Byzantium vs Eastern Roman Empire?

[Anna_Gein]

No nation incapable to speak latin should ever be called "Romans". Beside A Roman Empire must have Rome as its capital. And Byzance lost Rome almost a millennia before the game started. So it can only be called Byzance although Greek Empire would be better period.

What is next ? Calling "Russia" as "Sarmatia & Scythia" because that is how Romans called it in 1st century AD ? Or Rename "Austria" as "Noricum & Pannomia" ? Tunisia as "Africa" ? And why not rename the low-land states as Belgium while you are at it ?

Edit :

don't mind me, just passing through . . .

LMAO this is so accurate. I am going to save it and re-use it everytime I encounter dumb ignorant Phihellenists zealots. Or really, just children who spent too much time playing Byzance in video games.

Re-edit : lol they are triggerered so easely. And cant even detect obvious trolling.

It never cease to amaze me how passionate they are about something while simustaniously displaying their crass ignorance. How people can be so assertive about this matter when they are woefully ignorant about Ancient and Medieval history ? Like I am sure they cant even name or explain Augustus titulature. Nor can they explain the difference between "Prince", "King" and "Emperor" but they are 100% convinced to be right with their attempt at broken pseudo latinized Greek name.

 

[Alyoshenka]

No nation incapable to speak latin should ever be called "Romans". Beside A Roman Empire must have Rome as its capital. And Byzance lost Rome almost a millennia before the game started. So it can only be called Byzance although Greek Empire would be better period.

What is next ? Calling "Russia" as "Sarmatia & Scythia" because that is how Romans called it in 1st century AD ? Or Rename "Austria" as "Noricum & Pannomia" ? Tunisia as "Africa" ? And why not rename the low-land states as Belgium while you are at it ?

Oh boy. The citizens of the Byzantine Empire considered themselves Romans and called themselves so. You can't deny them their own identity. Medieval and Modern Russians never called themselves Scythians, so it's a false equivalence. Also, wait until you hear about Israel.

 

[Vladechni]

I don't like Rhomania, because it is in Greek, and other country names are in English. The correct name in English would be Romania. Obviously, a surviving Romania would likely mean the union of Vlachs will need a different name should it happen (I like Wallachia).

I know this might sound slightly larpy but unironically the likeliest name for a Romanian kingdom were it to form during most of the game time period would be Dacia, at least the internationally recognised one. (especially since Wallachia was already known by its inhabitants as "Romanian Country" "Țara Românească", so you'd have another conflict between endonym and exonym)

The Byzantine chroniclers have been reffering to Romance speaking people North of the Danube for quite a while, and there's even an instance of Laonikos Chalkokondyles reffering to Vlad III as the ruler of the Dacians, which is something since Dacian would refer to *all* Romanians, not just the Wallachians.

Then we have one of the contemporany wood engravings of Michael the Brave, which do also support that the region would have been know as Dacia with this passage

Si Deus, o, uellet Dacorum, hic colla Michael
Eximeret Turca, libera tota, uigo

 

[Anna_Gein]

Oh boy. The citizens of the Byzantine Empire considered themselves Romans and called themselves so. You can't deny them their own identity. Medieval and Modern Russians never called themselves Scythians, so it's a false equivalence. Also, wait until you hear about Israel.

Dont get me started on theses bad cosplayers

 

[Alyoshenka]

Empire of the Romans continues to be the best English name for the state in a game where you want the Roman Empire to be a formable.

I think it's too long a name, and too formal. The map should use shorthand names for nations (e.g. "England", not "Kingdom of England").

I know this might sound slightly larpy but unironically the likeliest name for a Romanian kingdom were it to form during most of the game time period would be Dacia, at least the internationally recognised one. (especially since Wallachia was already known by its inhabitants as "Romanian Country" "Țara Românească", so you'd have another conflict between endonym and exonym)

The Byzantine chroniclers have been reffering to Romance speaking people North of the Danube for quite a while, and there's even an instance of Laonikos Chalkokondyles reffering to Vlad III as the ruler of the Dacians, which is something since Dacian would refer to *all* Romanians, not just the Wallachians.

Then we have one of the contemporany wood engravings of Michael the Brave, which do also support that the region would have been know as Dacia with this passage

I'm no expert in Romanian history, but this engraving could very well be classicist, where you ancient Latin names for literary purposes, e.g. Britannia for Great Britain.

Vlachs used to be a generic name for all Romanians, not just people from Muntenia and Oltenia.

 

[Anna_Gein]

Oh boy. The citizens of the Byzantine Empire considered themselves Romans and called themselves so. You can't deny them their own identity. Medieval and Modern Russians never called themselves Scythians, so it's a false equivalence. Also, wait until you hear about Israel.

And so did the Germans who called their king "King of the Romans". And so did most of Western Europeans knowledgable in politic theory. And at least they talked Latin contrary to the inhabitant of Constantinople.

The Turks of Anatolia also called their realm "Rum" but oddly enough Byzantine wanabes never consider Turks' opinion to be worthwhile. I wonder why ...

 

[Lord Lambert]

No nation incapable to speak latin should ever be called "Romans". Beside A Roman Empire must have Rome as its capital.

From 292 to 476 the capital wasn't in Rome during a time when the Empire owned Rome.

Your entire argument is... laughably ignorant.

 

[Lord Lambert]

I think it's too long a name, and too formal. The map should use shorthand names for nations (e.g. "England", not "Kingdom of England").


I'm no expert in Romanian history, but this engraving could very well be classicist, where you ancient Latin names for literary purposes, e.g. Britannia for Great Britain.

Vlachs used to be a generic name for all Romanians, not just people from Muntenia and Oltenia.

This is already possible within the game. You can be the kingdom of england and when you don't have enough land area to show the full, proper title, it gets shortened to england. Same can happen here, from Empire of the Romans to Roman Empire to just Rome at the smallest.

 

[Anna_Gein]

From 292 to 476 the capital wasn't in Rome during a time when the Empire owned Rome.

Your entire argument is... laughably ignorant.

It is cute but also vastly ignorant of you to assume the Capital only changed with Diocletian ...

 

[Alyoshenka]

And so did the Germans who called their king "King of the Romans". And so did most of Western Europeans knowledgable in politic theory. And at least they talked Latin contrary to the inhabitant of Constantinople.

The Turks of Anatolia also called their realm "Rum" but oddly enough Byzantine wanabes never consider Turks' opinion to be worthwhile. I wonder why ...

The people fo the HRE did call their ruler King of the Romans, but they never called themselves Romans. They were Germans, Italians, Czechs, Dutch, etc. so your point is not valid. These various nations co-existed within the loose confederation called the HRE.

Regarding your point on the Turks, this is a great point. They called the land they conquered Rum, because they knew it was held by people calling themselves Romans, which they didn't deny. Mehmet II took on the title of Kayser-i Rum, not to establish himself as a Roman, but rather as the legitimate holder of the land that used to be held by the Romans. He became Roman Emperor by "right of conquest".

 

[Alyoshenka]

This is already possible within the game. You can be the kingdom of england and when you don't have enough land area to show the full, proper title, it gets shortened to england. Same can happen here, from Empire of the Romans to Roman Empire to just Rome at the smallest.

The smallest should be Romania, not Rome. Byzantines didn't claim to be Rome, only to be Romans. Thus why they coined the term "Romania" as a shorthand for "land of the Romans".

 

[Lord Lambert]

It is cute but also vastly ignorant of you to assume the Capital only changed with Diocletian ...

There is no ignorance in my comment. I am merely pointing out the historical reality that is at odds with your assertion. Have a wonderful day... preferably with a book.

 

[Anna_Gein]

The people fo the HRE did call their ruler King of the Romans, but they never called themselves Romans. They were Germans, Italians, Czechs, Dutch, etc. so your point is not valid. These various nations co-existed within the loose confederation called the HRE.

Regarding your point on the Turks, this is a great point. They called the land they conquered Rum, because they knew it was held by people calling themselves Romans, which they didn't deny. Mehmet II took on the title of Kayser-i Rum, not to establish himself as a Roman, but rather as the legitimate holder of the land that used to be held by the Romans. He became Roman Emperor by "right of conquest".

It is difficult to be "King of the Romans" (*emphasis on the people rather than a piece of land), if they are no Romans you rule over. But for you to almost realize that past the 2nd century, the adjective "Romans" did not refer to a specific nation.

As for your second point, that is pretty much valid for everybody. Especially in a game that consciously misname all tags in for a mix of gameplay reasons and naming convenience.

Next you are going to realize that despite the mythos, nobody truly thought the Merovingians dynasty and all the others dynasties descendant from it were not half human half" bull and fish" because they claimed to be descendant from a human woman and a "Quinotaur" creature.

 

[Vladechni]

I'm no expert in Romanian history, but this engraving could very well be classicist, where you ancient Latin names for literary purposes, e.g. Britannia for Great Britain.

Vlachs used to be a generic name for all Romanians, not just people from Muntenia and Oltenia.

Well Vlachia and Wallachia would be used interchangibly so that instantly drops as an option, which only leaves Dacia or Romania as options for a Romanian formable.
Plus Britain is derived from Britannia so that also fails for that(that ancient place names can't be used) argument since it's what the region is known as. There's also Spain derived from Hispania or Iberia also from Iberia that are other examples. Dacia meanwhile had no linguistic evolution to sound different from the ancient name.

 

[Mixxer5]

Oh boy. The citizens of the Byzantine Empire considered themselves Romans and called themselves so. You can't deny them their own identity. Medieval and Modern Russians never called themselves Scythians, so it's a false equivalence. Also, wait until you hear about Israel.

Coming from a person who's only going to call them Eastern Roman Empire- why not? Polish nobility in XVIIth century considered themselves being of Sarmatian descent and that was their identity. Today it's taught in Poland (or at least it was) as an example of ignorance and there's no "we're Sarmatians at heart" movement (at least nothing major enough that I'd hear about it as a Pole). Claiming certain identity as your own wasn't only about self-identification but also a political tool. Today, after having hundreds of years of perspective, we're in a position to evaluate those claims.

To expand upon it- Ottomans also claimed to be continuators of Rome (rather than its conquerors). So did Sultanate of Rum. So did Russians (calling Muscovy "Third Rome"). And famously so did HRE. Are they all correct? Are they all wrong? Or maybe this is something that we should evaluate case by case? Starting with- perhaps- what does a nation is composed of? My opinion is that continuity of the state's existance is most objective contributor to state's legitimacy. Aside from everything else- (H)RE ("Holy" was added a lot later) was created hundreds of years after WREs fall and while ERE still existed. So (H)RE doesn't have any sort of continuity with ancient Rome. Mind you- this is a case only under the criteria that I've outlined above. It was certainly considered to be legitimate by some (to what extent- it's hard say without knowing what people of this era though. Did Germans of (H)RE actually considered themselves Roman? Or was it just an "add-on" to their actual cultural identity?)- this can't be argued with. But we can consider them to be more or less legitimate than other contenders. Or not legitimate at all. I recall reading about a homeless guy who considered himself to be king of America- my understanding is that he believed to be one. Does it make him legitimate? I'd say that enough people backing him could grant him that legitimacy. But does it make USA a monarchy if it never was one?

 

[Alyoshenka]

It is difficult to be "King of the Romans" (*emphasis on the people rather than a piece of land), if they are no Romans you rule over. But for you to almost realize that past the 2nd century, the adjective "Romans" did not refer to a specific nation.

As for your second point, that is pretty much valid for everybody. Especially in a game that consciously misname all tags in for a mix of gameplay reasons and naming convenience.

Next you are going to realize that despite the mythos, nobody truly thought the Merovingians dynasty and all the others dynasties descendant from it were not half human half" bull and fish" because they claimed to be descendant from a human woman and a "Quinotaur" creature.

You're not arguing in good faith. The title "King of the Romans" was bestowed by the Pope onto the Franks, who, again, had taken land that used to part of the Roman Empire. The pope needed to curry favours from the Franks and gave them the legitimacy they needed to rule Europe hegemonically. That title was passed on to the HRE and it stuck around. The Holy Roman Emperor didn't clam to be Roman, only to be the true heir of the Roman Empire. I don't deny their claim, nor do I deny Russia's, or the Ottomans'. The Roman Empire as a political entity was so large and so ecumenical in nature, that it provided legitimacy to many hegemonical nations to rule large swathes of land in Europe and the Mediterranean. I will however die on the hill that in the Medieval era, the only people to call themselves Romans outside of the city of Rome was the Byzantines.

 

[Tercio Soldier]

With all the mythology about the city of Rome, its origins, the she-wolf and Romulus and Remus, the seven hills of Rome... I just can't see an Empire that doesn't control the city of Rome as a Roman Empire. It's just a "feelings" argument though.

If you asked me I would say the actual heir of the Roman Empire in Medieval times would be the Papal States. They are an institution that originated in the Roman Empire as the bishops of Rome, they held lots of influence over most of Europe, they controlled the city of Rome and they perpetuated Latin. Some argue the Catholic church was basically an Empire during Medieval and Renaissance times.

 

[Alyoshenka]

Coming from a person who's only going to call them Eastern Roman Empire- why not? Polish nobility in XVIIth century considered themselves being of Sarmatian descent and that was their identity. Today it's taught in Poland (or at least it was) as an example of ignorance and there's no "we're Sarmatians at heart" movement (at least nothing major enough that I'd hear about it as a Pole). Claiming certain identity as your own wasn't only about self-identification but also a political tool. Today, after having hundreds of years of perspective, we're in a position to evaluate those claims.

To expand upon it- Ottomans also claimed to be continuators of Rome (rather than its conquerors). So did Sultanate of Rum. So did Russians (calling Muscovy "Third Rome"). And famously so did HRE. Are they all correct? Are they all wrong? Or maybe this is something that we should evaluate case by case? Starting with- perhaps- what does a nation is composed of? My opinion is that continuity of the state's existance is most objective contributor to state's legitimacy. Aside from everything else- (H)RE ("Holy" was added a lot later) was created hundreds of years after WREs fall and while ERE still existed. So (H)RE doesn't have any sort of continuity with ancient Rome. Mind you- this is a case only under the criteria that I've outlined above. It was certainly considered to be legitimate by some (to what extent- it's hard say without knowing what people of this era though. Did Germans of (H)RE actually considered themselves Roman? Or was it just an "add-on" to their actual cultural identity?)- this can't be argued with. But we can consider them to be more or less legitimate than other contenders. Or not legitimate at all. I recall reading about a homeless guy who considered himself to be king of America- my understanding is that he believed to be one. Does it make him legitimate? I'd say that enough people backing him could grant him that legitimacy. But does it make USA a monarchy if it never was one?

Claims of descent and identity is different. The French claims to descend from Gauls, and used that extensively as part of their propaganda, would never call themselves Gauls now. This false equivalence. The Byzantines didn't claim to descend from the Romans, they considered themselves Romans directly.

 

[Alyoshenka]

With all the mythology about the city of Rome, its origins, the she-wolf and Romulus and Remus, the seven hills of Rome... I just can't see an Empire that doesn't control the city of Rome as a Roman Empire. It's just a "feelings" argument though.

If you asked me I would say the actual heir of the Roman Empire in Medieval times would be the Papal States. They are an institution that originated in the Roman Empire as the bishops of Rome, they held lots of influence over most of Europe and they controlled the city of Rome. Some argue the Catholic church was basically an Empire during Medieval and Renaissance times.

The Papal State is a valid claimant, yes. However, in all due respect, your feelings don't stand strong in front of 1,000 years of Byzantines not holding Rome and consistently calling themselves Romans.

 

[Mixxer5]

Clams of descent and identity is different. The French claims to descend from Gauls, and used that extensively as part of their propaganda, would never call themselves Gauls now. This false equivalence. The Byzantines didn't claim to descend from the Romans, they considered themselves Romans directly.

Okay- then we should establish criteria for what makes the claim to be inheritor of nation's legacy legitimate. Otherwise there's no way to establish whether ERE is legitimate or isn't. And same applies for any other state that considered itself to be either a successor or direct continuator of the original state. And that's not exclusive to Roman Empire, it's valid for every state in the world. I see a lot of posts in this thread claiming either A or B and postulating (often valid) arguments but I can see no baseline being established. So it basically boils down to "my opinion is right cause I like it more".