3 ms·
> No. It would be like discussing quantum mechanics without mentioning wave-particle duality--you're missing a key part of the story. imo I've never been satis
by cco 5y ago
> No. It would be like discussing quantum mechanics without mentioning wave-particle duality--you're missing a key part of the story.
imo I've never been satisfied that the Eastern Roman Empire was sufficiently Roman to actually qualify. Everything I've read and consumed makes me think the Byzantines were as Romans as Romans were Greek, that is to say, they liked to think they were (and possibly claim they were for political reasons).
Byzantines spoke Greek, their architecture was not Roman, their military did not behave like Romans, they were Christian, they didn't eat Roman food; if you line up the Roman Republic, or even early Roman Empire, next to the Byzantines and asked an alien whether or not they were the same, they'd say no.
They definitely called themselves Romans, they loved to "re-conquer" their old empire in the West etc, but from my perspective there is little to tie the two together as "Roman".
- qwytw 5y agoWell by that standard the 4th or 5th century Roman empire (both east and west) wasn't Roman either. Rome in the 2nd century AD would had probably seemed as alien to a Roman from 3rd century BC as the Roman empire in the 5/6th centuries was to someone from the time of Trajan. Does that make any of the 3 less Roman? By the time the western empire fell being Christianity and Roman identity were inexorably linked and Latin continued to be the official language until the early 6th century. The Byzantine empire itself changed tremendously as well, while by the time of the crusades it was clearly Greek, before the plague of Justinian and the Arab invasions it would be clearly recognized as Roman (aside from religious changes) by anyone from the 3/4 th centuries.