Byzantium vs Eastern Roman Empire?

[Tercio Soldier]

I agree. It is the historical illiteracy and stubbornness of those who argue that the "byzantine" empire was not roman at all.

"Roman" is a word, and words have have a perceived meaning that may vary between people. It's not an exact science. Some people take "Roman" to have a cultural meaning, as in the culture of the Ancient Rome, i.e. the Latin culture, that is something that was lost in the East but preserved in the West. If you take "Roman" as a political meaning then Romaness survived in the East.

If the British Empire fell in Britain but survived in India then undoubtedly India would be the British Empire, but lots of people would consider it an Indian Empire. Like the Byzantine empire is undoubtedly the same exact Roman empire as the classical one, but at the same time is not "Roman".

 

[PortDoubloon01]

Poland's borders did not change, so can't say that the changes from Rome to East Rome were only bigger, that's a type of change that didn't exist for one but existed for the other.

If it's ok to refer to Poland, at different times of its history, as Polish Republic, Polish People's Republic, Second Polish Republic, etc, then surely it's also ok to refer to the state with its capital at Konstantinople as Byzantium?

Poland's borders did change. It's capital has changed since medieval times, and it's language has changed. I'm not sure that modern Poles would understand Old Polish from 1300.

The Polish states you list are actually different states with distinct start and end points. The Roman state, on the other hand, operated continually until 1453, or arguably 1204. Any distinction between "Byzantine" and "Roman" hard must pick an arbitrary date, which results in siloing historians and confusing the general public.

Historically and now, that distinction has been used to deny Roman identity to the east for being too "oriental." This isn't merely a useful label for organizing study, it has been and is used by the West to obfuscate the history and deny Roman identity to the east.

I think it is actually an important question because it applies to modern day states that aren't based in ethnicity. Can political identity be extended to people of a different ethnicity and language from the founding group? The "Byzantine" crowd says no, which has huge implications for political identity past and present.

 

[honkajoki]

Poland's borders did change. It's capital has changed since medieval times, and it's language has changed. I'm not sure that modern Poles would understand Old Polish from 1300.

You're correct. I should have listed only the latest two, to my understanding borders did not change between them?

I think it is actually an important question because it applies to modern day states that aren't based in ethnicity. Can political identity be extended to people of a different ethnicity and language from the founding group? The "Byzantine" crowd says no, which has huge implications for political identity past and present.

USA has examples for both sides, but discussion of modern politics would get the thread closed.

 

[viola]

What I recall is that the very original diatribe was about "Byzantine Empire" being considered an inaccurate name that shouldn't be used because, allegedly, it denied the fact that it was the continuation of the Roman Empire, and more generic names should be used instead. Which was a really stupid argument, because "Byzantine" is a perfectly descriptive name for what that polity was, as it conveys in a single word the facts that: 1) it was the (eastern) Roman Empire, 2) it was Greek in character and culture, 3) it's specifically the Roman Empire as its continuation in the Middle Ages, particularly after Heraclius (who's the guy generally pointed at when discussing when Greek overtook Latin completely as the main language of the empire), being now centered in Constantinople. There is literally no better name to rapidly convey what kind of "Romans" you're talking about when you want to talk about Byzantine history, which is why it's so commonly used.

The whole argument was based around feelings and how some hardcore byzaboos thought the name "Byzantium" inherently implied dismissing the Byzantines' claims to Rome, when literally no one understands that term in that sense anymore, if they ever actually did at all even when the term was invented, since Byzantium was already gone and the fight between East and West over who got the better claim to Roman heritage was a moot point.

I'm just glad the discussion moved onto less stupid arguments and more trivia stuff about the Byzantines and their relation with Ancient Rome.

 

[Lord Lambert]

I'm just glad the discussion moved onto less stupid arguments and more trivia stuff about the Byzantines and their relation with Ancient Rome.

Except it didn't, because now we have people who deny the romanness of the state entirely.

 

[PortDoubloon01]

What I recall is that the very original diatribe was about "Byzantine Empire" being considered an inaccurate name that shouldn't be used because, allegedly, it denied the fact that it was the continuation of the Roman Empire, and more generic names should be used instead. Which was a really stupid argument, because "Byzantine" is a perfectly descriptive name for what that polity was, as it conveys in a single word the facts that: 1) it was the (eastern) Roman Empire, 2) it was Greek in character and culture, 3) it's specifically the Roman Empire as its continuation in the Middle Ages, particularly after Heraclius (who's the guy generally pointed at when discussing when Greek overtook Latin completely as the main language of the empire), being now centered in Constantinople. There is literally no better name to rapidly convey what kind of "Romans" you're talking about when you want to talk about Byzantine history, which is why it's so commonly used.

The whole argument was based around feelings and how some hardcore byzaboos thought the name "Byzantium" inherently implied dismissing the Byzantines' claims to Rome, when literally no one understands that term in that sense anymore, if they ever actually did at all even when the term was invented, since Byzantium was already gone and the fight between East and West over who got the better claim to Roman heritage was a moot point.

I'm just glad the discussion moved onto less stupid arguments and more trivia stuff about the Byzantines and their relation with Ancient Rome.

1) Really stupid? Have you learned anything about the historiography? Byzantine was specifically coined and used by westerners to deny that the Empire was Roman in character. They did this because they idolized Rome and wanted to emulate Rome, but they thought the Rhomaioi were inferior for being "oriental" and "decadent." So they did not want to associate Rome with an inferior people. People still do this, most of the people arguing in this thread were doing this. You are doing this right now by calling them "Greek in character" which obfuscates a lot of their culture. People, including many historians, still largely say Rome fell in the 400s too.

2) "Byzantine" is not perfectly descriptive. It is confusing and a bad descriptor. Constantinople wasn't called Byzantium. Since "Roman" is already the English exonym, arbitrary switching to another exonym confuses the general public and silos historians. I will give you that "Byzantine" is commonly used, but a switch to "Medieval Roman" would do wonders for public understanding that they were not some new people/state totally distinct from the Romans. Hell, even Constantinopolitan Empire or Greek Empire would be better descriptors than Byzantine. Many, including friends and my parents, actually thought the Byzantines were some conquering people that took over Rome and ruled the Greeks because of the label.

As Aquila pointed out, it would be like if you insisted on calling France Lutetia. It's confusing, arbitrary, and inaccurate. I also point out that this discussion has a modern bearing, as this discussion is based on people insisting that political identity cannot be extended to people with a different language from the founding group.

3) I would also ask of the people acknowledging that the "Byzantines" were Rome and saying it doesn't matter what we call them: why do you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into calling it "Eastern Rome" or "Medieval Rome" when historians are moving in that direction and you know it is more accurate?

 

[viola]

Except it didn't, because now we have people who deny the romanness of the state entirely.

I'm glad I'm just not interested in debating the legitimacy of Medieval states or their national identity then.

Really stupid? Have you learned anything about the historiography?

Yes, actually.
In historiography the most commonly used name for the Byzantine Empire is "Byzantine Empire". That's what historiography says, modern one I mean.

Evidently this whole deal with romaboos being terribly offended by common and normal terminology is, indeed, the product of overly obsessed people who are more concerned about fanboying for failed warlord states that caring anything about actual history.

ou are doing this right now by calling them "Greek in character" which obfuscates a lot of their culture.

No, no, no, no, you're confused.
"Obfuscating the culture" is when you do everything you can to pretend that the Greek state whose official language was Greek, and its regal titles were in Greek, and its political elite was Greek, and was acknowledge to as Greek by all of its neighbours regardless of whether they agreed or not with them being also Romans at the same time, was just "Roman", with no further strings attached to it. Just to give the illusion that hundreds of years of cultural evolution and the shift of the Roman state from the Latin West Mediterranean to the Greek East didn't really happen. That's actual obfuscation of cultural changes of a state through time, for the bizarre purpose of propping the legitimacy of... Some dead state that thought their king was Jesus' right hand guy, or some stupid shit like that.

The Byzantine Empire was a Greek state, and it was a Roman state. It was ethnically and culturally Greek, while being legally Roman and its government was a direct continuation of the Roman state of Caesar and Augustus. The culture of the Byzantines is very clear, like the fact that by the times of the Normans they were using "Latin" as a bad word to refer to all the people in the West they couldn't stand or kept giving them trouble, which is suggesting that something must had really changed from the days when "Rome" used to be Latin itself.

"Byzantine" is not perfectly descriptive.

But it is.

In a single word it has communicated to you that:

1) It's the Roman Empire.

2) It's a Greek polity.

3) It's placed in the Middle Ages from the 7th to the 15th century.

4) It's based in Constantinople.

"Roman Empire" doesn't do that, because it refers to the whole thing from Augustus to the Ottomans. "Eastern Roman Empire" is only a slight improvement, since it includes the whole part of history when Eastern and Western Empires co-existed in Late Antiquity and were still both largely Latin in character. Byzantine is just perfect, a single word to immediately give you a very precise identification of the polity we're talking about and that exact period of Roman history.

We're not going to stop using perfectly well functioning nomenclature because you're afraid someone might think that name is subtly implying the Byzzies weren't "really real epic Romans", which is an utterly meaningless concept and isn't worth caring about ever.

As Aquila pointed out, it would be like if you insisted on calling France Lutetia. It's confusing, arbitrary, and inaccurate.

No. We went over it.

Byzantine Empire is clear, accurate and arbitrary.
Because names are arbitrary, and they exist just for our convenience, and as explained earlier "Byzantium" is just a very convenient name.

If in a thousand years the most commonly used name for France in historiography will be "Lutetia", for whatever reason, that's gonna be its name. If it's gonna be effective in communicating whatever practical meaning the historians of the year 3000 want to communicate, it's gonna be a good name too. Currently, however, France works for us. Maybe "Frankia" if you want to specify the difference between the early Frankish state from the later modern French state.

I would also ask of the people acknowledging that the "Byzantines" were Rome and saying it doesn't matter what we call them: why do you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into calling it "Eastern Rome" or "Medieval Rome" when historians are moving in that direction and you know it is more accurate?

Have you tried just not caring about the opinions of a few misguided people on a niche gaming forum?

This is obviously not directed at me, because I know very well and my whole argument is that "Byzantine" is a good name because it's a very efficient way to say "Medieval Rome (meaning they were speaking Greek at this time, and they're not the Germano-Latin Holy Roman ones)", so why don't you do yourself a favour and simply stop bothering about the honor of some specific medieval state that hasn't been relevant in centuries?

 

[treb]

What I recall is that the very original diatribe was about "Byzantine Empire" being considered an inaccurate name that shouldn't be used because, allegedly, it denied the fact that it was the continuation of the Roman Empire, and more generic names should be used instead. Which was a really stupid argument, because "Byzantine" is a perfectly descriptive name for what that polity was, as it conveys in a single word the facts that: 1) it was the (eastern) Roman Empire, 2) it was Greek in character and culture, 3) it's specifically the Roman Empire as its continuation in the Middle Ages, particularly after Heraclius (who's the guy generally pointed at when discussing when Greek overtook Latin completely as the main language of the empire), being now centered in Constantinople. There is literally no better name to rapidly convey what kind of "Romans" you're talking about when you want to talk about Byzantine history, which is why it's so commonly used.

The whole argument was based around feelings and how some hardcore byzaboos thought the name "Byzantium" inherently implied dismissing the Byzantines' claims to Rome, when literally no one understands that term in that sense anymore, if they ever actually did at all even when the term was invented, since Byzantium was already gone and the fight between East and West over who got the better claim to Roman heritage was a moot point.

I'm just glad the discussion moved onto less stupid arguments and more trivia stuff about the Byzantines and their relation with Ancient Rome.

Glad to see the ban didn't dampen your enthusiasm for this thread...

 

[P.Quirinius]

I'm glad I'm just not interested in debating the legitimacy of Medieval states or their national identity then.


Yes, actually.
In historiography the most commonly used name for the Byzantine Empire is "Byzantine Empire". That's what historiography says, modern one I mean.

Evidently this whole deal with romaboos being terribly offended by common and normal terminology is, indeed, the product of overly obsessed people who are more concerned about fanboying for failed warlord states that caring anything about actual history.


No, no, no, no, you're confused.
"Obfuscating the culture" is when you do everything you can to pretend that the Greek state whose official language was Greek, and its regal titles were in Greek, and its political elite was Greek, and was acknowledge to as Greek by all of its neighbours regardless of whether they agreed or not with them being also Romans at the same time, was just "Roman", with no further strings attached to it. Just to give the illusion that hundreds of years of cultural evolution and the shift of the Roman state from the Latin West Mediterranean to the Greek East didn't really happen. That's actual obfuscation of cultural changes of a state through time, for the bizarre purpose of propping the legitimacy of... Some dead state that thought their king was Jesus' right hand guy, or some stupid shit like that.

The Byzantine Empire was a Greek state, and it was a Roman state. It was ethnically and culturally Greek, while being legally Roman and its government was a direct continuation of the Roman state of Caesar and Augustus. The culture of the Byzantines is very clear, like the fact that by the times of the Normans they were using "Latin" as a bad word to refer to all the people in the West they couldn't stand or kept giving them trouble, which is suggesting that something must had really changed from the days when "Rome" used to be Latin itself.


But it is.

In a single word it has communicated to you that:

1) It's the Roman Empire.

2) It's a Greek polity.

3) It's placed in the Middle Ages from the 7th to the 15th century.

4) It's based in Constantinople.

"Roman Empire" doesn't do that, because it refers to the whole thing from Augustus to the Ottomans. "Eastern Roman Empire" is only a slight improvement, since it includes the whole part of history when Eastern and Western Empires co-existed in Late Antiquity and were still both largely Latin in character. Byzantine is just perfect, a single word to immediately give you a very precise identification of the polity we're talking about and that exact period of Roman history.

We're not going to stop using perfectly well functioning nomenclature because you're afraid someone might think that name is subtly implying the Byzzies weren't "really real epic Romans", which is an utterly meaningless concept and isn't worth caring about ever.


No. We went over it.

Byzantine Empire is clear, accurate and arbitrary.
Because names are arbitrary, and they exist just for our convenience, and as explained earlier "Byzantium" is just a very convenient name.

If in a thousand years the most commonly used name for France in historiography will be "Lutetia", for whatever reason, that's gonna be its name. If it's gonna be effective in communicating whatever practical meaning the historians of the year 3000 want to communicate, it's gonna be a good name too. Currently, however, France works for us. Maybe "Frankia" if you want to specify the difference between the early Frankish state from the later modern French state.


Have you tried just not caring about the opinions of a few misguided people on a niche gaming forum?

This is obviously not directed at me, because I know very well and my whole argument is that "Byzantine" is a good name because it's a very efficient way to say "Medieval Rome (meaning they were speaking Greek at this time, and they're not the Germano-Latin Holy Roman ones)", so why don't you do yourself a favour and simply stop bothering about the honor of some specific medieval state that hasn't been relevant in centuries?

I would say that name "Byzantium" is fine, but in certain contexts "Roman empire" or ERE is better. I use "Byzantium" myself a lot precisely, because it helps to clearly indicate what I am talking about. The name is actually quite clever. In the sense of Byzantium being the centre of the ERE, the ERE was more Byzantine than the WRE was Roman. It is a good name for the Byzantine period of the Roman empire. However it has the disadvantage of having negative associations for many people, I heard people pronounce the name with disdain many times, although it has positive associations for others. It seems to have the particularity that it can be easily pronounced in a way that sounds super epic, but also in a way that sounds super weird and bizarre. Nevertheless, in many historiographical contexts the name is just clearly the most efficient to convey the idea one wants to convey. But this is not the case in a map based game such as EU V. It would just not be efficient to use the name of a period of a polity on a map. France will always be France or kingdom of France or French republic but not 4th French republic. In 1337 Byzantium does not coexist with the 200 AD Roman empire. There is HRE, but firstly HRE has Holy in its name and most people who play games like this know where HRE is. Using ERE instead of Roman empire should remove all ambiguity. Therefore, neither with Byzantium nor with ERE many people will get confused. But using ERE or RE conveys the additional information about the continuity between the RE and Byzantium which has been played down too much by past historians, in my opinion. The point should be that RE or ERE is better than Byzantium in the context of EU V, not that Byzantium is a useless term, although some people probably say that.

Two more comments: How were Byzantines ethnically Greek when they did not even know that they were Greek and thought they were Romans? Greek ethnicity just did not exist at that time. Your argument sounds a lot like a tendency that has been criticised by Anthony Kaldellis to believe that there is a preexisting set of ethnicities like Greek, Armenian or Jewish which exist independently of what the actual people believe to be.
The case of Frankia seems actually to be quite similar to Byzantium. Franks were a Germanic people who founded France (i. e. Frankia, but this is actually the same word that just did not go through the vocalic changes). Their empire was divided into multiple parts out of which only the West is now called France, but its inhabitants are no longer Germanic but Romance. This could probably give rise to major controversies as well, but people just don't seem to care enough about the legacy of Frankia.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

If that were the case, there would be no use for the concept of continuation.

For example it's needed for people who have trouble grasping the idea that "Byzantines" are "Romans"

Poland's borders did not change, so can't say that the changes from Rome to East Rome were only bigger, that's a type of change that didn't exist for one but existed for the other.

They did not (significantly) change with the transition from People's Republic to IIIrd Republic (Soviets changed them a bit a decade after WWII when they found coal deposit on the border, so they obviously took coal for themselves and gave us forests in return I don't really complain, as I love those forests there) because it all happened relatively quickly. In our history spanning slightly more than 1000 years borders changed a lot, similar to what happened to all other states.

If it's ok to refer to Poland, at different times of its history, as Polish Republic, Polish People's Republic, Second Polish Republic, etc, then surely it's also ok to refer to the state with its capital at Konstantinople as Byzantium?

Technically yes, but only because that name stuck and became widespread, and as long as people understand that "ERE", "Byzantium" and "Roman Empire" are one and the same, just as I RP, II RP, PRL and III RP (as we call them) are still the same Poland in various stages of evolution.

The problem begins when someone begins to argue it's not.

"Roman" is a word, and words have have a perceived meaning that may vary between people. It's not an exact science. Some people take "Roman" to have a cultural meaning, as in the culture of the Ancient Rome, i.e. the Latin culture, that is something that was lost in the East but preserved in the West. If you take "Roman" as a political meaning then Romaness survived in the East.

Word are words and can be interpreted differently, but the reality behind them is often constant, fixed. Black object is black no matter what word you use, be it "black", "Schwarz", "noir" or "czarny". The problem begins when someone will insist that it's not really clear if it's really black or that maybe "yellow" is a better term to describe it. Some things are ambiguous and are open to interpretation, but some are quite crystal clear.

Citizens of the "Byzantine Empire" in 1337 were Romans. They had Roman citizenship for more than a millenium, they were aware of it and cultivated that memory and self-recognition, and they were people of the "Empire of the Romans" - the still surviving part of the ancient Roman Empire. It's not really up to debate whether they were Romans or not, just as it's not really up to debate whether modern French are really French.

What I recall is that the very original diatribe was about "Byzantine Empire" being considered an inaccurate name that shouldn't be used because, allegedly, it denied the fact that it was the continuation of the Roman Empire, and more generic names should be used instead.

That's quite dishonest. Since the beginning it was repeatedly pointed out that it's a bad name because it's completely ahistorical. A completely made up name that gained traction long after the state ceased to exist. Another reason mentioned is that it breaks immersion for those who are interested in it - just as Lutetian Kingdom would break it. These are the two main arguments that I recall, and I recall that it was you who suddenly started trying to connect "desire to see historical name" with "defending honor of a long dead polity" and were adamant about it, even though it was mostly your own projection since I would be as vocal about replacing "Lutetian Kindgom" with better alternatives and I don't care that much about France or French people in real life.

And "more generic names"? How can "Basileia ton Rhomaion", "Rhomania" or "Empire of the Romans" (which is a translation of the original historical name) be "generic"?

Which was a really stupid argument, because "Byzantine" is a perfectly descriptive name for what that polity was, as it conveys in a single word the facts that: 1) it was the (eastern) Roman Empire, 2) it was Greek in character and culture, 3) it's specifically the Roman Empire as its continuation in the Middle Ages, particularly after Heraclius (who's the guy generally pointed at when discussing when Greek overtook Latin completely as the main language of the empire), being now centered in Constantinople. There is literally no better name to rapidly convey what kind of "Romans" you're talking about when you want to talk about Byzantine history, which is why it's so commonly used.

How can it "convey in a single word these facts" if there are people out there who refuse to use any other name than it and yet they agree only with point 2 and completely diasagree with the two other ones? There are people in this thread (and much more online if you google it) who would never agree "Byzantine Empire" was "Roman" in any sense, so it seems it doesn't convey those facts clear enough for them. And that means it's not as good name as "Roman Empire", "Empire of the Romans" or "medieval Roman Empire", which convey that message much clearer.

Sure, we can blame their ignorance, but maybe that ignorance is fueled further by the use of the completely ahistorical name popularized by people who took quite an effort not so long earlier to completely de-Romanize the "Empire of the Romans"?

The whole argument was based around feelings and how some hardcore byzaboos thought the name "Byzantium" inherently implied dismissing the Byzantines' claims to Rome, when literally no one understands that term in that sense anymore,

No one? Have you actually read this thread?

 

[Gnomey154]

In a single word it has communicated to you that:

1) It's the Roman Empire.

2) It's a Greek polity.

3) It's placed in the Middle Ages from the 7th to the 15th century.

4) It's based in Constantinople.

"Roman Empire" doesn't do that, because it refers to the whole thing from Augustus to the Ottomans. "Eastern Roman Empire" is only a slight improvement, since it includes the whole part of history when Eastern and Western Empires co-existed in Late Antiquity and were still both largely Latin in character. Byzantine is just perfect, a single word to immediately give you a very precise identification of the polity we're talking about and that exact period of Roman history.

We're not going to stop using perfectly well functioning nomenclature because you're afraid someone might think that name is subtly implying the Byzzies weren't "really real epic Romans", which is an utterly meaningless concept and isn't worth caring about ever.

The issue with the first point is that the label Byzantine Empire only really works for people who already know what the Byzantine Empire is. And for them, literally any label they can agree on would work. To people who are less familiar with the Byzantine Empire, or who cling onto their preconceptions as to what it was or wasn't, the label itself conveys none of those things.
People in this very thread have argued for the term Byzantine Empire because they say it was not the Roman Empire, so clearly the term fails to convey to them that it was the Roman Empire.
Historiographers could agree to call the empire Nova Celtica and it would work about as well for them. It doesn't matter if the name is nonsense if they know what it means; as soon as it becomes the recognized label, it will carry all those associations you listed out. to them, at least. Just like, to them, if it's called the Roman Empire and they see the date is 1337, they will know what is meant by it and won't confuse it for the Roman Empire of 100 AD.
While it would be incorrect to say that the new capital of Rome and its surrounds were no longer referred to as Byzantium at all, the fact that the city was rebuilt by the Romans under a different name, Constantinople, which continued to be its official name for the whole period referred to as the Byzantine Empire, makes calling it the Byzantine Empire pretty darn obtuse in my opinion.

I also don't think historiographical inertia is really a great angle to take in this discussion. Propaganda has played (and still plays) a significant role in historiography, and an invented term having pedigree doesn't really indicate that it's more correct and can rather indicate the opposite; that it is outdated and should probably be retired or at least de-emphasized. To me, useful terms are terms that are either intuitive to people unfamiliar with them, that appear in period sources, or ideally both. In my opinion the term Byzantine Empire just doesn't really satisfy either of those criteria.
Yes, maybe some people who dislike the term Byzantine Empire dislike it for stupid reasons or have an inflated view of what Rome was, but there is plenty of stupid reasoning to go around for any of the preferences here, and on balance I just don't think Byzantine Empire is the most reasonable/neutral term. It's fine as an option, but not as the only option. (Which it isn't, so it's not like I have a beef with Paradox's current plans for EUV, even if more options wouldn't hurt).

 

[Big_birdy]

I think we should start calling the Roman republic proto-Byzantium

 

[Gnomey154]

Don't forget Holy Byzantine Empire, as the HBE interacted more with the contemporary state to the east than the ancient Roman Empire.

I'm kind of betting on, after 100 more pages, this thread either concluding with everyone agreeing to call everything Byzantium or, even more excitingly, calling everything Celtic. The case has started to be made for the latter, and you can't argue that there was no Celtic presence in the east the way people do for Romans.

 

[Krom1212]

I think we should start calling the Roman republic proto-Byzantium

Byzantium is obviously the proto-Ottoman empire

 

[PortDoubloon01]

Evidently this whole deal with romaboos being terribly offended by common and normal terminology is, indeed, the product of overly obsessed people who are more concerned about fanboying for failed warlord states that caring anything about actual history.

Have you tried just not caring about the opinions of a few misguided people on a niche gaming forum?

This is obviously not directed at me, because I know very well and my whole argument is that "Byzantine" is a good name because it's a very efficient way to say "Medieval Rome (meaning they were speaking Greek at this time, and they're not the Germano-Latin Holy Roman ones)", so why don't you do yourself a favour and simply stop bothering about the honor of some specific medieval state that hasn't been relevant in centuries?

This is wholly uncalled for. Why are you being so mean? Could you please refrain from personal attacks, trying to make it seem like people have some personal defect for participating in this forum? It seems like you're trying to make people feel bad about having an intellectual interest in debating historiography. I'm interested in this because I find the lost world/identity of the late Romans compelling, and whether political identity can be extended to people ethnically/linguistically different from the founding group is a philosophical question with direct bearing on the modern world.

The weirdest thing about this rude diatribe is that it applies equally to you. Why are you commenting here if commenting indicates all the personal failings you listed?

But it is.

In a single word it has communicated to you that:

1) It's the Roman Empire.

2) It's a Greek polity.

3) It's placed in the Middle Ages from the 7th to the 15th century.

4) It's based in Constantinople.

It doesn't communicate that, rather the opposite at point one. The term was invented to say that they were not Romans, it implies that they were not Romans, and people continue to deny that they were Romans. Calling them Greek fails to capture their identity and takes a contemporary bias by looking back with nationalist ideas.

If you agree it is the Roman empire, why not call it the Roman Empire? It confuses people when the Roman Empire is suddenly called by a new name.

Your point about Greek ethnicity is too confusing to address. The eastern part of the Roman Empire was considered Roman and identified as Roman, and used Greek as a lingua franca well before the collapse of the empire. The Romans before the 400s were not some ethnically and linguistically pure Latin people. Coptic, Latin, Greek, Aramaic, etc speakers were all considered Roman at different points in time. You are placing contemporary importance on ethnicity as a basis for political identity.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Evidently this whole deal with romaboos being terribly offended by common and normal terminology is, indeed, the product of overly obsessed people who are more concerned about fanboying for failed warlord states that caring anything about actual history.

It's been 100 pages and yet you still cling to your tired, failed attempts at psychoanalysis.

 

[P.Quirinius]

Evidently this whole deal with romaboos being terribly offended by common and normal terminology is, indeed, the product of overly obsessed people who are more concerned about fanboying for failed warlord states that caring anything about actual history.

I see five main motivations why I care about the name of Byzantium.
1. Historical accuracy: Byzantine empire is hard to justify from a synchronical perspective, especially when its position is clearly indicated on the map. Using Byzantine empire in this context suggests that it is an entity clearly distinct from the Roman empire, which it is not.
2. Pedagogical interest: People are used to call it Byzantine empire which emphasises the differences between Byzantium and the ancient Roman empire. Calling it ERE or RE can open new perspectives and emphasise the continuities, which are discussed much less.
3. Combating nationalism: Nationalism has been the cause of a lot of evil in the past two centuries especially in its more extreme forms like fascism and nazism, while it probably also had some positive effects, I would say it has mostly been a pest. Acknowledging that Byzantium was the Roman empire and Byzantines were Romans is a major setback for Greek nationalists for whom it breaks the continuity with ancient Greece and for Italian fascists or any romance movement that wants to claim the heritage of Rome not only because it makes claiming Roman heritage more difficult for them, but also because the fact that various people from eastern mediterranean could become Romans and continue being Romans even after losing the Latins shows that ethnonationalism was not Roman.
4. Combating West European supremacism: While white racism is usually directed against people of colour, there is occasionally also a feeling of superiority over Slavs or Greeks or other peoples from East or Southeast Europe. "Slav" is etymologically the same word as "Slave" after all. I heard and read people saying with disdain that modern day Greeks were actually not descendants of the great ancient Greeks, but (only) Slavs. Denying that Byzantium was Roman can sometimes be a consequence of the opinion that these people or other easterners were not capable of "Roman greatness". Emphasising the continuity between Rome and Byzantium despite losing the westerners and the greatness Byzantium was able to achieve at least at some periods helps to combat these opinions.
5. Combating papal supremacists: This is probably mostly irrelevant, but one can still encounter people in this forum who say that Byzantium was not Roman, because their emperor was not crowned by the pope. This seems quite silly and I am not sure if these people are not joking, but I since papal supremacy is one of the most toxic things about catholicism in my opinion, I think it is worthwhile to prove it is a nonsense.

Any other motivations worthwhile motivations I missed?

 

[ATSCMS]

This debate is fancy and all. But have you thought of asking an actual roman emperor what he thinks of all of this? Well, alexios komnenos himself is here to tell you.

There are english subtitles btw.

 

[peteoj]

Putting an end to this thread by saying my completely original and correct take; By default it should be called the eastern roman empire and the player should be able to change it in the game rules if they prefer the term byzantine. Debating whether the ere was Rome is always so funny especially because I assume the majority of the people here are map nerds, you look at a map of Europe from the foundation of the Roman Empire till 1453 and it's pretty clear that the ere is still the same Rome from 1 ad. Arguing about culture or whatever is completely meaningless because those don't really matter at the end of the day when defining the name of a state that was not the "continuation" or the "successor" but the literal same political entity as the Roman Empire. Calling it the ere is also just cooler and looks nice on the map when you conquer all of the balkans and anatolia.

 

[AntarcticRanger]

Acknowledging that Byzantium was the Roman empire and Byzantines were Romans is a major setback for Greek nationalists for whom it breaks the continuity with ancient Greece

While I generally agree with your post, this is not at all the case lmao. Acknowledging that the Byzantines were Romans makes modern Greece have one of the best claims to being the heir to the Roman Empire, what nationalist wouldn't love that?