3 ms·

It seems that your definition of being Roman is being Western Roman. Of course, tautologically by that definition, Eastern Romans would not be (Western) Roman.

by quanto 3y ago

It seems that your definition of being Roman is being Western Roman. Of course, tautologically by that definition, Eastern Romans would not be (Western) Roman. The article, and the scholarly consensus, is that Eastern Romans are Romans, and they should be part of what defines Romans; and definitions like yours are motivated by historical prejudice (a term used in the article). Given that Roman elites, including the very emperors you mentioned, spoke Greek, worshiped (Latin-translated) Greek Gods, and versed in Greek philosophy and literature, one could argue that Western Rome is actually less Roman than the Eastern. Hadrian in particular was very Greek in his intellectual bents. As for the city itself, Rome was not even the capital by the time of Sack of Rome (AD 410). Contrary to your argument, the Eastern Roman empire recaptures the entirety of modern day Italy by 555 AD during the reign of Justinian.

empath-nirvana 3y ago
There's a sense in which the roman empire in the eastern mediterranean was only ever a thin layer of administration over the broader hellenistic culture that remained from Alexander's conquests.
- acjohnson55 3y ago
  Thin by modern standards, but it's my understanding that the Roman administrative system set it quite apart from many of the other polities it interacted with. Certainly the post-Roman West.
- thworp 3y ago
  Thin layer? No, the core reason for Rome's success was the efficiency and adaptability of this administration. It could always generate much more taxes, soldiers, loyalty and diplomatic influence than other states that had the similar amounts of land and people. Then, when something had to change, the elites or even the people just deposed the emperor and got someone in power that did what was necessary.
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    I think the "thin" qualifier here was to mean that it wasn't a deeply cultural and nationalistic embedding of a nation as what we think of national today. It was more akin to modern colonialism where a certain degree of exploitation be the colonial powers was what roman authorities cared about but the degree of cultural influence depended much on the leeway allowed by the strength of the pre-existing culture of the conquered place
smallnamespace 3y ago
This gives me strong "the people of Rome wouldn't consider them to be Romans, but why should we care what they think?" vibes.
roenxi 3y ago
> ... and the scholarly consensus ... Just because historians agree on something doesn't make it true. It is pretty reasonable to demand that an empire, if it is going to be designated as the true Roman Empire, control Rome at a minimum. And not as some outcrop that they had shaky control over. Calling themselves Roman doesn't really mean much, they wouldn't be the last group to call themselves a Roman Empire and be wrong about that. If anything, historians should be renaming the Holy Roman Empire to something a bit more correct.
bigstrat2003 3y ago
> It seems that your definition of being Roman is being Western Roman. Which, considering that was the source of the empire, seems entirely reasonable. If the British Empire had gone down a different route and was today centered around Australia, with completely different language and customs, everybody would agree it's not really British any more. The insistence from (some, not even all) scholars that Byzantium was really Roman doesn't change the fact that there was very little that was recognizably Roman left there. Of course people treat it as something different.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ithkuil 3y ago
  A modern analogy would be this: Imagine a backwards country somewhere in the northern European swamps of the doggerland (unsubmerged in this alternative history, just so I can imagine a hypothetical group of people without offending any real population), that didn't have much going on culturally and kinda missed out on all major developments in European history. Imagine they suddenly become exceptionally good at combat and they are just unstoppable, they conquers all neighbouring territories, they level the Netherlands below the ground etc. Finally they conquer the British isles, and continue to expand to the rest of europe. The ruling class of the doggerland has always consumed a lot of British culture. They are all well versed in British language and philosophy and media. They do scoff the Brits as weak and decadent by nevertheless they don't have enough of local high culture so the doggerland elite basically turns to the anglosphere for anything that has to do with culture. Centuries pass. The doggerland empire now is a fixture of Europe. Everybody knows that the origin of the empire is obviously the isle of doggerland and their capital city Doga, the magnificent city. Nevertheless all doggerland elite travel to London regularly because the cool stuff happens there. The trade network, the culture. Political figures in doggerland fight for getting appointed as governors of British isles and even if the overseas territories British have colonized in the past because those territories, in the eyes of doggerlanders, are rich and prosperous. They don't care much about other territories they conquered, full of barbarians they don't understand. The Brits are foreign too, but doggerlanders understand them, because they copied them for centuries now. Centuries pass again and the doggerland empire grants citizenship to more and more of their subject. Most people living in Europe now speak the doggerland language and feel themselves to be doggerlanders. Some of them are indeed settlers from doggerland that have been given land in various parts of Europe, including the British isles. Some of them are locals who have accepted the benefits of assimilating in the doggerland empire. But Brits didn't feel such a strong push to assimilate and speak doggerlandish. Yes it's the official language of the empire, yes they need to use for legal documents and as a language of the military, but they don't really need to give up to their English since droves of doggerlanders will actually flood London just for the opportunity to learn English. Brits can find employment easily as tutors of wealthy doggerlanders just because they are native speakers of such a prestige language. Yet the ruling class that rules over British isles is doggerlandish; sure a bit intermarried here and there, but when politics comes into play the pride of being the ruling doggerlanders prevails over the soft cultural games. More centuries pass. The inertia of the English language is just too big to displace. All doggerlandish elites just speak English. They are brought up with English as their first language and they care less and less of their ancestral language. Yes they still pay lip service to it, after all they are the descendents of the "great and brave doggerlanders, who conquered the whole known world", so obviously when asked "what people are you?" they will proudly announce "I'm doggerlander, and proud to be one". They may say that in English and nobody would think that's weird. Because in that universe it's perfectly normal for the ruling proud doggerlanders to just speak English. How can that be wrong? They're doing it for generations, for centuries. Don't tell them they're Brits though! They are not! They are not these weaklings they have been conquered by the valiant doggerlanders! They just speak the language that everybody else speaks because what else should they do? Now imagine that over time sea levels rise and doggerland gets submerged. The original motherland of the doggerlanders is lost. Their capital now is in London and they speak English and are for many things so different from the doggerlanders that spawned them, but isn't that the case for any society when a millennium passes?

by quanto 3y ago

empath-nirvana 3y ago

There's a sense in which the roman empire in the eastern mediterranean was only ever a thin layer of administration over the broader hellenistic culture that remained from Alexander's conquests.

acjohnson55 3y ago
Thin by modern standards, but it's my understanding that the Roman administrative system set it quite apart from many of the other polities it interacted with. Certainly the post-Roman West.
thworp 3y ago
Thin layer? No, the core reason for Rome's success was the efficiency and adaptability of this administration. It could always generate much more taxes, soldiers, loyalty and diplomatic influence than other states that had the similar amounts of land and people. Then, when something had to change, the elites or even the people just deposed the emperor and got someone in power that did what was necessary.
- ithkuil 3y ago
  I think the "thin" qualifier here was to mean that it wasn't a deeply cultural and nationalistic embedding of a nation as what we think of national today. It was more akin to modern colonialism where a certain degree of exploitation be the colonial powers was what roman authorities cared about but the degree of cultural influence depended much on the leeway allowed by the strength of the pre-existing culture of the conquered place

smallnamespace 3y ago

This gives me strong "the people of Rome wouldn't consider them to be Romans, but why should we care what they think?" vibes.

roenxi 3y ago

> ... and the scholarly consensus ... Just because historians agree on something doesn't make it true. It is pretty reasonable to demand that an empire, if it is going to be designated as the true Roman Empire, control Rome at a minimum. And not as some outcrop that they had shaky control over. Calling themselves Roman doesn't really mean much, they wouldn't be the last group to call themselves a Roman Empire and be wrong about that. If anything, historians should be renaming the Holy Roman Empire to something a bit more correct.

bigstrat2003 3y ago

> It seems that your definition of being Roman is being Western Roman. Which, considering that was the source of the empire, seems entirely reasonable. If the British Empire had gone down a different route and was today centered around Australia, with completely different language and customs, everybody would agree it's not really British any more. The insistence from (some, not even all) scholars that Byzantium was really Roman doesn't change the fact that there was very little that was recognizably Roman left there. Of course people treat it as something different.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ithkuil 3y ago
A modern analogy would be this: Imagine a backwards country somewhere in the northern European swamps of the doggerland (unsubmerged in this alternative history, just so I can imagine a hypothetical group of people without offending any real population), that didn't have much going on culturally and kinda missed out on all major developments in European history. Imagine they suddenly become exceptionally good at combat and they are just unstoppable, they conquers all neighbouring territories, they level the Netherlands below the ground etc. Finally they conquer the British isles, and continue to expand to the rest of europe. The ruling class of the doggerland has always consumed a lot of British culture. They are all well versed in British language and philosophy and media. They do scoff the Brits as weak and decadent by nevertheless they don't have enough of local high culture so the doggerland elite basically turns to the anglosphere for anything that has to do with culture. Centuries pass. The doggerland empire now is a fixture of Europe. Everybody knows that the origin of the empire is obviously the isle of doggerland and their capital city Doga, the magnificent city. Nevertheless all doggerland elite travel to London regularly because the cool stuff happens there. The trade network, the culture. Political figures in doggerland fight for getting appointed as governors of British isles and even if the overseas territories British have colonized in the past because those territories, in the eyes of doggerlanders, are rich and prosperous. They don't care much about other territories they conquered, full of barbarians they don't understand. The Brits are foreign too, but doggerlanders understand them, because they copied them for centuries now. Centuries pass again and the doggerland empire grants citizenship to more and more of their subject. Most people living in Europe now speak the doggerland language and feel themselves to be doggerlanders. Some of them are indeed settlers from doggerland that have been given land in various parts of Europe, including the British isles. Some of them are locals who have accepted the benefits of assimilating in the doggerland empire. But Brits didn't feel such a strong push to assimilate and speak doggerlandish. Yes it's the official language of the empire, yes they need to use for legal documents and as a language of the military, but they don't really need to give up to their English since droves of doggerlanders will actually flood London just for the opportunity to learn English. Brits can find employment easily as tutors of wealthy doggerlanders just because they are native speakers of such a prestige language. Yet the ruling class that rules over British isles is doggerlandish; sure a bit intermarried here and there, but when politics comes into play the pride of being the ruling doggerlanders prevails over the soft cultural games. More centuries pass. The inertia of the English language is just too big to displace. All doggerlandish elites just speak English. They are brought up with English as their first language and they care less and less of their ancestral language. Yes they still pay lip service to it, after all they are the descendents of the "great and brave doggerlanders, who conquered the whole known world", so obviously when asked "what people are you?" they will proudly announce "I'm doggerlander, and proud to be one". They may say that in English and nobody would think that's weird. Because in that universe it's perfectly normal for the ruling proud doggerlanders to just speak English. How can that be wrong? They're doing it for generations, for centuries. Don't tell them they're Brits though! They are not! They are not these weaklings they have been conquered by the valiant doggerlanders! They just speak the language that everybody else speaks because what else should they do? Now imagine that over time sea levels rise and doggerland gets submerged. The original motherland of the doggerlanders is lost. Their capital now is in London and they speak English and are for many things so different from the doggerlanders that spawned them, but isn't that the case for any society when a millennium passes?