5 ms·

Yes, invented much later, but the expression of a different power structure that those types of Romans felt was not present. But to our modern eyes it was. Hell

Yes, invented much later, but the expression of a different power structure that those types of Romans felt was not present. But to our modern eyes it was. Hell, the mere fact the centre of power was in Constantinople and not Rome is proof enough that they were distinct.

derdi 3mo ago
Proof to your modern eyes. Not to the eyes of those who also called Constantinople "New Rome", and who called themselves Romans even 1000 years later.
- momoschili 3mo ago
  Many Western polities have sought the title of the Roman Empire and the legitimacy it endows. Constantine split the empire, and Constantius II did not rule over Rome (or many other parts of the empire). Is it even reasonable to assert it was still the Roman Empire after the fracture? Is it legitimate for the Eastern Roman Empire to claim the legacy? I think so, and I think they have among the best arguments for it. Conversely it is also legitimate to note the major differences between the two and the fact that discontinuities do exist.
  - derdi 3mo ago
    "Constantine split the empire" is just incorrect. There were co-emperors with regional responsibilities both before and after him. They were co-emperors of one empire. If you want a firm split, 395 (death of Theodosius) is the more common date AFAIK. I'm not denying that gradually, over well more than a thousand years, the empire (only surviving in the East) changed character in many ways. I am denying that a unique Eastern character sprang up (and immediately applied to Egypt) the moment that Constantinople was founded.
    - brudgers 3mo ago
      Also worth noting that Roman tradition was for two Consuls at a time.
    - momoschili 3mo ago
      You're correct, I'm mistaken that Constantine split the empire. That being said I think there are some semantics as far as "co-emperors with regional responsibilities" being in a single polity or separate polities. I do agree with you that there was no instantaneous Eastern character that sprang up out of nowhere.
- cwnyth 3mo ago
  They actually called themselves Ῥωμαῖοι, not Romani, and not every description needs to be emic. There's nothing wrong with the label "Byzantine" except to Byzaboos.
  - derdi 3mo ago
    So I shouldn't call them Romans, since that is an English translation of what they called themselves, and thus foreign to them. But you can call them Byzantines, an English term invented in the 19th century, because... you say so? Thank you, I have been enlightened.
    - cwnyth 3mo ago
      Tell me, do you call people from China Chinese? Japan Japanese? Germany German? If so, you're a hypocrite. You're also arguing against a strawman. I never said they weren't Roman. I only said there's nothing wrong with Byzantine. Maybe if you weren't so smugly self-righteous, you'd have better reading comprehension.
    - cwnyth 3mo ago
      Separately, your facts are wrong, because it was centuries before that the word Byzantine was first used to describe this era of the latter eastern Roman empire. Oops, might want to read a book instead of looking at memes.
  - vonunov 3mo ago
    > Byzaboos Hey that's fresh. Do they have Hittitomori too?
    - cwnyth 3mo ago
      I'd love to see that! I can't take credit for the term. There are some people who are extreme fans of the Byzantine empire and defend it at every turn. I can kind of get recent history, but being a fanatic about an ancient polity strikes this trained historian as utterly bizarre.
  - 3mo ago
- euroderf 3mo ago
  "Capital of the Western World for a Cool Thousand Years" (TM)
- victorbjorklund 3mo ago
  Russia calls itself a continuation of Rome.
hollandheese 3mo ago
Is the United States become a different entity when it moved its capital between Philadelphia and Washington DC?
- nonethewiser 3mo ago
  It would be like if the US moved the capital to DC, replaced Christianity with Islam, switched English to French, no longer contained NY, Boston, Pennsylvania, and foreign powers stopped calling it the United States. Its more complicated than you are making it seem. I dont even have a strong opinion on the conclusion but it’s certainly not how you’ve framed it.
  - hollandheese 3mo ago
    It really isn't more complicated. These are mostly the excuses that 19th century Western European scholars used to deny the Eastern Romans their Romanness, because they wanted to place themselves as the inheritors of Rome. First, The Roman Empire was always bilingual. Greek always held sway over the eastern half and Latin over the western half. Once the west is gone, of course you'll switch to primarily using the language that most use. The Irish didn't stop being Irish because they primarily speak English now, for example. Second, the only states that refused to recognize the Eastern Roman Empire as the Roman Empire were the states that were descended from the German invaders and that was because they wanted to claim the Roman mantle for themselves. All of Islam called the East Romans, Rum. As did all of the rest of the world when they had contact with them. Third, the switch to Christianity had already happened by the time of the split in 395. Fourth, Rome hadn't been the seat of power for many Emperors since before the Third Century Crisis. Fifth, states lose and gain territory all the time. Read The New Roman Empire by Anthony Kaldellis. If you want to read more about this.
    - teleforce 3mo ago
      >the only states that refused to recognize the Eastern Roman Empire as the Roman Empire were the states that were descended from the German invaders and that was because they wanted to claim the Roman mantle for themselves. Ironically these guys called themselves Holy Roman Empire, it's neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire. They're hallucinating hundred of years before AI/LLM. > All of Islam called the East Romans, Rum Fun fact there's entire Chapter on Rome in the Quran namely Surah Ar-Rum [1]. In the New Testament Bible there's a section or book called Epistle to the Romans, or the letter of Paul to Roman originally written in Koine Greek [2]. But there's letter of Paul not the word of God or Jesus hence called espistle. There's also an authentic direct letter from the Prophet Muhammad to the Roman Emperor at the time of Hercules inviting him and his subjects to Islam [3]. Please note that Muhammad cannot read or write hence the letter was written for him as dictated by him [4]. [1] Ar-Rum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar-Rum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar-Rum [2] Epistle to the Romans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans [3] The Holy Prophet’s letter to Heraclius: https://www.alhakam.org/holy-prophets-letter-to-heraclius https://www.alhakam.org/holy-prophets-letter-to-heraclius [4] Diplomatic career of Muhammad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_career_of_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_career_of_Muhammad

derdi 3mo ago

Proof to your modern eyes. Not to the eyes of those who also called Constantinople "New Rome", and who called themselves Romans even 1000 years later.

momoschili 3mo ago
Many Western polities have sought the title of the Roman Empire and the legitimacy it endows. Constantine split the empire, and Constantius II did not rule over Rome (or many other parts of the empire). Is it even reasonable to assert it was still the Roman Empire after the fracture? Is it legitimate for the Eastern Roman Empire to claim the legacy? I think so, and I think they have among the best arguments for it. Conversely it is also legitimate to note the major differences between the two and the fact that discontinuities do exist.
- derdi 3mo ago
  "Constantine split the empire" is just incorrect. There were co-emperors with regional responsibilities both before and after him. They were co-emperors of one empire. If you want a firm split, 395 (death of Theodosius) is the more common date AFAIK. I'm not denying that gradually, over well more than a thousand years, the empire (only surviving in the East) changed character in many ways. I am denying that a unique Eastern character sprang up (and immediately applied to Egypt) the moment that Constantinople was founded.
  - brudgers 3mo ago
    Also worth noting that Roman tradition was for two Consuls at a time.
  - momoschili 3mo ago
    You're correct, I'm mistaken that Constantine split the empire. That being said I think there are some semantics as far as "co-emperors with regional responsibilities" being in a single polity or separate polities. I do agree with you that there was no instantaneous Eastern character that sprang up out of nowhere.
cwnyth 3mo ago
They actually called themselves Ῥωμαῖοι, not Romani, and not every description needs to be emic. There's nothing wrong with the label "Byzantine" except to Byzaboos.
- derdi 3mo ago
  So I shouldn't call them Romans, since that is an English translation of what they called themselves, and thus foreign to them. But you can call them Byzantines, an English term invented in the 19th century, because... you say so? Thank you, I have been enlightened.
  - cwnyth 3mo ago
    Tell me, do you call people from China Chinese? Japan Japanese? Germany German? If so, you're a hypocrite. You're also arguing against a strawman. I never said they weren't Roman. I only said there's nothing wrong with Byzantine. Maybe if you weren't so smugly self-righteous, you'd have better reading comprehension.
  - cwnyth 3mo ago
    Separately, your facts are wrong, because it was centuries before that the word Byzantine was first used to describe this era of the latter eastern Roman empire. Oops, might want to read a book instead of looking at memes.
- vonunov 3mo ago
  > Byzaboos Hey that's fresh. Do they have Hittitomori too?
  - cwnyth 3mo ago
    I'd love to see that! I can't take credit for the term. There are some people who are extreme fans of the Byzantine empire and defend it at every turn. I can kind of get recent history, but being a fanatic about an ancient polity strikes this trained historian as utterly bizarre.
- 3mo ago
euroderf 3mo ago
"Capital of the Western World for a Cool Thousand Years" (TM)
victorbjorklund 3mo ago
Russia calls itself a continuation of Rome.

hollandheese 3mo ago

Is the United States become a different entity when it moved its capital between Philadelphia and Washington DC?

nonethewiser 3mo ago
It would be like if the US moved the capital to DC, replaced Christianity with Islam, switched English to French, no longer contained NY, Boston, Pennsylvania, and foreign powers stopped calling it the United States. Its more complicated than you are making it seem. I dont even have a strong opinion on the conclusion but it’s certainly not how you’ve framed it.
- hollandheese 3mo ago
  It really isn't more complicated. These are mostly the excuses that 19th century Western European scholars used to deny the Eastern Romans their Romanness, because they wanted to place themselves as the inheritors of Rome. First, The Roman Empire was always bilingual. Greek always held sway over the eastern half and Latin over the western half. Once the west is gone, of course you'll switch to primarily using the language that most use. The Irish didn't stop being Irish because they primarily speak English now, for example. Second, the only states that refused to recognize the Eastern Roman Empire as the Roman Empire were the states that were descended from the German invaders and that was because they wanted to claim the Roman mantle for themselves. All of Islam called the East Romans, Rum. As did all of the rest of the world when they had contact with them. Third, the switch to Christianity had already happened by the time of the split in 395. Fourth, Rome hadn't been the seat of power for many Emperors since before the Third Century Crisis. Fifth, states lose and gain territory all the time. Read The New Roman Empire by Anthony Kaldellis. If you want to read more about this.
  - teleforce 3mo ago
    >the only states that refused to recognize the Eastern Roman Empire as the Roman Empire were the states that were descended from the German invaders and that was because they wanted to claim the Roman mantle for themselves. Ironically these guys called themselves Holy Roman Empire, it's neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire. They're hallucinating hundred of years before AI/LLM. > All of Islam called the East Romans, Rum Fun fact there's entire Chapter on Rome in the Quran namely Surah Ar-Rum [1]. In the New Testament Bible there's a section or book called Epistle to the Romans, or the letter of Paul to Roman originally written in Koine Greek [2]. But there's letter of Paul not the word of God or Jesus hence called espistle. There's also an authentic direct letter from the Prophet Muhammad to the Roman Emperor at the time of Hercules inviting him and his subjects to Islam [3]. Please note that Muhammad cannot read or write hence the letter was written for him as dictated by him [4]. [1] Ar-Rum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar-Rum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar-Rum [2] Epistle to the Romans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans [3] The Holy Prophet’s letter to Heraclius: https://www.alhakam.org/holy-prophets-letter-to-heraclius https://www.alhakam.org/holy-prophets-letter-to-heraclius [4] Diplomatic career of Muhammad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_career_of_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_career_of_Muhammad