if napoleon had conquered and kept spain, and some mexicans then claimed to be the spanish empire, they would never be considered as such
same with byzantium,. it was a bunch of greeks calling themselves romans, not different from the germanics callem themselves the roman empire
Except everybody actually did consider them to be Roman for at least 200 years after the end of the West. Not to mention they didn't have a break in culture or state continuity with the Empire. Greek culture had been obliterated by the Romans and if you go on modern ethnicity memes the majority of them weren't Greek either.
later they temporaly reconquered rome, giving them some legitimacy, but to say that the roman empire died in the 15th century is a mistake in my opinion
as well as to say that the ottoman empire was the direct successor of the roman empire since they conquered the roman empire and kept its population/institutions
the roman empire died in the 5th century, and you could call the byzantines a inheritor at most of the roman empire
as the modern state of france isnt the carolingian empire, byzantium wasnt the roman
>the roman empire died in the 5th century
Only half of it. The eastern part survived until much later. 1000 years is not a period that should just be ignored
as i said in the op
if napoleon had conquered spain and put a different head of state, would mexico be spain? no
same here
rome died in the 5th century, the ''ere'' were as a legit successor of the roman empire as the HRE
are you 80iq?
the western part died in the 5th century
rome wasn't even the capital then
Mexico wasn't considered part of Spain even during the existence of the Spanish Empire.
But what if, hypothetically, the Spanish Empire managed to control the Mexican region for +/- 500 years, making it culturally Spanish. They then move their capital and government to New Mexico, and then lose Madrid to an outside aggressor. Would the Spanish empire cease to exist just because they lost their former hearthland?
Keep in mind, this is not EUIV or some other mappainter.
>but to say that the roman empire died in the 15th century is a mistake in my opinion
I don't believe that either.
>the roman empire died in the 5th century, and you could call the byzantines a inheritor at most of the roman empire
The East and the West were both part of the same state. Neither side believed each other to be different from each other. They didn't even believe in a divide in the Empire. There was no 'inheriting' when it came to Byzantium, it was literally the exact same state.
as i said to the others, if napoleon conquer of spain had suceeded and joseph was kept as the spanish king, then mexico proceeded to call themselves spain, would mexico be spain?
That comparison doesn't make any sense. A more apt one would be if Aragon seceded from Spain but they still maintained the same King in Spain and all institutions. That doesn't suddenly make Spain not Spain anymore.
nope, that comparation is perfect
say that napoleon conquered spain and anexated it to france empire under his rule
mexico WOULDNT be spain, despite having the same institutions and being a former part of spain
Yet Byzantium was never different from Western Rome in the eyes of all people living in both West and East. Laws were legislated in the same name even into Julius Nepos' exile. The Romans never considered there to be two states, there was no such thing as Western or Eastern Rome to them. There was only Rome, just because Italy is not in the Empire, does not change the fact that the single Roman state still existed.
as well as in every empire, laws are laws and all the empire is seen as one
that doesnt change the fact that after the fall of rome, what remained in the east was a GREEK state, with a different culture, religion, language and ethnia from rome
you cant be rome without rome and romans
>what remained in the east was a GREEK state
Source for this? Greeks considered themeselves Roman citizens even under the ottoman empire until very recently
*greeks*
exactly
they werent romans
they can consider themselves whatever they want
the sultanate of rum considered itself rome
>they can consider themselves whatever they want
They were Romans legally, if they had a passport it would say Rome and their ethnicity as Roman and everyone regarded them as such.
the equivalent of mexico surviving the spanish empire , calling itself spain and claiming to be spaniards
Who mentioned Mexico?
same situation than byzantium
the empire dies, a bunch of is still united under a ruler, it claims to be the original empire
bizantium is to the roman empire what mexico was to spain ( had spain being invaded and occupied)
Lmao you don't know shit retard
Name 10 books you read about Roman history
recently? rubicon, and the gibbon's trilogy about the decadence of the roman empire
>decadence
Can you explain what this word means without any buzzwords
loss of internal stability, capability to project power in the limex, economic stagnation and downfall, and a long etc including the loss of power of the imperial figure as well the conversion of the army into barely a bunch of mercenaries
You're just stating the loss of central power and fractioning of the military. You sound like a retard if you say 'decadence' since it's meaningless without explanation.
its literally the title of the trilogy in my language
la decadencia del imperio romano
And it's a stupid word to use regardless.
tell that to the fucking author
>what remained in the east was a GREEK state
Greeks formed a minority in Eastern Rome.
>with a different culture
They functionally shared the same culture. It would be absurd to think that 600 years of Roman rule did not superimpose their own culture onto most of Anatolia and Greece like the rest of the West and Balkans. Greek culture was dead in the water since the late 3rd century. Let alone the 6th.
>religion
They both practiced the same religious tenants and structured their religious institutions the same way, it's called 'Catholic Orthodoxy'
>language
Largely only outside of the Balkans
>ethnia
If you mean 'Ethnicity' you would be wrong. The majority of these people believed that they were Romans and even descended from Romans from Latium
greeks were one of the main ethnias of the ''ere''
the culture of the inhabitants there, as well as the ornamens, even how they built , was different
there was no christian orthodoxy from the 6th century onwards
the capital and a huge chunk of the population had latin as their second language, greek surpassed it
they can believe whatever, as i said,the rum sultanate considered itself rome xD
they want, most of them were greeks or from the varius tribes that went from dacia to anatolia
>greeks were one of the main ethnias of the ''ere''
Greeks weren't an ethnicity in the ERE at all if you go by the definition of the word. If you mean by genetics, they occupied only Greece and costal Anatolia.
>the culture of the inhabitants there, as well as the ornamens, even how they built , was different
In no ways that you can prove, because there functionally was none.
>there was no christian orthodoxy from the 6th century onwards
I don't know how you could possibly say that when the idea of a unified Christian world continued until the 12th century and the Papacy would not form into an independent entity until the late 6th.
>the capital and a huge chunk of the population had latin as their second language, greek surpassed it
That would have only been after the end of Roman Africa. During the reign of Justinian, Latin was the majority language from Africa, Illyria, Thracia, Moesia and Italy
there i must agree, the byzantines managed to reconquer italica and north africa for a while, giving them some legitimacy to call itself the roman empire, after they lost it, such legimitacy was gone, since as i said,, different language, religion, culture, and people
its the equivalents of mexican criollos calling themselves spanish emperors while only owning latin america
>Greeks formed a minority in Eastern Rome.
no lmao
they were one of the largest ethnic groups
>they were one of the largest ethnic groups
Latins, Coptics and Levantine Aramaic speakers were all larger. But for some reason everybody jerks off about one of the smaller ethnic groups.
Delusional
Those things have nothing to do with each other
Whataboutism is a logical fallacy, please don't derail the thread with your irrelevant bullshit
its the same situation
the empire has its homeland conquered, then the periferic lands, inhabited by another culture and people and conquered a few centuries ago still remain with the same institutions etc, are they the original nation that conquered them?
in my opinion no
you cant be the roman epire without romans and rome
you cant be spain without iberia and spaniards
if the uk was conquered by ireland rn and only the maldives remained would the maldives be the uk? no
Have you literally never heard of 'identity', 'ethnicity' or know that the majority of the Balkans spoke Latin.
the ethnicity of the balkans was different from the romans
most of the byzantines spoke GREEK being latin the second laguage , and had a different culture from the romans, as well as a different religion
no rome nor romans, no roman empire
>you cant be the roman epire without romans and rome
The people were Roman citizens and identified as such
>you cant be spain without iberia and spaniards
nationalism is a 19th century invention and it didn't exist in the ancient or medieval world so you can't really make the same parallels
and the sultanate of rum called themselves romans and claimed to be the continuation of rome, same institutions, same lands, same laws etc etc
i guess that mehmet was a roman emperor too?
>and the sultanate of rum called themselves romans
No they didn't.
>and claimed to be the continuation of rome
You are confusing them with the Ottomans. The claim of the Sultanate of Rum was geographical, not ideological. They claimed to be ruling the land of the Romans, known to them as Rum.
>same institutions,
Not at all. The Turkish Sultan ruled through a tribal system and relatively few administrators. They didn't adopt the Byzantine bureaucracy.
> same laws
They practiced their own style of law unlike the Civil Law practiced by the Byzantines.
>breaks off from the Roman Empire
>WE WUZ THE ORIGINAL EMPIRE
>schisms from the Papacy
>WE WUZ THE ORIGINAL CHURCH
Yes to both. Land was gradually lost throughout 5th century. It became cheaper to keep Italian peninsula as vassal state under a “kingdom” that still had absolute Roman rule. Only lower value coins could be minted in Theoderics name. Roman culture and rule continued until Justinian fucked it up
off from the Roman Empire
They never did that though
>bishops of the 5 main churches are in communion with each other
>one of the churches breaks off because being first among equals wasn't good enough
>the other 4 churches are still in communion with each other
>the other 4 churches are somehow the ones in schism
If hypothetically four of the Twelve Apostles revolted against Saint Peter then they would be the schismatics, wouldn't they?
That would depend entirely on whether or not Peter was right in the matter. Paul criticised Peter for being a coward on the matter of circumcision.
>Paul criticised Peter for being a coward on the matter of circumcision.
Nevertheless, Saint Paul never broke off from Peter and founded his own church. They were always in communion.
Was Peter first among equals? If 11 of 12 apostles break with Peter would it be different? More importantly, did the four break with Rome, or did Rome break with the four?
The Eastern bishops broke with Rome, their hubris made them unwilling to bend the knee to the Vicar of Christ.
>pope sends a legate demanding to be head of the entire church and no longer first among equals as was tradition
>legates excommunicate the patriarch of constantinople upon refusal of such an egotistical demand
>antioch, alexandria and jerusalem do not excommunicate constantinople
Sounds to me like Rome broke with the four.
Literally never broke from the roman empire retard. The Eastern half the senior half. When both it existed it was literally the more legitimate half. Also kek, you realize the pope was just 1 of twelve right. To the romans he had no special powers. Thats only after the fall of the western empire. The Papacy as the leader of christendom is a decidedly anti roman practice. You could atleast go read wikipedia or something first.
No, it was Romania
>Greek culture had been obliterated by the Romans
No it hadn't, on the contrary the Romans implemented alot of Greek stuff into their own culture.
>if you go on modern ethnicity memes the majority of them weren't Greek either.
After the Levant was lost, the majority were without a doubt ethnic Greeks.
>on the contrary the Romans implemented alot of Greek stuff into their own culture.
That really only applies to material culture. The Romans did not adopt anything close to Greek society until over 200 years after they first interacted with them but that was caused by the end of the Republic and end of the system of eternal warfare which Central Italian society was built around. The Greek additions to Roman culture were very superficial and more a game of them picking and choosing what they wanted.
>That really only applies to material culture.
They implemented so much Greek stuff into their religion that there was hardly anything Italic left other than the names, and you're seriously trying to claim that the Greek influence was limited to material shit?
>They implemented so much Greek stuff into their religion that there was hardly anything Italic left other than the names, and you're seriously trying to claim that the Greek influence was limited to material shit?
The Romans obliterated their Italic culture in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC you ultra-tard. They went from being Walmart Gayreeks to later becoming Gayreeks themselves.
Say that to the other guy, he was the one claiming Greek influence on Roman culture was negligible, not me.
Actually many rural Greeks considered themselves Roman even during the 20th century.
They were called the Roman Empire until the 1550s when, of course, some ~~*intellectual Germ*n*~~ came up with the name Byzantine after the name of the original Greek settlement Konstantinopolis was built on. Stop trying to re-write history.
I don't care if they were real romans or not the Byzantines were degenerates who had it coming
I think we can best agree it was the continuation of the late Roman Empire rather than the early Roman Empire
Late roman empire ended with Heraclius. After that it was just a greekoid rump state
>byzantium
What? They never called themselves "byzantines"
It was called the Eastern Roman Empire, and its people were Roman citizens. "byzantium" is an ahistorical name that was invented in the 16th century by a german historian for propaganda purposes.
Romans also originated from Troy btw
they could call themselves whatever they wanted
they were as much the roman empire as the kingdom of lotharingia was the carolingian empire
you cant be the roman empire without rome nor romans
Its the same state with the same institutions, laws and everything with an unbroken continuation
so if napoleon conquer of spain had suceeded and joseph was kept as the spanish king, then mexico proceeded to call themselves spain, would mexico be spain?
>whataboutism
nope, literally the same situation
a massive empire has its homeland conquered, and what remains is the lands conquered a few centuries ago
are those lands the empire, if there is no more the homeland?
The roman empire continued to exist for a millenia after the western part got conquered by barbarians, regardless if that fits your narrative or not
I don't care about Napoleon or Spain since the thread is not about that
It's not the same situation. Your example is closer to the Ottomans conquering the ERE and then trying to claim status as a successor.
>They never called themselves "byzantines"
Correct
>It was called the Eastern Roman Empire
Correct
>its people were Roman citizens
Correct however they were not Roman.
>Greek culture
>Greek language
>Eastern Catholics i.e. Orthodoxy following Schism
>no Pontiff Maximus
>no Italy
Not Roman.
Roman was always a legal status, not an ethnicity. At the time of Theodosius Latins were Roman and Greeks were Roman and Gauls were Roman and Egyptians were Roman and Britons were Roman and Syrians were Roman.
>Roman was always a legal status, not an ethnicity.
Uh no. The Romans had a very clear idea of ethnicity and being Roman from descent. Isaurians were Roman citizens but nobody considered them Roman. People living in the West and East outside of Italy based a large part of their Romanitis on being descended from the Latin Romans, even if it wasn't the reality of it.
>Eastern Roman Empire
The Eastern part was only included very briefly from 395 to 476. In 476, Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustus and sent the crown of the western Roman Emperor to Emperor Zeno, recognizing them as the only empire, in exchange Zeno recognized Odoacer as the patrician of Italy
I wish we could all agree that Roman Empire was the great classic civilisation and not some medieval lump on the Aegean coast. I hate both Byzaboos and HREboos. Fat retards playing too much paradox games.
>byzantium,. it was a bunch of greeks calling themselves romans,
Wrong, no one called themselves greeks they saw themselves as Romans, their enemies saw them as romans the only one who didnt were some german LARPers.
And the actual greeks themselves didnt do shit after being conquered (Rome never had a greek emperor) and the empire was mostly Anatolians mostly including Armenians and syrians.
Wrong. When the Portuguese king went to Brazil and established the capital there, Brazil became the head of the empire - which didn't mean that the portuguese empire magically turned into a 'brazilian empire'.
Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium. The western half of the empire fell, the eastern kept going. No amount of mental gymnastics can deny this truth.
Before Byzantine, there were Indo-Greek.
it's academic
technically it was the same state but is makes sense from an analytic point of view to see it as a different entity just because of the change in character
dont care.
they are romanoi. your retarded german clumb of land isnt.
Rome died in the 3rd Century
well it didnt, regardless of your head canon.
bump
what is the reasoning for this other than "it changed to something I dont like!" ?
Rome changed many times up to that point.
You might as well claim that the Roman Empire hadn't been Roman since Diocletian moved the capital to Mediolanum in 286.
>Diocletian moved the capital to Mediolanum in 286.
Diocletian and his companions did not have capitals. Outside of the symbolic Rome they never really stayed in one spot for very long, the idea of a capital as we know it would not form until the end of the 5th century.
"Rome" never ended as it carried on in the Catholic Church, Armenian Church and Orthodox Church. It always housed several different sects and to say only one is Rome is daft.
"Rome" as a land with a head of state ended in 1461 with Mehmet II taking Trebizond. You COULD try and argue Mehmet continued it but his claim is incredibly dubious and were then giving imperial right to his slave harem mother.
>if napoleon had conquered and kept spain, and some mexicans then claimed to be the spanish empire, they would never be considered as such
Yes they would be concidered a continuation of the Spanish empire cause the same thing happened to the Portuguese and Brazil.
THIS. Why the fuck do Greekoid homosexuals get to claim they are a continuation of the Roman Empire but not Western Euros with Charlemagne or HRE? Either Rome fell in 476 or it fell in 1806.
>why
Because it’s a continuation of rule. That’s an absolute fact. Your best argument here is it ended in 1204
>Roman Empire split in two between the two sons of Theodosius
>Italian half falls into pieces in 476
>Greek half continues until 1453
>Charlemagne is somehow a continuation despite coming from a completely unrelated kingdom that did not continue the rule of an empire that fell apart 300 years before his kingdom existed
HRE can claim association with Charlie's empire, but neither has anything to do with the Rome of old.
Do the Merovingians have any sort of claim? That would be Charlie’s best chance
No the Merovingians were nominally subjects of the Byzantines
I love Charlemagne to death and I dislike Gayreek/Byzantoid perverts as much as the rest, but the Byzantines have unbroken continuation until 1453. The Franks (and later the HRE) did not, the pope had the audacity to challenge Irene’s claim as universal ruler over the entire world (something Roman emperors have claimed since forever) and Charlemagne went along with that, pissing off the Greeks to no end.
The attempt to deny the legitimacy of the Byzantines is an attempt by Germanics to cope and wewuz as muh great romans
Lastly, Germanics larping as romans before like 1000 -> based
After 1000 -> cringe
>but the Byzantines have unbroken continuation until 1453.
1204
everything else is arbitrary
Nicaea never fell to crusaders and it later conquered Thrace+ most of Greece, so they have continuity.
>Nicaea never fell to crusaders
Neither did Epirus or Trebizond and they all claimed to be the rightful Empire alongside the Latin Empire. You're basically just picking and choosing which Empire you like more. Nicaea is no more legitimate than any of the other successors.
Thrace and Epirus never reconquered Thrace and the majority of Greece, so they remained irrelevant minor kingdoms for the rest of their histories.
'Reconquest' is an arbitrary way of deciding legitimacy. Should I say that the Latin Empire was the real Roman Empire all along because they conquered and had the support of the largest party of local aristocracy? The point being that none of these states have unbroken continuity from pre 1204 Byzantium. Only the Latin Empire shared in the bureaucracy of it, none shared in the army, statehood, or succession of Imperial power. They are all clear breaks from the past.
>'Reconquest' is an arbitrary way of deciding legitimacy. Should I say that the Latin Empire was the real Roman Empire all along because they conquered and had the support of the largest party of local aristocracy? The point being that none of these states have unbroken continuity from pre 1204 Byzantium. Only the Latin Empire shared in the bureaucracy of it, none shared in the army, statehood, or succession of Imperial power. They are all clear breaks from the past.
The Latin Empire emerged in 1204, it did not exist before then, it did not possess any lands before then.
The Nicene Empire was the largest part of the Byzantine Empire that was not conquered, said empire then conquered Constantinople. If Julius Nepos magically reconquered Italy from Dalmatia, would you not recognize his state as Roman? Or did it magically stop being Roman after 476 and thus, if he did magically reconquer Italy, it would in fact not be Roman?
>The Nicene Empire was the largest part of the Byzantine Empire that was not conquered
Neither did it exist before 1204. It was a fundamentally different state from Byzantium beforehand. Just like every other state that came after the Fourth Crusade.
>If Julius Nepos magically reconquered Italy from Dalmatia, would you not recognize his state as Roman? Or did it magically stop being Roman after 476 and thus, if he did magically reconquer Italy, it would in fact not be Roman?
This is whataboutism and a logical fallacy. Neither is it a similar situation.
>Neither did it exist before 1204. It was a fundamentally different state from Byzantium beforehand. Just like every other state that came after the Fourth Crusade.
It was unconquered Byzantine land. And you really they didn't actually call themselves the "Nicene Empire" right? This is autism.
>This is whataboutism and a logical fallacy. Neither is it a similar situation.
It is a very similar situation and "whataboutism" is not a fallacy.
>It was unconquered Byzantine land
The state which formed in Nicaea didn't actually maintain the state structures of Byzantium, just because it is formed in the land does not make it the same. This argument also extends to Epirus and Trebizond and Epirus shared the exact same process of creation as Nicaea. They went out to conquer these territories with support of local elites, only Trebizond actually controlled the area they had when Byzantium collapsed.
>It is a very similar situation
Julius Nepos did not suffer a legitimacy crisis, he was recognized by everybody in the picture as the rightful Western Roman Emperor by Odoacer and Zeno until his death. Nicaea had three different competitors, one of which they gave credence to and even thought of as legitimate in the form of the Latin Empire for nearly 25 years.
>"whataboutism" is not a fallacy.
Yes it is. You're making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue. Which is avoiding the argument. Therefore a fallacy.
>The state which formed in Nicaea didn't actually maintain the state structures of Byzantium, just because it is formed in the land does not make it the same. This argument also extends to Epirus and Trebizond and Epirus shared the exact same process of creation as Nicaea. They went out to conquer these territories with support of local elites, only Trebizond actually controlled the area they had when Byzantium collapsed.
How did it not maintain the state structures of America? It was the same state in every sense of the world, Epirus and Trezibond also claimed the empire, but they remained politically irrelevant. Did France stop existing as a state when Paris was occupied by the English?
>Julius Nepos did not suffer a legitimacy crisis, he was recognized by everybody in the picture as the rightful Western Roman Emperor by Odoacer and Zeno until his death. Nicaea had three different competitors, one of which they gave credence to and even thought of as legitimate in the form of the Latin Empire for nearly 25 years.
Does a state stop existing every time there is a civil war?
>Yes it is. You're making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue. Which is avoiding the argument. Therefore a fallacy.
Is there anything inherently wrong with analogies or comparisons in order to cement an argument? This is not something I have any moral investment whatsoever in either, I'm not a Roman so I fundamentally don't give a fuck. And the term was invented as a way for leftists to gaslight people into discarding rational refutations.
>How did it not maintain the state structures
The army, administration and state ideologies held by Byzantium were not shared by the successors. The Administration only continued under the Latin Empire. The army in the case of Nicaea and Epirus was completely separate from the armies beforehand and they had to create their own armies through the recruitment of mercenaries as the previous one was either integrated into the Latin Empire or just disbanded.
>Epirus and Trezibond also claimed the empire, but they remained politically irrelevant.
This isn't true in the case of Epirus. During the collapse of the Latin Empire they were the most powerful of all the states.
>Does a state stop existing every time there is a civil war?
It wasn't a civil war but the complete destruction of the old state and the formation of new ones which claimed succession. Each Empire believed the other to be rebelling against their true central power, but none of them are actually attached to the old state.
>Is there anything inherently wrong with analogies or comparisons in order to cement an argument?
Yes, it avoids the argument and ignores all context of the actual argument. You're just ignoring the time and circumstances and imposing one completely unrelated.
>The army, administration and state ideologies held by Byzantium were not shared by the successors. The Administration only continued under the Latin Empire. The army in the case of Nicaea and Epirus was completely separate from the armies beforehand and they had to create their own armies through the recruitment of mercenaries as the previous one was either integrated into the Latin Empire or just disbanded.
You are simply blatantly lying.
>This isn't true in the case of Epirus. During the collapse of the Latin Empire they were the most powerful of all the states.
For a brief time that didn't pan out into anything.
>It wasn't a civil war but the complete destruction of the old state and the formation of new ones which claimed succession. Each Empire believed the other to be rebelling against their true central power, but none of them are actually attached to the old state.
No it wasn't the complete destruction of the old state, again you are blatantly lying here. It would've been the complete destruction of the old state if the entire Byzantine Empire (Trezibond split off before the Latins took Constantinople for separate reasons) was conquered and then native uprisings occurred. This is not what happened.
>Yes, it avoids the argument and ignores all context of the actual argument. You're just ignoring the time and circumstances and imposing one completely unrelated.
You realize comparisons and similarities exist, right? It is sensible to logically discuss this in an argument, as opposed to dismissing everything as inapplicable because it doesn't match the exact period and circumstances. And "whataboutism" is still constantly used as a form of gaslighting and was created for that express purpose.
>You are simply blatantly lying.
Read:
>Indigenous and Local Troops and Mercenaries in the Service of the ‘Latin’ Conquerors of the Byzantine Empire After 1204
>The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium
There is clear evidence of continuation of administration and military in the Latin Empire as it was absorbed. There was none for Epirus (created by a warlord aristocrat who conquered multiple cities during the collapse of the state) and Nicaea (who did the same thing). Only Trebizond was excluded from that process.
>For a brief time that didn't pan out into anything.
Ok and?
> It would've been the complete destruction of the old state if the entire Byzantine Empire (Trezibond split off before the Latins took Constantinople for separate reasons) was conquered and then native uprisings occurred. This is not what happened.
The end of the state depended on the central government and power, which no longer existed. Everybody does not need to die and all lands conquered for the old state to no longer exist.
>You realize comparisons and similarities exist, right?
If you like to ignore the circumstances which any argument exists in sure.
> as opposed to dismissing everything as inapplicable because it doesn't match the exact period and circumstances
That's completely reasonable to do. No other circumstance can apply perfectly or truly describe another. It is a pointless exercise in avoiding the argument.
There is continuation anyway in emperors when they took back Constantinople
I did read that book, I'm not denying that there was Greek administration and continuity in the Latin Empire. In your first sentence, you are saying something that is true for the Latin Empire, before blatantly lying about the various Greek polities.
>Ok and?
Legitimacy is dependent on longevity and power
>The end of the state depended on the central government and power, which no longer existed. Everybody does not need to die and all lands conquered for the old state to no longer exist.
What do you think the NIcene emperors called themselves?
>That's completely reasonable to do. No other circumstance can apply perfectly or truly describe another. It is a pointless exercise in avoiding the argument.
This is one of the most basic ways to converse and prove a point.
>Legitimacy is dependent on longevity and power
By what metric?
>What do you think the NIcene emperors called themselves?
The same exact thing everyone else called themselves.
>By what metric?
Reality
>The same exact thing everyone else called themselves.
The Latin Emperors did not call themselves "Roman Emperors." They called themselves "The Empire of Romania" or usually "The Empire of Constantinople."
>Reality
Just because a state is weak does not make it illegitimate
>The Latin Emperors did not call themselves "Roman Emperors." They called themselves "The Empire of Romania" or usually "The Empire of Constantinople."
They called themselves 'Emperor of Romania' which means exactly the same thing as Roman Emperor. Or in offical documents
>Balduinus Dei gratia fidelissimus in Christo imperator a Deo coronatus Romanorum moderator et semper augustus.
Which is roughly something like 'Emperor Baldwin by grace of God, Emperor of the Romans and forever August.'
>Just because a state is weak does not make it illegitimate
Why do states exist? How do they hold onto power?
>They called themselves 'Emperor of Romania' which means exactly the same thing as Roman Emperor. Or in offical documents
The distinction is still there, they were never so bold as to outright attempt to claim the HRE emperor's title. And I've usually seen "Romanae" not "Romanorum."
>the pope had the audacity to challenge Irene’s claim as universal ruler over the entire world
Of course he did because she was a filicide-regicide usurper madwoman who imprisoned her son Emperor Constantine VI, proclaimed herself "Empress" and had him tortured to death. She had no legitimacy whatsoever, a woman can't hold the title of Roman Emperor by her own right. Upon the murder of Constantine VI there WAS NO legitimate Roman Emperor, in other words the title of Roman Emperor was vacant. Therefore the Holy Father Pope Saint Leo III (ora pro nobis) crowned Charles I as the successor of Constantine VI.
There were a ton of shitty depraved Greek emperors like Irene before she ascended to the throne.
There was no precedent for an emperor's MOTHER usurping him, declaring herself "Empress" by her own right and having him tortured to death, not even in the time where the Empire was majority pagan. Do you truly believe that the Vicar of Christ was in the wrong for not acknowledging her?
Furthermore, she wasn't even Roman. She was from Athens which makes her a Greek.
I don't know about the Merovingians but the Carolingians were literally descended from the Romans who were descended from the Trojans.
>Jesus Christ himself (legitimizing themselves through the use of religion)
This sounds like a strawman to me. The Franks were faithful and orthodox Catholics, they didn't believe that Our Lord had literal children, that's a Gnostic belief.
>Furthermore, she wasn't even Roman. She was from Athens which makes her a Greek.
She was a Roman citizen, as were many over the past 600 years.
That doesn't make her Roman by blood.
Neither was Diocletian, but we're not questioning his status as Roman Emperor.
You're trolling.
>There was no precedent for an emperor's MOTHER usurping him, declaring herself "Empress" by her own right and having him tortured to death, not even in the time where the Empire was majority pagan. Do you truly believe that the Vicar of Christ was in the wrong for not acknowledging her?
I don't give a fuck about the legitimacy of the Roman Empire and I prefer Charlemagne to the Byzantines by a long shot
>Furthermore, she wasn't even Roman. She was from Athens which makes her a Greek.
Learn Roman history. Using "Roman" as an ethnicity is retarded and the empire was constantly ruled by foreigners especially during the 3rd century and beyond.
>I don't know about the Merovingians but the Carolingians were literally descended from the Romans who were descended from the Trojans.
Perhaps in the same way Ubungu in the Congo is descended from Alfred the Great because his great great great great great grandmother was boned by a wandering explorer.
>This sounds like a strawman to me. The Franks were faithful and orthodox Catholics, they didn't believe that Our Lord had literal children, that's a Gnostic belief.
The Franks had many beliefs and practices that go against Catholicism early on. Look it up if you doubt me.
> Using "Roman" as an ethnicity is retarded
The idea of a Roman ethnicity connected to the idea of being descended from Latin Romans continued to exist well into the 11th century. They quite literally believed that they were descended from Latin Romans and therefore part of the same lineage as them. Which makes them ethnic Romans.
>the empire was constantly ruled by foreigners especially during the 3rd century and beyond.
The only Emperor that could be called foreign in any sense was Zeno. Every Emperor until the 5th century was known to be native Latin speaking Romans.
Diocletian was a Latin speaking Roman. How was he not Roman.
>Diocletian was a Latin speaking Roman. How was he not Roman.
So the only definition of what makes a Roman is to speak Latin? The last I checked, Dalmatians weren't Roman.
He probably believes that 12th century Swedish monks magically became Roman after studying Latin.
>The idea of a Roman ethnicity connected to the idea of being descended from Latin Romans continued to exist well into the 11th century. They quite literally believed that they were descended from Latin Romans and therefore part of the same lineage as them. Which makes them ethnic Romans.
Are transgender women actually women because they identify as such?
>The only Emperor that could be called foreign in any sense was Zeno. Every Emperor until the 5th century was known to be native Latin speaking Romans.
So what determines an ethnicity is language? I have to disagree with you.
>Diocletian was a Latin speaking Roman. How was he not Roman.
So trannies are women?
Ethnicity definition
>the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
They belonged to a social group known to them as Roman, they believed in a common national tradition, and shared the same cultural tradition. They believed descent from Latin Romans, and acted accordingly based on this view. So yes, they were Ethnic Romans.
>Le tranny
Nothing to do with the argument
So if the ethnic definition of a Roman changes, say, after the fall of Rome and the only surviving citizens of the Roman Empire are located in Greece and speak Greek, then they are also ethnic Romans, according to your logic.
>They believed descent from Latin Romans, and acted accordingly based on this view
Source: your ass
>The historian Attaleiates wrote a long comparrison between 'The ancient Romans' and his own 'Romans' to show that they did not live up to their ancestors.
>From Attaleiates 'History'
>The ninth century monk Euodios wrote on the martyrdom of forty-two military martyrs of Amorion killed by the Muslims who took the city in 838 and in his story had one of the saints speak 'To the Romans of old, who conquered the entire world'
>From Euodios' 'Fourty-Two Martyrs of Amorion'
>In the life of the Saint Elias he is made to admonish an imperial general to restrain his men and to persaude him cites the examples of ancient generals including Scipio 'Who was also a Roman General'
>From 'Life of Saint Elias the Younger'
>In 589 the Bishop Gregorios restored order to an army by addressing them as Roman men and to prove they are not 'illegitmate children' of their ancestors which included Romans from the Republic such as Manlius Torquatus.
>From Euagrious' 'Ecclesiastical history'
>Manuel Komnenos warned the German king Conrad not to pick a fight with the Romans as his own people whose ancient ancestors had conquered a large part of the globe.
>From Kinnamos' history
>A church liturgy for fallen soldiers dating probably from the tenth century and produced in the provinces, refers to the sanctifed heroes as the "offspring of Rome" calling them also the foundation of the patris and the entire genos.
>From Ketorakis and Mossay 'Un Office inedit'
>A hostile source reports when the Emperor Theophilios was going bald and decreed that "No Roman" should wear hair longer than below the neck; for this he invoked the practice of "the Roman ancestors, who wore their hair in this way."
>From Theophanes 'Continuatus'
>Constantine VII wrote that the Emperors after Heraclius 'Used Greek to an even greater degree and cast off their ancestral Roman language.'
>From Constantine VII's 'On the Themes'
They quite literally did think their ancestors were the Latin Romans.
I misunderstood what you meant by your ethnicity definition, because from your sources it clearly shows and proves by your own hand that the Greek speaking citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire were Romans. Therefore, Irene was through and through a legitimate Roman.
I'm only here for the ethnicity argument. I got nothing for le rightful Emperor meme
I'm the rightful emperor.
Were led to believe true romans are descendants of Troy. What ethnicity is that?
That's a later invention to them. It only really appeared as a popular idea during the reign of Augustus. The reason that they wouldn't be 'ethnic Trojans' is because they only claimed descent from them, they didn't actually call themselves Trojan or act like they were part of a political or cultural community known as the Trojans. If they did than we probably would be calling them as such. But they didn't. They believed that their society was Roman and not Trojan.
>They belonged to a social group known to them as Roman, they believed in a common national tradition, and shared the same cultural tradition. They believed descent from Latin Romans, and acted accordingly based on this view. So yes, they were Ethnic Romans.
So... the Byzantines were Romans until 1453.
>Nothing to do with the argument
You are using the exact same arguments.
>So... the Byzantines were Romans until 1453.
Until the end of their perceived Roman identity. Which was in the 19th century.
>You are using the exact same arguments.
Really not. If you're going to keep going on about trannies you should just take your meds.
>Until the end of their perceived Roman identity. Which was in the 19th century.
So you're not the same person I was arguing with, who claimed that the Byzantines stopped being Roman when their imaginary Latin Roman ethnicity died out in the 10th century?
>Really not. If you're going to keep going on about trannies you should just take your meds.
Really yes.
There was no precedent, for augustus, but we consider him legitimate? You just want to pick and choose shit. The only consistent thing about roman succession is it was a complete shit show and the empires greatest weakness.
The problem with Irene was not that she was shit, but rather she was a woman. She was universally hated for usurping power, she already did technically rule before but she existed in a temporary position which when she no longer held would be folded back onto the Emperor. Constantine being killed and replaced by a woman was never seen in the Roman world and she was largely thought of illegitimate in her own Empire, and especially in the West.
So another anti roman thought. Irene, didnt do anything that other roman emperors before the fall of the west or even the split hadnt done. The papacy as the senior church is an anti roman institution. Based on your christ cuck opions the roman empire ended during its first civil war over the crown. Fuck off with your inconsistent ass.
Emperor Charles I the Great was crowned as the successor of Emperor Constantine VI by the Holy Father Pope Saint Leo III. Furthermore, Charles I was descended from Gallo-Roman patricians and prefects of the Western Roman Empire.
>Furthermore, Charles I was descended from Gallo-Roman patricians and prefects of the Western Roman Empire.
Although I'm sure that the Franks were already all mutted by then, his descent from them if not a literal forgery is completely irrelevant. He considered himself a Frank and only a Frank. Drawing Gallo-Roman lineage from him would be like a modern African-American wewuzing as Scottish.
There are literal books about his ancestors that explain their lineage, for example the Historia Francorum by Saint Gregory of Tours as well as later chronicles such as Liber Historiae Francorum.
Medieval genealogies are basically all made up. Not to mention Patricians didn't exist in the Later Roman Empire as a hereditary position, only around 4-5 people held the title at most.
Yes. You realize that the Franks fabricated their lineages in order to make themselves seem more legitimate? The Merovingians claimed to descend from
>Trojans (an attempt to connect themselves to classical antiquity)
>A serpent that had sex with a human (pagan Germanic tradition)
>Jesus Christ himself (legitimizing themselves through the use of religion)
>Charles I was descended from Gallo-Roman patricians and prefects of the Western Roman Empire.
You do know that they made it up right
except it was the literal physical continuation of the roman empire as such, directly, without a break in continuity of institution or rule, in fact the capitol didnt even move since constantinopol was allready the capitol before the western empire 'fell'
you could claim that the latin empire was a end to rome and that the later reconstituted byzantine empire was just a last grasp before the turks conquered it
The best argument for HRE being “Rome” is after 1453 when Andreas gifted his titles to Ferdinand
The Greeks were looked upon as descendants of Romans but towards the end they were called “Emperor of the Greeks”
By this logic nothing besides the city of Rome is truly Roman.
Thr correct interpretation is that the Byzantines were heir to the legacy of Rome/a derivative of Rome, but the Roman Empire itself had ceased to exist.
Why did it cease to exist?
Claiming that the ERE wasn't truly Roman despite the clear continuity of the polity means you must necessarily be arguing that every Empire loses its legitimacy as soon as its first Emperor dies. Either the continuity of policy determines what is and isn't one coherent Empire, or its pure blood rights.
>all the b*zaboo cope in this thread
Imagine if they'd just gotten along.
Both are cringe trannies
>luv ingerland
>luv France
>ate hre
>ate saracens
>ate gayreeks
>ate nonces
simple as
Not an argument
>Turks in 2022 still call the byzantines/modern greeks "rum"
>Not Roman
>Almost all of its inhabitants referred to themselves as Romans as they legally were
>Said inhabitants came from several ethnic backgrounds including: Armenians, Slavs, Greeks, Illyrians, Egyptians, Italics and numerous Anatolian tribes
>But because they eventually resorted to only using Greek as the main language of communication (as Greek had been in those areas of the empire during and before its conquest by Rome) they were... Le Greeks XD
>Latin itself was the major language in the urban areas up until the incoming Slavic migrations and the Islamic invasions
>The "Eastern" and "Western" empires were the same fucking state as acknowledged by the citizens, who for them, had gotten used to the empire being split into separate administrative regions since the times of Diocletian
Fucking retarded that were still debating this shit. They were Romans living in the legal Roman state. A majority of its citizens called themselves Romans in contrast to every other realm in Europe at the time.
If you want to argue about them not practicing traditional Roman culture, no fucking shit they didn’t, neither did a good chunk of those in the west by the time of the late empire. The Roman culture adapted over time in order to survive and be practical, whether it be clothing, religion, military tactics/formation etc. How on earth do you look at the Romans of the 10th century and get pissed at them for not acting like those of the 1st, they had to adapt.