3 ms·

I have no idea how you can come to the conclusion that the ERE wasn’t the Roman Empire. It is literally a direct continuation straight from Augustus.

coldtea 5y ago
Really? No idea? There's a reason why we call the millenium-long state the Byzantine Empire as distinct from the Roman Empire and not just "Eastern Roman Empire" (even if its inhabitans were ok with just Roman Empire or Romania). The state line of continuation is real and legitimate (there wasn't some invasion that started calling itself "Easter Roman Empire" for example). But it's also real that the split of the empire to eastern and western, and then the trasnfer of the empire's capital to the East, and the fall of the western capital, also meant a transfer from the italic/latin-speaking roman core to the hellenistic/greek-speaking populations, that were not the original "romans" but conquered by them, and who eventually established their norms, culture, and language as core attributes of the new empire (not to mention this new-fangled christianity thing, which was anathema to the old empire and quite different from the pagan world).
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > There’s a reason why we call the millenium-long state the Byzantine Empire as distinct from the Roman Empire and not just “Eastern Roman Empire” Mostly, I think, rationalizations of attitudes shaped by anti-Eastern propaganda in the West, both before and especially after the East-West schism in the Church.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    I'd say it's both. There was up to the 20th century an anti-Eastern bias (as the western wannabe successors to the Roman Empire wanted no legitimate competitors and felt the presence of ERE as de-legitimizing them). But also because the transfer from a roman/italic/latin/pagan/Rome-based to a hellenistic/greek/christian/Constantinople-based state was quite a big transition, which only legally and nominally one would accept as the same empire.
- muro 5y ago
  Western Europe called it the byzantine empire also to increase the legitimacy of HRE as Roman Empire successor.

coldtea 5y ago

Really? No idea? There's a reason why we call the millenium-long state the Byzantine Empire as distinct from the Roman Empire and not just "Eastern Roman Empire" (even if its inhabitans were ok with just Roman Empire or Romania). The state line of continuation is real and legitimate (there wasn't some invasion that started calling itself "Easter Roman Empire" for example). But it's also real that the split of the empire to eastern and western, and then the trasnfer of the empire's capital to the East, and the fall of the western capital, also meant a transfer from the italic/latin-speaking roman core to the hellenistic/greek-speaking populations, that were not the original "romans" but conquered by them, and who eventually established their norms, culture, and language as core attributes of the new empire (not to mention this new-fangled christianity thing, which was anathema to the old empire and quite different from the pagan world).

dragonwriter 5y ago
> There’s a reason why we call the millenium-long state the Byzantine Empire as distinct from the Roman Empire and not just “Eastern Roman Empire” Mostly, I think, rationalizations of attitudes shaped by anti-Eastern propaganda in the West, both before and especially after the East-West schism in the Church.
- coldtea 5y ago
  I'd say it's both. There was up to the 20th century an anti-Eastern bias (as the western wannabe successors to the Roman Empire wanted no legitimate competitors and felt the presence of ERE as de-legitimizing them). But also because the transfer from a roman/italic/latin/pagan/Rome-based to a hellenistic/greek/christian/Constantinople-based state was quite a big transition, which only legally and nominally one would accept as the same empire.
muro 5y ago
Western Europe called it the byzantine empire also to increase the legitimacy of HRE as Roman Empire successor.