4 ms·

If the language, architecture, religion, sphere of influence, culture & laws were all completely different why wouldn’t you distinguish it? We distinguish betw

If the language, architecture, religion, sphere of influence, culture & laws were all completely different why wouldn’t you distinguish it? We distinguish between the Roman Republic vs Roman Empire and in lots of ways they had much more in common than the Byzantine.

oblio 8y ago
Rome had Greek as an official language even back during the "real" Roman Empire. Architecture evolves. Religion? I'm not sure I get the point, they were Christian, some would say, they were the actual "real" Christians :) Sphere of influence? Can you even quantify that? Culture, see language above. Laws? They had Roman laws + laws added during the normal evolution of a state. More than that, the Justinian code was also adopted by Western countries...
pesmhey 8y ago
Even the distinction between republic and empire may be incorrect. They called themselves res publica the entire time. I mean, if they’re considering themselves Roman Republicans, how much can we look back and contradict them?
- kasey_junk 8y ago
  Would the Romans who cut their hands off rather than submit to a king, who viewed the Greeks as indolent & corrupted, look at the Byzantines and think “those are Romans?” We of course can’t know but it shows that what the last of the Byzantine’s called themselves is not necessarily the end of the discussion.
  - pesmhey 8y ago
    >We of course can’t know but it shows that what the last of the Byzantine’s called themselves is not necessarily the end of the discussion. Agreed. Always an interesting discussion.
lmm 8y ago
> We distinguish between the Roman Republic vs Roman Empire Not to a great extent. People doing detailed historical work on the relevant era would, sure, but general popular history probably wouldn't.
LiquidSky 8y ago
>If the language, architecture, religion, sphere of influence, culture & laws were all completely different why wouldn’t you distinguish it? Because it was a single, continuous political entity. Why would any of those aspects have any relevance as to whether the political entity of Rome persisted? >We distinguish between the Roman Republic vs Roman Empire and in lots of ways they had much more in common than the Byzantine. Because there was a break in the political entity, though even this is a anachronistic division since Augustus and the emperors of the "Principate" took pains to maintain the appearance of the continuation of the Republic. But the reality was, at least, that the nature of the Roman state had changed into a new and different one.
- astine 8y ago
  "Because it was a single, continuous political entity." It really wasn't. There were various major changes in the constitution of the Roman Empire between the reign of Augustus and the time of the Byzantines, especially during the reign of Diocletian.
  - LiquidSky 8y ago
    But that didn't make a different entity. Sure the Principate differed from the Dominate, but it was all continuously the Roman Empire. At the time the Western portion of the Empire fell it was legally controlled by two emperors in two capitals. The Eastern capital and emperor persisted. There's really nothing more to discuss. The US Constitution has also undergone a number of changes since the founding, and society is very different than it was 300 years ago, yet it would be absurd to say it's not the same entity. Internal changes are just that: internal changes. The Empire itself never fell until 1453.

oblio 8y ago

Rome had Greek as an official language even back during the "real" Roman Empire. Architecture evolves. Religion? I'm not sure I get the point, they were Christian, some would say, they were the actual "real" Christians :) Sphere of influence? Can you even quantify that? Culture, see language above. Laws? They had Roman laws + laws added during the normal evolution of a state. More than that, the Justinian code was also adopted by Western countries...

pesmhey 8y ago

Even the distinction between republic and empire may be incorrect. They called themselves res publica the entire time. I mean, if they’re considering themselves Roman Republicans, how much can we look back and contradict them?

kasey_junk 8y ago
Would the Romans who cut their hands off rather than submit to a king, who viewed the Greeks as indolent & corrupted, look at the Byzantines and think “those are Romans?” We of course can’t know but it shows that what the last of the Byzantine’s called themselves is not necessarily the end of the discussion.
- pesmhey 8y ago
  >We of course can’t know but it shows that what the last of the Byzantine’s called themselves is not necessarily the end of the discussion. Agreed. Always an interesting discussion.

lmm 8y ago

> We distinguish between the Roman Republic vs Roman Empire Not to a great extent. People doing detailed historical work on the relevant era would, sure, but general popular history probably wouldn't.

LiquidSky 8y ago

>If the language, architecture, religion, sphere of influence, culture & laws were all completely different why wouldn’t you distinguish it? Because it was a single, continuous political entity. Why would any of those aspects have any relevance as to whether the political entity of Rome persisted? >We distinguish between the Roman Republic vs Roman Empire and in lots of ways they had much more in common than the Byzantine. Because there was a break in the political entity, though even this is a anachronistic division since Augustus and the emperors of the "Principate" took pains to maintain the appearance of the continuation of the Republic. But the reality was, at least, that the nature of the Roman state had changed into a new and different one.

astine 8y ago
"Because it was a single, continuous political entity." It really wasn't. There were various major changes in the constitution of the Roman Empire between the reign of Augustus and the time of the Byzantines, especially during the reign of Diocletian.
- LiquidSky 8y ago
  But that didn't make a different entity. Sure the Principate differed from the Dominate, but it was all continuously the Roman Empire. At the time the Western portion of the Empire fell it was legally controlled by two emperors in two capitals. The Eastern capital and emperor persisted. There's really nothing more to discuss. The US Constitution has also undergone a number of changes since the founding, and society is very different than it was 300 years ago, yet it would be absurd to say it's not the same entity. Internal changes are just that: internal changes. The Empire itself never fell until 1453.