romans in "Nicene Empire" were still Romans as well. A lot of people argue here "it's not important how Romans called themselves" and yet they take too seriously how Latin invaders called them.

Romans calling themselves "Romans" is wrong! It doesn't matter at all how they called themselves!
Latins calling Romans "Greeks" is absolutely correct though, because it absolutely matters how Latins called them.

After fall of Constantinople in 1204 the state continued to exist as well. The "Nicene" part did not declare independence from the Roman Empire, they did not form a completely new state or anything like that. "Patriotic" Roman nobility moved to Nicaea (or whatever place they chose as their administrative capital) and formed new administration. There was a Roman Emperor of the Roman Empire but his seat wasn't in the occupied Constantinople but in another part of the Empire. Nothing really new in the long Roman history.

 

[Ajaxwindowcleaner]

109 pages arguing over a dead empire damn

the best part is that there is already a gamerule

 

[Aquila SPQR]

the best part is that there is already a gamerule

Which is an improvement, but using "Eastern Roman Empire" instead of "Byzantine Empire" is like allowing us to replace "Lutetian Kingdom" with slightly more historical "West Francia" instead. It's great, it's really an improvement, but why not just call it... you know... "France"?

 

[PortDoubloon01]

Regardless of

109 pages arguing over a dead empire damn

At this point it is partially self-aware fun, partially genuine dispute. It is ridiculous that the thread is this long so it is fun to keep it going and the people in the game announcement thread are racing this one.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

this analogy may make more sense if Lutetian Kingdom was a real term or if West Francia was not used to refer to a specific kingdom during a specific time with a specific set of institutions that distinguish itself from earlier/later forms of the same state retrospectively

"Byzantine Empire" is as ahistorical and completely made up as "Lutetian Kingdom" and just because historians decided to use it doesn't really change that. Just as France wasn't a "Lutetian Kingdom" - "Roman Empire" wasn't a "Byzantine Empire".

ERE can be an acceptable name for the period when both ERE and WRE coexisted. It's about 1000 years before EUV starts. Just as ERE was reformed - West Francia also was reformed into what it was in 1337. And just as calling 1337 France "West Francia" would be strange, calling 1337 Roman Empire "ERE" is strange.

Just as "France" is a proper, acceptable name for XIV century state - "Roman Empire/Empire of the Romans/Rhomania" is a proper name for that XIV century state.

I'm just applying the same logic and standards to both instead of using proper historical XIV century name for one and a completely made up ahistorical one for another.

 

[Ajaxwindowcleaner]

"Byzantine Empire" is as ahistorical and completely made up as "Lutetian Kingdom" and just because historians decided to use it doesn't really change that. Just as France wasn't a "Lutetian Kingdom" - "Roman Empire" wasn't a "Byzantine Empire".

ERE can be an acceptable name for the period when both ERE and WRE coexisted. It's about 1000 years before EUV starts. Just as ERE was reformed - West Francia also was reformed into what it was in 1337. And just as calling 1337 France "West Francia" would be strange, calling 1337 Roman Empire "ERE" is strange.

Just as "France" is a proper, acceptable name for XIV century state - "Roman Empire/Empire of the Romans/Rhomania" is a proper name for that XIV century state.

I'm just applying the same logic and standards to both instead of using proper historical XIV century name for one and a completely made up ahistorical one for another.

after thinking about it, ive decided not to open this can of worms particularly when the guy is called AQUILA SPQR

 

[A Pink Duck]

calling 1337 Roman Empire "ERE" is strange.

You're right. That's why I'm going to call it "Byzantine Empire"

 

[Tercio Soldier]

Honest question to bizaboos, since we know Cola di Rienzo's Roman's Republic is in the game, who you think should get preference to get its name shortened to Rome, the ERE or the Roman's Republic?