Should We Use The B-Word (Byzantium)?

[@RomabooRamblings]

Get an exclusive Surfshark deal! Enter promo code ROMABOO for an extra 3 months free at surfshark.deals/romaboo

[@qwizzler]

Kkkkkkkkk you can't afford Brazilian discord? 😂😂😂

[@MAKDÁVID-KRIŽ]

Orthodoxy have its very deceptive attitude since it deliberately concealed the fact they rebranded Hungarian-MacAr-Scythian rulers as somehow they own Orthodox figures which is how Béla 3rd Hungarian king got rebranded as Alexios Jewnanistani king just as the entire Cuman-Coman dynasty, Varangiai Urak-Rurik as Kijewish Rus etc

[@Hrafnskald]

With Surfshark and Romaboo, we can all say "Ecce Romani!" ;)

[@alexkirrmann8534]

wtf? This is splitting hairs argument, they can be both? I don't think we need to reinvent nameplates, anyone who knows what a byzantine is knows they were roman.

[@svon1]

i cracked the case, the Pagans are the True Romans and the Christians are illegal usurpers ....thus the Empire fell with Maxentius...... the Pagans slowly withered away over the coming centuries

[@Dian_Borisov_SW]

In Bulgaria, our teachers refer to the byzatines as "romeis" (ромеи) and thought us that they are basically romans (which makes the fact that we waged war for centuries against romans super cool), but still separated them from the "real" romans. Which is confusing for adults, let alone kids

[@RomabooRamblings]

How much Byzantine history do they teach in Bulgaria?

[@jaydenburgher2651]

I'm pretty sure the Arabs and Muslims do that too. For the same reasons

[@Dian_Borisov_SW]

@@RomabooRamblings Mostly covered the wars between the two states and the intricate politics between them, which in itself is a ton. Obviously, we all know about Basil II

[@DonnellGreen]

@@Dian_Borisov_SW Probs to Bulgaria for Teaching Basil II it is always a hard Topic to talk about someone who won a Decisive War against your Home Country . (Im Italian So Obvisouly I Like Basil II)

[@tylerellis9097]

@@Dian_Borisov_SW How does Bulgaria address the 160 years of Byzantine rule? Where do Byzantine cultural and institutional influences stand?

[@rockstar450]

Constantinople WAS the new capital and almost all split governments before that had the primary Augustus in the East. From the early 4th Century onward, New Rome was the capital until the 4th Crusade robbed the empire of its resources to defend itself and ultimately fall to Mehmed II, who crowned himself Caesar of Rome in tribute to the conquest.

[@genovayork2468]

If looting the capital means robbing the empire of its resources, then that empire is not a too functional country.

[@Muramasa1794]

@@genovayork2468 the amount of wealth Constantinople had at the time was hundreds of years of valuables, priceless artifacts that date back to Classical Rome and even to the BC era. The wealth was used by the state to get out of disastrous wars

[@genovayork2468]

@@Muramasa1794 Yes, did I say it wasn't?

[@rockstar450]

@genovayork2468 the citizens thought it was a civil war. Business went on as usual though much of the fighting. The seizure of the city was a betrayal by Christians that humiliated the Pope and doomed the Crusader states. From here on we'd see increasingly pointless civil crusades and the Ottomans had an easy run, killing far more Christian life. The 4th Crusaders were doomed to hell by their evil leaders who lied and manipulated them into multiple excommunications, which is horrible for those at that time, clearly holy men to be there in the first place.

[@genovayork2468]

@@nikusja5864 No, Egypt was more longevive. Also stick to topic.

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

Dare I say, it's quite a byzantine question.

[@matthewmagda4971]

Poor Byzantium... didn't they already endure enough name changes??

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

@@matthewmagda4971 being called strange exonyms can be funny sometimes. Greeks still to this day call my country "Gallia", "Gaul".

[@gregoryheers2633]

@@Duke_of_Lorraine Yes, because calling it France and calling you Franks sounds like an insult to Modern Greek ears.

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

@@gregoryheers2633 I've heard it's because of that cursed 4th crusade.

[@SiGa-i1r]

​@@Duke_of_LorraineMost in Greece are Slavs who wish they were Greek. See "Greeks, Latins, Iberians and Jews were, and are, NOT Blond!"

[@개고기수프]

A very interesting historical fact. In the late Ming Dynasty in China, a military book recorded that a Lumi(噜密) ambassador brought a matchlock with a special long barrel. This was different from the original matchlock in China. Its power could A little larger than the Spanish and Chinese matchlocks.Lumi is actually the transliteration of Roma, but when we look at the illustrations printed in the book, you will find that there is an Ottoman with a turban on it.🤣 It should be said that at that time, both the Arab world and China referred to all people in Asia Minor as Romans. BTW, the book name is 《神器谱》written by 赵士祯.

[@Ntyler01mil]

Certainly there's a difference between the Roman Empire before Constantine and the Roman Empire after Constantine. It's useful to have some sort of shorthand to refer to the different time period being discussed. The word “byzantine” has the negative connotations as meaning “scheming” or “convoluted,” so I understand the resistance to using it to describe the post-Constantine Roman Empire. However, personally, “Byzantine” immediately conjures up the qualities of the later empire- its style of art and architecture, its manner of dress, its court customs, etc. More neutral terms might be the “Medieval Roman Empire”, “Later Roman Empire”, or “Orthodox Roman Empire” “Eastern Roman Empire” seems to be the main alternative, but I find that to be a little misleading because the Empire regained large parts of the West, and held on to Southern Italy into the 10th Century.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

Something changed

[@sonnymak6707]

All empires changes. The Roman Republic were different from the Roman Empire later. It is laughable that we moderns are determining the identitity of ancient people . They are not here to tell their side of the story. I will go by what the ancient people wrote. From the Emperor , Patriach , bishops diplomat, chroniclers and foreign enenmies Arabs Turks Bulgarians Serbians Persians even all the way to India and China call the Empire centred in Constantinople Roman. All of them called that Empire Rome and the inhabitants Roman. The only people not calling them Romans were the Latins , Franks and their cultural descendants. No one would have given two hoots what these Latins and Franks thought or call of the Constatipnople Romans if not the fact that they went on to have the renaisance 18th century enlightenment and the Industrial revolution to conquer the world and imposed their world view and scholarship on the rest of us. The Byzantium Empire did not exist. Only Roman. And even though th Empire was gone by 1453. Romans and Roman lands still existed until early 20th century.

[@BorninPurple]

In what sense though? This makes absolutely no sense! The Roman Empire of Theodosius and Constantine was certainly very different from that of, Augustus Caracella and Aurelian. The Roman polity lasted a very long time, shifting from an Republic, to an Empire (but even by the late Republican period it was an Empire) to a nation-state (after Caracella gave universal citizenship), each era with different laws, political ideals and perceptions of what constituted "Roman" (over a 700 year period in the West). Do we consider those times any less Roman because of those changes? Of course not! This argument is a non-sequiter because it makes no logical sense when you stop looking at this from a surface level. Were the English any different from the English now at the time of Alfred the Great, Charles I, Oliver Cromwell or George V? Even though they went through various changes in that time-span legally, linguistically or politically? The answer is no, and the Roman case isn't any different!

[@KevinJohnson-cv2no]

@@BorninPurple Byzaboos clawing their damn nails to the bone trying to maintain the slightest relation to Rome lmao. Cry harder, The Roman Empire (Western Rome) thought of the Byzantines as a bunch of LARP'ing dorks

[@brandbw]

⁠@@BorninPurpleI like where you were going with your comment, but a huge flaw is in the last bit of your point. The English were very much different during Alfred’s time versus Cromwell, Charles, George etc. They were very much Anglo-Saxon rather than English. From 899 to 1066 they weren’t English like we know them. It wasn’t till Henry IV that even our rough conception of English identity form. That’s why there is something to say about the shift in terminology when describing the Eastern Romans/ Byzantines. Roman is a fickle thing because one is not wrong saying a person in Gaul in 300 AD was very much Roman, as were the folk in Constantinople. But while the Skelton of Roman identity remained one can’t argue that the religion, culture and even spoken/ written word no longer was that of the Romans of Constantine. Their was no unified church across the Mediterranean, Latin was not spoken nor used in documents. The ERE evolved into a Greek empire naturally. This flower sprouted from Rome but became a “cross-pollinated” plant with elements of the inherent Greek culture that was in the proverbial soil. Side note- the ‘Byzantines’ saw and called themselves Roman, they were the children of Rome. At the end of the day they were Roman, but a variation that evolved into a Greek empire due to the culture that existed in this side of the empire removed from the anarchy of the Germanic kingdoms. They are Schrödinger Roman’s, both are and aren’t at the same time, it’s just easier to use a Byzantine when teaching the subject/ discussing it.

[@midshipman8654]

byzantine can also mean “of byzantium”, that is, the state based in byzantium/constantinople/istanbul, which IS very descriptive of a core characteristic throughout its existence. That it was a state whose lynchpin was that city. Its also practical given that Rome itself, mostly through Papal power, was an active polity doing its own thing throughout the period. Kind of like how we retroactively use the term “Octavian” when he didnt go by that name in his life. or more extremely callinging china china even though that was the name of a single dynasty. Saying that it wasn’t the roman empire would be wrong, but byzantine is also a very descriptively useful way to refer to it as too. its a pragmatics thing.

[@olbiomoiros]

We still call ourselves Ρωμιοί. It was more popular prior to 1821. Also the term Ἕλλην during the Byzantine period (the period could be called Byzantine, but the empire itself can only be called Roman) was a taboo, because those who identified with it were often pagans.

[@borisfrlic]

The entire “Hellenic” revival is Phanar scheming and imperial ambitions. Ofc Phanar only pretend to be Christian and the serve Satan, so they love little boys, etc... this was part of the “Hellenic revival” You know that almost all the Greeks in Thrace up / north are hellenised Serbs, Vlahs, and Albanians? Then later some Romans proper were brought in with the population échange with Turkey. Phanar must be destroyed. Emperor Dušan went to kick them out of Constantinople after becoming Autocrator of join Serb / Roman Empire, and the poisoned him on the way there.

[@gilpaubelid3780]

Yes, we still call ourselves Ρωμιοί/ Romans. It means "Greek" in the greek language and it's a definition that the term "Roman" obtained during the byzantine period. Due to the fact that, among the people with Roman citizenship, Greeks were the ones that had become the core and rulers of the empire during the medieval period the term "Roman" started to be associated with them and came to mean the ethnically Greek. With this definition we're using the word Ρωμιοί for ourselves till this day. As just another word that means Greek (like Γραικός and Ελληνας), not as a different non-greek identity. We don't claim that we have some kind of connection with the ancient romans whenever we're using the term Ρωμιοί. Our connection is solely with the medieval Greeks/byzantines. Ελλην was never a taboo (it was used during the entirety of the byzantine period the same way that the rest of the greek ethnonyms were used). It just had two definitions. It was used as a national term that meant "Greek" or as a religious term that meant "pagan". Identifying as Greek wasn't considered a taboo (that's how Byzantines self-identified), identifying as pagan on the other hand wasn't considered as something good.

[@gilpaubelid3780]

@@Ragnarok__ You can't be that ignorant so you are probably a troll. I'm not interested in wasting my time with trolls.

[@w0lfgm]

In what way did the Italians win!? Genetic and cultural - mixture of Germanic (Goths, Langobard, Arab Muslims in Sicily and later Normans as well Spanish (Gothics, Barberish Arabs as well as Hellenic in the Sicily).... As well as Punic (Cartagenian origin) as well ignoring the fact that the teachers of young nobles were Greek- speaking community

[@mikel3359]

​@@gilpaubelid3780absolutely correct

[@AttaBek1422]

In the Arab world we still colloquially refer to the Byzantines as ‘Romans’. In fact we use the term Roman to describe Greek Orthodox Christians instead of Roman Catholics (we just call them Catholics). There’s a whole chapter in the Quran called ‘The Romans’ talking about the Byzantine’s war with the Sassanids which was happening in the background of the Prophet Muhammad’s preaching

[@legateelizabeth]

Not calling the Roman Catholics with the Pope in Rome 'Roman Christians', but using 'Roman Christians' to describe the Christians who at this point are predominantly in Russia sounds like an incredibly convoluted naming system.

[@AttaBek1422]

@@legateelizabeth It has nothing to do with the city of Rome but with how we perceive the Roman Empire. We see the Byzantines as the continuation of the Roman Empire (like they did) so we call people affiliated with their (Greek Orthodox) church Roman Christians. Note that Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox are two separate groups with separate churches.

[@nel7105]

@@legateelizabethyou guys aren’t actually Roman, you’re Frankish. It would make more sense to simply go by Frankish Catholics who have the Patriarch of Rome since you refer to the other 4 patriarchs in Orthodoxy “Greek”

[@legateelizabeth]

@@nel7105 Well I'm a British Buddhist so I'd certainly hope I'm neither Frankish, nor Roman, nor Catholic or I'd be having quite the identity crisis. :D

[@Cklert]

@@legateelizabeth Ironically, us Catholics don't refer to ourselves as "Roman Catholics" usually. That's actually a term more used by Protestants. We just call ourselves Catholics and that's that.

[@davidliddelow5704]

Its actually really common to call historical peoples something other than what called themselves. For example in the english civil war the terms cavalier, roundhead and puritan are all slanderous names given by their enemies. The puritans called themselves “the godly” or “philosophers” and I don’t think anyone thinks we should start using those.

[@blugaledoh2669]

Philosophers? Lol wtf

[@jonirischx8925]

A interesting point, but in this case the self-identification is actually relevant, and not the type of titular self-aggrandizing for a creed, as in your example about the puritans. Because if Eastern Rome is seen as a legitimate successor (which is very hard to argue against), then the self-identification becomes an important point of contention. Had they not identified as roman, there would have been a good argument against their 'romanness'. But they did. So it's important to take it into consideration in the debate.

[@jonathanccast]

Definitely think we should start calling the Puritans "the godly". "The godly" vs "the quasi-papists" is much more accurate than "cavaliers" vs "roundheads", which makes it sound like long-haired cavalry officer Oliver Cromwell should have been on the "cavalier" side.

[@midshipman8654]

Octavian the emperor is another channel relivent example. China is another as its a name for a single dynasty that came and went. Others are cato the elder/younger.

[@Mikeos42]

The "Democratic Republican" Party of early US history called themselves Republicans, but were only distantly related to the current Republican Party founded in the 19th century. It's another good example of a term applied retroactively by historians for clarity.

[@rightwingsafetysquad9872]

I think it makes sense to say the eastern empire became Byzantium with the ascension of Heraclius. A new dynasty is established out of a provincial governor. They stop trying to reconquer the western territories. Their primary threat shifts from Iran to the Arabs. And shortly thereafter, the western empire is restructured under foreign rulers with no Roman heritage. The Roman Empire was The Empire. The Byzantine empire was just one power amongst a multitude.

[@jonathanadams8835]

Although "Empire of Constantinopolitans" was never used, one of the names Western Europe used for the Medieval Roman Empire in the 13th Century was the "Empire of Constantinople". It was your duty to attend to the business of your legation and to give careful consideration, not to the capture of the Empire of Constantinople... --Pope Innocent III on the Fourth Crusade.

[@RomabooRamblings]

True, it's even in the title of the Liudprand's account of his embassy

[@vladprus4019]

Also it's worth to note that "Latin empire" wasn't the name of the state, it's emperor it had three official variants of the title "Emperor of Romania (land of the Romans)", "Emperor of Constantinopole" and "Emperor of Romans"

[@Popepaladin]

@@vladprus4019 I think this is a pretty interesting point. Since Latin Empire is also a later name given by historians, should we also just call it Roman Empire? I think the historiographical name is useful, when you read "Latin Empire", you immediately know which sixty year period it refers to.

[@alanpennie8013]

​​@@RomabooRamblings You can see why the term Byzantine Empire came into common usage. It's just a slightly different (shorter) rendering of Constantinopolitan Empire

[@byzansimp]

The best point raised in this video is the statement that "having one identity does not bar you from having another one". Being Greek in culture does not also stop you from being a Roman, who adheres to Roman laws, traditions and customs as much as a Latin-speaking Italian from the Republican era. It is true that Greek learning was the main form of education in the Eastern Roman Empire and the average student would learn Sophokles or Plato over Latin writers such as Plautus or Cicero, but these students still embraced their Roman identity. Hellenism as a thing didn't really start until the 11th or the 12th century, among the Komnenian literati when the Empire came into much contact with the Latins, who claimed the Roman identity for themselves and degraded the Eastern Romans as "effeminate Greeks", so the Komnenian scholars developed their Ancient Greek heritage as an anti-Latin reaction, and this identity strengthened even more after the Latin conquest of Constantinople. The Hellenic identity increased over time in the later years of the Empire, but the Romans as a whole (not counting just a few individuals) never dropped the Roman identity either, as best exemplified in the final speech of Constantine XI Palaiologos ("descendants of the Greeks and the Romans").

[@viperking6573]

Also he said " we will win just as we fought Carthage, Gaul, the Bulgars " or something like that, clearly stating that the idea of being the Roman Empire and being Roman citizens was the main one

[@Viddao]

In the Medieval Byzantine context, saying that Greeks aren't Romans is about as silly as saying Californians aren't Americans or Texans aren't Americans.

[@KevinJohnson-cv2no]

It's not really the Greek vs Roman identity that people care about; identities can co-exist if they compliment each other. It's the Pagan vs Christian divide that mainly trashes the culture of the empire, robbing it of the martial vigor that defined the Roman polity & pacifying the state. "Byzantine" has become a by-word for pointless rituals and ceremonies which have no real world impact; there's a reason for that.

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

@@viperking6573source?

[@SeanHH1986]

plenty of greek culture fanboys from even the legend of the creation of rome. they believed they were trojans

[@JoJoKaiser1504]

Man, these videos are so well made that they enrich my taste buds and quench my thirst for historical questions I wanted answered, but never manage to fully visualise what it is that I want to know. History is so cool man...

[@potat2976]

In Egypt and i think also the entire arab world, we use roman for the byzantine empire when it controlled egypt and the levant and north africa, once it lost it we just called it byzantium, or just idk we use it interchangeably

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

I personally strictly avoid using the word Byzantine. No fucking shit the word was invented by Germans to pretend Germans are Roman do to holy Roman Empire. and only idiots would seriously call Germans as Roman in the dumbest intellectual deficiency. So I avoid the term Byzantine to my own. And would prefer saying Roman. That's how I do it.

[@compatriot852]

Makes sense. When the Byzantine empire lost most of its land, Latin had stopped being widely used, the entire governmental system changed, etc.

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

@@compatriot852 if the United States lost lands the people and government doesn't cease to be American. The Roman Empire likewise doesn't cease being Roman. Say the "Anglo" culture of America is diminished and the capital DC and the original 13 colonies lost and Spanish gains predominance, the citizens are still American and the culture while changed still has influence from the foundation. There's to acknowledge it gain Mexican Spanish influence. If we compare a US and Mexico relationship to Greco-Romans. My analogy has flaws and isn't perfect but it's what I'm saying

[@imperator7828]

>implying the HRE reassembled the original boards to start with? It had the same exact changes you applied to "Byzantium"

[@hashemaljarah2560]

I am from Jordan, and I used to hear the word “Byzantine” from KZbin, and our educational curricula call the Byzantines “dawlat al-rum (the Roman state)" and after that they started writing “dawlat al-rum (the Roman state)” in parentheses, the Byzantine state, Our fathers & grandfathers & a few of the current generations still call the Byzantine Empire “dawlat al-rum (the Roman state)" & The Byzantine land is called "Bilad al-Rum (the Romania/Roman land)", and fact some still called the Mediterranean Sea the "Bahr Rum (Roman Sea)". I'm sorry for any spelling mistakes.

[@MegaUMU]

Love the conclusion to the B-word. Its really ez to use as the b-word is easier to write than Eastern Roman Empire as the b-word already references the medieval roman period of the remaining eastern Roman Empire. I do think i have still lingering negative feels about the word as its often used to deny the "Byzantines" the romanes they lay litterally decent from (using the Theseus analogy ofc)

[@MatthewStidham]

China was not Buddhist when it was founded. Is it still Chinese? Old English is incomprehensible, were Elizabeth I and Athelstan both monarchs of England? The United States has changed almost every aspect of our election system, our senators are now directly elected, we have completely rewritten the electoral college rules, and we have modified how our representatives are allocated by eliminating the 3/5 compromise, are we still the United States? Every country changes, just like the Roman Empire did. I agree, there is no clear point to say where the Eastern Roman Empire became the Byzantine empire. They are the same empire, just like how Biden and Washington are both Presidents of the United States.

[@TrajGreekFire]

With all that old historian bashing imagine if he dared to criticize Majorian while defending Ricimer, that would be pretty cool

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

He is right though

[@TrajGreekFire]

@@Michael_the_Drunkard Gibbon? nah

[@dawnbreakermultiverse941]

I do still find it crazy that "Romans" actually still existed into the early 20th century like when Greece took Lemnos a couple children encountered the greek soldiers and the conversation went like this Some of the children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. ‘‘What are you looking at?’’ one of them asked. ‘‘At Hellenes,’’ the children replied. ‘‘Are you not Hellenes yourselves?’’ a soldier retorted. ‘‘No, we are Romans." the children replied. Like that actually crazy Romans still existed in the 1910s and 20s.

[@paulmayson3129]

For God's sake, why is everyone repeating that anecdote? This comes from the personal account of Panagiotis Peter Charanis, a Byzantinologist Greek-American who was born in Lemnos in 1906-1908, and was just 4 years old when the Greek State liberated Lemnos from the Ottoman Empire in 1912. Having not even started grade school at the time, I think we should not base a rift of Hellenic and Rhomaic Identity on the mistake of a little child. We Modern Greeks still call ourselves not only "Hellenes" and Greekness as "Hellenesmos", but also as "Rhomeoi" and Greekness as "Rhomeosene", that means "Modern Romans" and "Modern Romanness".

[@KevinJohnson-cv2no]

LARP is apparently all that's needed to claim legitimate identity in history lol

[@BorninPurple]

Turks still refer to Greek speaking muslims in Turkey and Cypriot Greeks as "Rum". Cypriot Greeks refer to themselves still as "Romioi" (being Greek Cypriot myself)

[@majorhumbert676]

Gypsies refer to themselves as roman. I know it's supposedly refers to a different word, but it sounds exactly like "roman" in some languages. It makes me wonder why they picked that word out of all words. Romanians named their nation after Rome.

[@dersuddeutschesumpf5444]

​@@KevinJohnson-cv2no That's exactly how cultural identity works, yes

[@dziosdzynes7663]

People are just too biased/clouded by modern countries. "greece is like ancient greece and italy is rome", when in truth it's far more complicated and obviously the statement is fundamentally wrong. people who actually research will eventually see that "greeks" and "romans" are parts of the same bronze age tribes. modern people/historians just like to make things simpler even if it means being wrong for the sake of politics and clinging on to false identities.

[@viperking6573]

Imo as an italian, I also always thought of other romance speakers to have as much roman heritage as italy does, I don't understand why people narrow it down to Italy. Italy was the center for many years, but in many years it also wasn't, plus then Italy came under the control of different cultures, Franks, Lombards, Eastern Romans themselves, so is much more like a mosaic than a single color itself. Of course today I see how Greece and many countries around the Balkans have roman heritage, but many people do not!

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

@@viperking6573Greeks are the Heirs of the Hellenes & Romioi! That is undeniable & we laugh at anyone that tries to prove otherwise! 🤣

[@jonmiller6787]

100% agreed. If your Turkish, it's the Ottomans, if you're Iranian it's the Achaemenids, if you're Lebanese it's the Phoenicians. I think people just pick the oldest coolest national power that had vaguely the same ethnic heritage to point to to be like "See? We had a cool ancient empire too!!"

[@Phaedon53]

It is called continuity , I think , and some nations around the world can, without any doubt, claim it as their documented history. There's nothing wrong with that.

[@genovayork2468]

​@@jonmiller6787 Turkey is a direct successor of Ottomania in every sense of the word "direct". And the Achaemenid Empire and modern Iran have the same name and are inhabited by the same people.

[@thaneofwhiterun3562]

I mean, if we consider that an earlier Roman emperor granted citizenship to all subjects of the emoire. And that many of these emperors weren't exactly of Latin stock, like Aurelian who was Dacian and Julian the Apostate who straight up considered himself Greek. Then it is completely reasonable to accept that Byzantines, though they may speak Greek (not all of them, there were Latins in the Eastern Roman Empire, particularly on the Balkans) and be in a different land, were Romans all the same.

[@ShayPatrickCormacTHEHUNTER]

Citizens of the empire yes, romans no. The only romans are the italians of today.

[@skylinelover9276]

As they said Culture is more important than DNA... Because there is no such thing as pure race, Europeans especially in Mediterranean are mostly mixed European Hunter gatherers DNA, Neolithic Anatolians farmers DNA etc... And the East Romans is just like that, but they represent and enriched the Hellenic civilization not Latin, Albanian, Bulgarian culture and traditions.... That's the hard reality

[@sercravenmohead3631]

Just sounds like identity politics, Greeks larping as their conquerors. “Ey yo Popadapaulis, we wuz Romans n’ shiet”

[@MarianLuca-rz5kk]

​@@ShayPatrickCormacTHEHUNTER The Romans from the Italian Peninsula were much germanized by Goths, Lombards, Franks, Germans, for about 1000 years, until the Renaissance Italian Republics.

[@Rudero3]

One thing I want to add to this great video, the Byzantium/Byzantine usage, I'm a "Byzantine" Catholic. Though officially, we use the Constantinopolitan Rite, it's usually just abbreviated as Byzantine Rite. My specific church in the US, uses the term Byzantine to stress our difference from the Roman Catholics BUT to keep the ethnic tones out, we don't like to use Greek Catholic or even Ukrainian Greek Catholic, since the Byzantine Empire is Roman, and thus, comprised of more than just a single ethnicity. Attempts at changing the name have had some weird results. I was once attending liturgy at another one of my church's churches, like in direct jurisdiction, but it used the name "Eastern Catholic" and we had a family of Romans on vacation visit and they had NO IDEA what we were doing. I remember the mother saying "We thought it was Eastern Catholic as in eastern United States." FURTHERMORE, this is unique to my city I think, in like 2019, a massive priest abuse scandal was discovered in the Roman clergy, and our archbishop issued an order for us to use Byzantine as a term more, and for our priests to stop dressing like Roman priests and return to the Constantinople style of dress, to distance ourselves from our Roman neighbors in an attempt to preserve our Church. There was major fear that the Byzantine Catholics, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, etc, would see protests and vandalism (like the Roman churches around here did) if they were considered "too Roman." I must also mention, my hometown is the capital of all "Byzantine" Catholics in the US, after the Soviet Union destroyed our original HQ in Ukraine, the clergy fled here and set up shop and the word Byzantine was specifically chosen to avoid the nationalistic tone that an ethnicity would have and Constantinopolitan was avoided because it's way too long and would just confuse everyone since if you look up Constantinople now, you find Istanbul, and that opens another huge debate. Love the video, I use the term Byzantine with extreme pride, to me, the first Byzantine emperor is Augustus Caesar, as there is an unbroken line from him all the way to Constantine XI. I've seen the term Romano-Byzantine Empire used, because calling it the Eastern Roman Empire sometimes makes people think its an offshoot, like the Holy Roman Empire was, rather than the actual empire itself, just like 1/2 of it, or by the like 800s, 1/5th of it. I do want to add, the idea that the Roman state changes over time but still remained Roman, can be paralleled to China. China went through many dynasties, Qin, Han, Wei, Jin, etc, etc, and they didn't stop being Chinese. The language transitioned from ancient Chinese, to Classical Chinese, to modern Mandarin. The laws changed and so did the structure. The Qin had a powerful prime minister and a militarily active emperor, the Han had 3 high officials, with divided abilities, and an emperor uninvolved in military affairs, and the last two dynasties, the Ming and Qing, had exceptionally large bureaucracies, large complex militaries, but the Qing was massive due to being expansionistic, while the Ming was more nationalist and decided to stay in China's preexisting borders for the most part. All those dynasties are STILL Chinese, just like all the transitions of the Romans are still Roman, as I said, unbroken line from Augustus to Constantine XI.

[@GrecoByzantine1821]

Byzantines were Greeks in everything and typically Romans only by name! 🤫 The Eastern Roman Empire was in language and civilization a Greek society. Bulgarians were Turkic or Slavs?Rus were Swedish or Slavs? Holy Roman Empire was Roman or Germanic empire?Moghuls were Turkic or Indians?Safavids were Turkic or Persians? Byzantines were Romans/Italics or Greeks? I can give many examples were a nation have a different origin from its initial name: 1)Bulgarians were initially a Turkic nation but gradually Slavicised so nowadays they consider themselves a Slavic and not a Turkic nation , 2)Moghuls had a Turco-Mongolic name but it was an Indian Empire in language, ethnicity and culture, 3)Russians name is derived from the Rus' people, who were a Swedish tribe, and where the three original members of the Rurikid dynastry came from but nowadays they are an East Slavic nation! 4)Safavids were initially a Turkic/Kurdish dynasty but gradually their nation and whole dynasty became fully persianised! 5)Holy Roman Empire was an empire made by Germanic people, who they talk Germanic dialects and had a Germanic culture, so the were "Romans" typically only by name! Same way the 6)Eastern Roman Empire initially was a Roman Empire but gradually fully Hellenized in every aspect like language, culture and also main ethnicity. Linguistically, Byzantine or medieval Greek is situated between the Hellenistic (Koine) and modern phases of the language. Since as early as the Hellenistic era, Greek had been the lingua franca of the educated elites of the Eastern Mediterranean, spoken natively in the southern Balkans, the Greek islands, Asia Minor, and the ancient and Hellenistic Greek colonies of Southern Italy, the Black Sea, Western Asia and North Africa. At the beginning of the Byzantine millennium, the koine (Greek: κοινή) remained the basis for spoken Greek and Christian writings, while Attic Greek was the language of the philosophers and orators. Byzantine was generally known to many of its Western contemporaries as the Empire of the Greeks. This was because of the dominance of the Greek language, culture, and population. Greek was not only the official language but also the language of the church, literature, and commercial transactions. Most historians agree that the defining features of their civilization were: 1) Greek language, culture, literature, and science, 2) Roman law and tradition, 3) Christian faith. The Byzantine Greeks were, and perceived themselves as, heirs to the culture of ancient Greece, the political heirs of imperial Rome, and followers of the Apostles. The Byzantine Greeks were the Greek-speaking Eastern Romans throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. They were the main inhabitants of the lands of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire), of Constantinople and Asia Minor (modern Turkey), the Greek islands, Cyprus, and portions of the southern Balkans, and formed large minorities, or pluralities, in the coastal urban centres of the Levant and northern Egypt. Throughout their history, the Byzantine Greeks self-identified as Romans (Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι, romanized: Rhōmaîoi), but are referred to as "Byzantine Greeks" in modern historiography. Latin speakers identified them simply as Greeks or with the term Romaei. Use of the Greek language was already widespread in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire when Constantine moved its capital to Constantinople, although Latin was the language of the imperial administration. From the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610-641), Greek was the predominant language amongst the populace and also replaced Latin in administration. At first, the Byzantine Empire had a multi-ethnic character, but following the loss of the non-Greek speaking provinces with the 7th century Muslim conquests it came to be dominated by the Byzantine Greeks, who inhabited the heartland of the later empire: modern Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, and Sicily, and portions of southern Bulgaria, Crimea, and Albania. Over time, the relationship between them and the West, particularly with Latin Europe, deteriorated. Byzantine Greeks weren't Latin/Romans. You should know the period when Byzantines with Belisarius reconquered Italian peninsula. They even ruled Rome itself for more than 220 years. This period is well known for its Greek Popes! They called those Popes Greeks for a reason! Simply because they were GREEKS!🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷 Ethnicity is not always connected to religion. Ksekolla to mualo sou. You probably has zero knowledge about the ancient Indo-Greek Kingdom who converted to Buddhism. Is that means that after their conversion they ceased to be Greeks? Of course no, they were still Greeks! kzbin.infogicXr7WsTyE?si=XqvhmcCiiyZyNHMq Ancient Greek Buddhist Kingdoms. They still considered themselves as Greeks and not Indians. If you still don't understand that then you are a moron. Same way the Byzantines Christians were Greeks and NOT italic-latin-romans. kzbin.info/www/bejne/e6XVo2N7ap6aZ6Msi=tYUSkcV7xrZS1j4K

[@Rudero3]

@@GrecoByzantine1821 first I'm aware of Greco-Bactrians, second Romans aren't an ethnicity, they're a citizenry. Emperor Caracala I think is the one to extend citizenship to all in the empire. I'm having a hard time understanding your thesis statement because it doesn't sync up with my thesis statement. Also the Mughals are Mongols, direct descendants of Genghis Khan. The Safavids are multi ethnic, at least in their ruling family, since they had Kurdish, Azeri, and Pontic Greek heritage. I don't remember calling you a moron as I don't even know who you are or how your comment connects to mine. You seem to really be caught up on a modern concept of ethnicity. Or did you interpret my statement as anti Greek? Also, the Bulgarians are not Turkic, the Bulgars are. You cannot assign ethnicity so quickly to a people who took a few centuries to form. Like the Macedonian Slavs, they're historically protean. You seem real hung up on the Greekness of the Byzantines/Eastern Romans, which is fine but they can't be exclusively Greek, empires cannot be mono-ethnic states. Which is why Roman and Byzantine are not ethnic terms. If we look at the Byzantine Empire by the time Emperor Basil II died, you have a state that includes Greeks, Bulgarians (the Slavic people who have assimilated the Turkic Bulgars), Italians, Croatians, Bosnians, Albanians, Georgians, Armenians, assuredly some Turkic tribes that were migrating into Anatolia, assuredly Arabs that got left behind when the Caliphate retracted, Jews, and Vlach/Aromanians, and that's just naming the ones that come to mind. The Emperor of the Romans is not not the Emperor of the Greeks, if he was just that, the others ethnicities wouldn't be too thrilled to take orders from him. Did you even watch our man's video or did you just come here to fight in the comments lol. Straight up, I don't even know if you're replying to my message specifically or replying to the video and accidentally commented through mine. Our topics aren't even the same lol.

[@개고기수프]

A very interesting historical fact. In the late Ming Dynasty in China, a military book recorded that a Lumi(噜密) ambassador brought a matchlock with a special long barrel. This was different from the original matchlock in China. Its power could A little larger than the Spanish and Chinese matchlocks.Lumi is actually the transliteration of Roma, but when we look at the illustrations printed in the book, you will find that there is an Ottoman with a turban on it.🤣 It should be said that at that time, both the Arab world and China referred to all people in Asia Minor as Romans.

[@Rudero3]

@@개고기수프 I've actually heard this story before, yeah, Lumi is close to Luoma, which is modern Mandarin for Romans. And yeah, the western portion of Anatolia has been called Rum for a while. The Balkans were further called Rumelia, if I am spelling that correctly. Thus, it would be easy to say that most of the Balkans people have a claim to the Romano-Byzantine legacy, since empires cannot be mono-ethnic.

[@ansibarius4633]

@@Rudero3 "second Romans aren't an ethnicity, they're a citizenry." That's a bit too easy. They were both a citizenry and, at least initially, a people (or a subset of the Latin people) with their own language, religion, traditions, etc. All of these were encapsulated in the "mos maiorum" that kept defining Roman self-perception well into the empire. Also, pointing to the fact that the emperors kept extending the citizenship infinitely as proof that Romanness was merely an administrative matter (as the argument seems to be) is a bit of a one-sided approach, as it ignores the internal opposition that did exist against this liberal approach to citizenship and identity, most notably from the Senate. It was the policy of the emperors, and they won, but the fact that they won does not necessarily make their more pragmatic, maybe even cynical, perspective on what it meant to be Roman the only valid one.

[@strategost]

Imo its best to still call it the roman empire but the people greco-roman. That way there is still the distinction of their unique culture while also not ignoring their romanità (like byzantine) or denying the italians theirs (like just using roman)

[@lyricusthelame9395]

14:56 surely it can't be that terri- SWEET JESUS, WHAT THE HELL?!

[@wardafournello]

The name Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire is a Greek theme.And since the Greeks use both names, this is what is accepted. Rome is a Greek word means power,strength. In ancient Greek texts the word is written with ω ,Ρώμη = Rome ,and not Ρόμη as it would be written if the word was not Greek. Check out the script ΡΩΜΗ on a 5th century BC marble inscription. in the Vatican museum Rome- power , follows the displacement of power. Constantinople = New Rome, Moscow = the third Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, the Sultanate of Rum, etc. The Greek meaning of the word Rome is also the reason why citizenship was invented for the first time in history calling the citizens Romans, Romoioi , Rum, giving them the "power" =the Roman citizenship. The granting of citizenship to allies and the conquered was a vital step in the process of Romanization. This step was one of the most effective political tools and (at that point in history) original political ideas. These are the names of the 7( 8 ) kings of Rome. Romulus,(Titus Tatius), Numa Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius, Ancus Marcius, Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius, Tarquinius Superbus. Romulus =Troian origin , Titus Tatius = sabine from Lacedemonian origin ,Numa Pompilius =sabine from Lacedemonian origin ,Tarquinius Priscus =Etruscan from paternal corinthian(Demaratus of Corinth) Doric origin ,Servius Tullius son of Tarquinius Priscus and Tarquinius Superbus gran son of Tarquinius Priscus . Demaratus was a Dorian nobleman and a member of the Corinthian Dorian house of the Bacchiadae. Facing charges of sedition, in 655 BC he fled to Italy with his Royal court,, according to tradition settling in the Etruscan city of Tarquinii, where he married an Etruscan noblewoman. Demaratus (Greek: Δημάρατος), frequently called Demaratus of Corinth, was an ancestor of Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, the first consuls of the Roman Republic. Three important Roman gentes claimed descent from Demaratus; the Junii, through the first consul; the Mamilii, who came to Rome from Tusculum in the fifth century BC; and the Tullii, through Servius Tullius Every attempt to dissociate Rome and Roman empire from Greek influence is doomed to failure.

[@jasoncassios7114]

One of your best videos to date. Relevant to the subject is this clip from a Greek TV documentary on the Greeks of Corsica, some 40 years ago. The old lady by the name Justine is asked by the Greek where she's from, to which the lady responds: "Ime Rhomaia!" ("I'm Roman!") Parts that weren't liberated by the Greek Army in the 20th century, still had their residents self-identify as Rhomaioi (Romans), calling their language "rhomeika". Yet Westerners, as well as neo-Greeks, still like to insist that the term "Rhomaios" was simply a self-identification on a purely citizen level Makes you wonder Link for the clip: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3epnWiQn6aCes0si=-XDM05iieHZSSU2h&t=340

[@achilleuspetreas3828]

I don't know if you're Greek or not but Greeks called themselves Roman and Greek interchangeably until recently and I still know many fellow Greeks who do, including myself. It's not a dialectic, it can be both. Unlike this video, most people called them Greeks outside of the Frankish West. The Rus used Greki, the Bulgars Graikos, (Chalatar inscription), the Armenians used both Roman and Greek (Horrom and Yuna) (Emperor Romanos was addressed as Kaysrn Yunats' Romanos: Caesar of the Greeks Romanos) and the Georgians used exclusively Berdzen and their land Saberdzneti which also referred to Ancient Greece, and the Greeks....though it was used (at least once) to refer to Ancient Romans (Hadrian and his Roman-Armenian alliance), but the berdzulita the Berdzuli language, always meant Greek, as opposed to hromaelebrita, the Roman language aka Latin. One can be both Greek and Roman. Even Emperor Constantine Porphyrogennitos describes the Maniots as Hellenes only in reference to their recent pagan past, but ethnically as "ancient Romaioi" clearly using Roman to mean Greek. It wasn't always a synonym, but it very much could be.

[@jasoncassios7114]

@@achilleuspetreas3828 I am Greek, but I know how our Greco-Romans ancestors saw themselves; and they saw themselves as Romans. You have to take into consideration the average, everyday man, who called himself "Roman" not because he thought that he descended from the ancient Romans, but because that's what was handed down by his forefathers. Our Rhomaioi ancestors though of Constantine the Great as the leader of their nation, New Rome-Constantinople was their capital, and Rhomania (Land of the Romans) was their fatherland. And no, they didn't use the name Greeks and Romans interchangeably. I could point that the Arabs called us Rum, and they made a very clear distinction between the Yunan (ancient Greeks) and the Rum (Romans - "medieval Greeks"). If we always used it "interchangeably", then people even in the early 20th century would respond that they are "Rhomaioi" when asked by the Greek liberating soldiers. Whether we like it or not, our forefathers became romanised in consciousness, and they retained it even after the Greek Revolution of 1821, hence why they referred themselves as such in the Ottoman occupied lands. You couldn't be both a Hellene and a Roman, since Hellene denoted that someone was a pagan, the second worst thing after heretic. And for that daemonisation responsible is the Church. That's just how it is. Changing your national identity doesn't mean that the ancient Greeks vanished. People change their national identity when their old one dies out for various reasons. It's human nature to adapt in order not only to survive, but to thrive. You have to remember, that no matter how the others call you, you have to take into consideration how a population calls itself and how it self-identifies, how it sees itself. And whether we like it or not, our forefathers saw themselves as new Romans.

[@achilleuspetreas3828]

@@jasoncassios7114 I think we agree more than disagree, aderfe. To the point of identifying as Roman, yes, sometimes they appear synonymous but I don't believe it to be an actual synonym. I see it in the same way as a father (Rome) and mother (Greece) with their son ("Byzantium"). The son takes on the identity, legacy, and name of his father, but his mothers influence is seen in many ways from running the house, from food and music to teaching him to speak. Constantine the Great is a real mythological character being an anthropomorphized version of Constantinople and the empire itself, having a Latin speaking father and a Greek mother. I also think of the Church. As much as I value our philosophical tradition in our faith, I know that our faith is descended from the Jews, and if anyone challenges that and says we have a "Greek" faith and not one descent from Judaism, that angers me, even though I am proud of my Greek. On your point of the Arabs, yes, they called them Rum, but during times of war they used that as in insult in the same way that the West used Greek as an insult. To the Arabs, they would confirm the Rum as being descendant of the Yunan at times of friendliness but would say that the Rum were not because they don't deserve it because to them, it was Christianity that made them abandon the sciences of the ancient Greeks. I'd recommend the book: Byzantium Viewed By The Arabs by Nadia El Cheikh for more on this topic. She does not come from a philhellene or Greek nationalist point of view on the topic. The point of the Greek liberators, I'll quote someone in the comments who summed it quite well, "that comes from the personal account of Panagiotis Peter Charanis, a Byzantinologist Greek-American who was born in Lemnos in 1906-1908, and was just 4 years old when the Greek State liberated Lemnos from the Ottoman Empire in 1912. Having not even started grade school at the time, I think we should not base a rift of Hellenic and Rhomaic Identity on the mistake of a little child." "You couldn't be both a Hellene and a Roman, since Hellene denoted that someone was a pagan, the second worst thing after heretic. And for that daemonisation responsible is the Church." Yes, until the 11th century whereabouts, you couldn't be both a Hellene and a Roman because yes, it meant pagan, but once that connotation was lost, we see the word slowly being used again, because the meaning of the word shifted and no longer had the same stigma. We see this in Procopius' history of wars where he says that more than once that Hellene was now the word used for the "old faith". "ἀλλὰ τριβώνιον ἐνδιδυσκόμενος ἱερεῖ πρέπον τῆς παλαιᾶς δόξης ἣν νῦν Ἑλληνικὴν καλεῖν νενομίκασι," "but he clothed himself in a coarse garment appropriate to a priest of the old faith which they are now accustomed to call Hellenic" When I mean Greek identity I don't mean the use of the word Hellene Έλληνες solely, but to mean that the people recognized their shared culture and ancestry (however much, even if only partly) from those people along side their (Patriarchally) Roman one, whether that be in the form of Γραικος or something else, just as Achaeans was used before Hellene. That the two identities of Roman and "Greek" became thoroughly one, something that cannot be (or shouldn't be) separated or "divorced" so to speak. As Emperor Constantine Porphyrogennitos said in Chapter 49 of De Administrando Imperio: Νικηφόρος τὰ τῶν Ρωμαίων σκῆπτρα ἐχράτει, καὶ οὗτοι ἐν τῷ ϑέματι ὄντες Πελοποννήσου ἀπόστασιν ἐννοήσαντες, πρῶτον μὲν τὰς τῶν γειτόνων οἰκίας τῶν Γραικῶν ἐξεπόρϑουν Nicephorus was holding the sceptre of the Romans, and these Slavs who were in the province of Peloponnesus decided to revolt, and first proceeded to sack the dwellings of their neighbours, the Greeks, He uses Γραικῶν to refer to the Peloponnesian Greeks, but then when talking about the Maniots aka the descendants of the Spartans, he says this in the following chapter. Ιστέον, ὅτι of τοῦ κάστρου Μαΐνης οἰκήτορες οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς τῶν προρρηϑέντων Σκλάβων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν παλαιοτέρων Ῥωμαίων, οἵ καὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν παρὰ τῶν ἐντοπίων Ἕλληνες προσαγορεύονται διὰ τὸ ἐν τοῖς προπαλαιοῖς χρόνοις εἰδωλολάτρας εἶναι καὶ προσκυνητὰς τῶν εἰδώλων κατὰ τοὺς παλαιοὺς Ἕλληνας, οἵτινες ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ ἀοιδίμου Βασιλείου | βαπτισϑέντες Χριστιανοὶ γεγόνασιν. The inhabitants of the city of Maina are not of the race of the aforesaid Slavs, but of the ancient Romans, and even to this day they are called ‘Hellenes’ by the local inhabitants, because in the very ancient times they were idolaters and worshippers of images after the fashion of the ancient Hellenes; and they were baptized and became Christians in the reign of the glorious Basil. This shows not only that Hellene was still used to mean pagan at the time, but why did he use Rhomaioi to refer to ancient Greeks? Why wouldn't he just use Graikos? Just as it's a dialectic to say that Roman only meant Greek in the Hellenic sense at this time period, it is still a dialectic to say that it had nothing to do with what it meant to be Greek either. It's fascinating but I think it's a little more nuanced than both sides like to believe it was.... Thank you for being civil, my friend. Very rare on the internet lol

[@mikel3359]

​@@jasoncassios7114The name Romeos which became ethnonym for Greeks does not mean descendant of Rome. Romeos probably means a Hellen Roman citizen and especially a Christian Hellen in the era of the transition from polytheism to christianity

[@jasoncassios7114]

@@mikel3359 The name "Rhomaios" literally means "of Rome". And for that case, New Rome, Constantinople. There's no "probably" in it. They called their own country "Rhomania", "Land of the Rhomans" The word "Hellene" was the second worst thing someone could call you, (the first was "heretic"), since it denoted paganism. Rhomaios = the romanised Christian Greek. I don't get why you keep denying the roman character of the Greek of these times. It's as if people don't change consciousnesses...

[@healthmain]

Perfect tl:dl summary at 28:00. They are Byzantines because the western European powers had their own agenda in denying the "Romaness" of the Eastern Roman Empire.

[@onetwothreefourfive12345]

As a big fan of the Eastern Roman Empire, I use both. I know some people use "Byzantium" as an insult, but when I say it I just think of it a word for the Romans once Byzantion became their centre of power. And practically, in writing there is something called "graceful variance", which is where you use a different word for the same thing for the sake of variety. Saying "Eastern Roman Empire" every time is not only longer but can be repetitive

[@stargazer-elite]

Perfectly said

[@orrorsaness5942]

I use Rhomania

[@genovayork2468]

​@@orrorsaness5942 Which is wrong, the "h" is futile, it is Romania.

[@orrorsaness5942]

@@genovayork2468 ok! Romania

[@v4facade]

For those wondering about Anthony Kaldellis' top 10 Eastern Roman Emperors 10. Theodosius I 9. Leo III 8. Alexios I 7. Basil II (Yes, really) 6. Manuel I 5. John I 4. John III 3. Anastasius I 2. Constantine V 1. Constantine I Source: History of Byzantium Podcast Episode 265 I don't necessarily have any problem with the Emperors he chose, but their placement does kinda suck.

[@onemoreminute0543]

My own list would be somewhat similar with a few tweaks: 10) Manuel Komnenos 9) John I Tzimiskes 8) Alexios Komnenos 7) Basil II 6) Leo III 5) John II Komnenos 4) John III Doukas Vatatzes 3) Anastasius 2) Constantine V 1) Constantine the Great

[@musicomp4949]

Well done this was a geat video!! Nevertheless, I felt that you are cherry picking- You believe in the uniterupted romaness of the empire as a 'nation' or 'ethnicity' and the video presents sources and arguments from confirmation biases. The inhabitants were aware of their Greek ethnicity(at least the Greeks since the empire also included Greek speaking subjects). You did not present the emergence of Christianity as a pivotal moment for 'Romaness'. Roman was a political and religious term- Roman adheres to the political and military prowess of Western Rome which the Eastern Romans maintained as favourable but it also meant being Greek or Greek speaking AND Orthodox. Do not forget that Christianity shaped though the Greek world and language. Because Hellene meant Pagan the Greeks sought to show their Christian ideals through the concept of Romaness. In the late stages of the empire many Easter Romans emphasized their Greek ethncicity ( see last speech of Constantine the last emperor-the Alexiad the letter of John Vatages to the pope ("Apostolos Vacalopoulos notes that John III Ducas Vatatzes was prepared to use the words 'nation' (genos), 'Hellene' and 'Hellas' together in his correspondence with the Pope. John acknowledged that he was Greek, although bearing the title Emperor of the Romans: "the Greeks are the only heirs and successors of Constantine", he wrote. In similar fashion John’s son Theodore II, acc. 1254, who took some interest in the physical heritage of Antiquity, was prepared to refer to his whole Euro-Asian realm as "Hellas" and a "Hellenic dominion). In their schools the Easter Romas had as their main readings the Heliad and the Odyssey and NOT the Eniad which modern italians are being taught in their schools even to this day. I could say more but I will stop it here- Kaldellis is only but one source -you could have compared him with Vacalopoulos, Runciman and other byzantinologists who have very opposing ideas. Sorry for the long message!! and sorry for my disagreement it is well intended!!

[@KonstantinoupolisEptalofos]

You forgot to mention thet the midle Byzantine citizen was fully educated in Homer ( ancinet greek text, not the common Hellinistic Greek !) , and in the other ancient greek studies, espessialy more , from the first European univercity , for centuries , the ''Pandidactirion ''( Πανδιδακτήριον ..) . For you, western People, it is in deed quite difficult to understand the identity of the Byzantines. For as the Greeks, it is us simple us we know our parents... Our ansestors who liberaterd Greece in 1821, they - not just considerd- but they were naturally knew that they were liberating the ethnos of Ρωμιών after 400 years of slavery.. And the ultimate purpose was to liberate the capital of the ''Rum'' ''Ρωμιων - Ελλήνων'''' Greeks'' The Constantinople... '' Romios '' and Greek - Hellene - was and is until today in the consius of all Greeks the same name meaning .. ( Ρωμιός - Έλληνας ) . But .. only whoever is Greek Christian Orhodox has this consius stroger inside him!!! .... The great misunderstanding became almost immediately after the liberation, by the ideas which came from western Europe, were saying that the knew Greeks shoud be looking for their past only in the antiquity !!!! ..... ... '' But it was never the truth .. becouse it was always seperating the Greek soul into two !!!! ... That was the consern of the westerns !! We were always feeling the ancients as the grandfathers, But, we were the Byzantines ! the Rum ! The Romioi ! the Ελληνες ! Because the Byzantines were the fathers ... And the last emperor Constantine Palaiologos, fell fighting in the gate of saint Romanos... He did not gave the City to the turks..... In his last speech , which has being saved by his close secretary Georgios Fratzis, Constantine adressing toy the people, said '' We are descentans of Romans and Greeks ! - Ρωμαίων και Ελλήνων. After the failure of liberating Constantinopole ,during the Balcan wars and after, and also after, the catastrofy of the Romios Greeks ( Ρωμιους - Ελληνες ) in Minor Asia in 1922 for the first time after almost ..3000 years ! ... a total sadness a kind of catathipsy came to the consius of the Greek soul for the unfinished liberation ...either in space...nor in culture....

[@ScholeionHistory]

Thank you for saying this, aderfe mou. As the Saint Emperor Ioannes Vatatzes said: only the Greeks are the inheritors of the Roman empire. One can be both Greek and Roman at the same time. Westerners are still using the same flawed logic as before: they think if you are Roman you can't be Greek or if your Greek you can't be Roman!

[@cosmopolitanbay9508]

I usually mention it as the Eastern Roman empire, as a synonym of the Byzantine empire, but change over to the latter, saving myself an extra word :)) But medieval Roman empire is a nice term as well. Years ago I found the term 'Byzantine commonwealth' used by e scholar from the university of Texas. It opens the door to a new reality and explains quite a bit.

[@kompo1012]

How much of the local population considered themselves Romans instead of say Spartan, Athenian, Anatolian, Syrian, Egyptian etc..

[@ZillahThe]

I like how you said it's the Byzantine part of Roman history. That's how I look at it.

[@jonathanadams8835]

5:23 Another issue with a "Holy Roman" nationality is that the HRE acknowledged that it was not based off a single nation. "Life and victory to the army of the Franks, Romans and Germans" -Laudes Imperiale for the Holy Roman Emperor

[@Bronn92]

The term is useful, but if I want to distinguish the ERE from the Classical Rome, I prefer to call them eastern romans, medieval romans or even greco-romans.

[@captainmccuckin2698]

There is no need to differentiate the two , you don't have a different name tomorrow

[@infinitexvortex]

Is Roman something we should refer to as blood or as a nation? As Stilicho was a Latin Vandal. Many emperors we're Latin and Illyrian. The foederati was supposed to be a assimilation idea for turning barbarians into "Romans".

[@TGeoMin]

You can call them as you like, but they are my ancestors not yours. I am from Mystras and i am a Greek.

[@cloudftw113]

I tend to use it interchangeably with the proper name of the Eastern Roman Empire or Roman Empire. Partially becuase Byzantium rolls of the tounge better than Eastern Roman Empire (which is lowkey a mouth full)

[@DonnellGreen]

So true and when you say Byzantium people automatically know you are talking about Purple Christian Rome

[@cloudftw113]

@@DonnellGreen To be fair, I'd say that awareness mostly came relatively recently (at least for those who don't study and/or follow Roman history)

[@albundy9918]

I learned in school that Byzantium was that part of the roman empire that survived another 1000 years and those people were romans. Western catholic propaganda didn't reach this shores.

[@mydogsbutler]

You probably didn't learn in school is the Byzantium nor Roman was how they were referenced by the west during the middle ages. They Holy Roman empire called them Greeks

[@RestitutorEuropa]

I’m loving the subtle shade you threw at people who use the dumb “CE” system.

[@lilestojkovicii6618]

B word is Germ cope You cant convince me otherwise

[@Dimitriterrorman]

i have no idea how you can say the unholy germanoid league has any similarities to Rome

[@Popepaladin]

If nothing else, HRE shares some continuity in ideals of universal monarchy with late Roman empire.

[@davidkasparov8043]

because unlike you, he actually has some knowledge of history rather than falling for the lame, false and tired epikk voltaire meme that microdick pop-history fanboys love to shill

[@jebbush2527]

Redditor

[@davidkasparov8043]

@@jebbush2527 le ebin voltaire meme is peak reddit: uneducated pop-history nonsense with no basis in reality, peddled by downs syndrome crayon-eaters that have deluded themselves into thinking they're smart because they have access to wikipedia. Cry harder.

[@StrikerEStrikerovich]

germanoid lmfao

[@pride2184]

This argument is the same as France. French love claiming their medieval and dark ages heritages as the same nation but refuse to say the romans are still romans. Nations culture can change doesn't change its identity

[@darkforce6763]

I definitely suggest reading the work Ρωμηοσύνη (romanism/romanitas) by John Romanides. He makes the exact same arguments with a different approach (combining the theological history of the Roman and Frankish states and explains much of the origins of the dispute.

[@paulmayson3129]

Rhomeosene is just Modern Romanness as it survives in Greece. But I would abstain from using the term for Medievel Romanness, for the simple reason that the Medieval Romans never used the word.

[@darkforce6763]

Ρωμηοσύνη is simply a romaic term for the Romanitas. Its not exclusive to the modern neogreek "identity" but it goes way back in our culture. In modern times it has the additional context of the need to return to our Roman roots and reject the neogreek identity (it also means bravery and honesty in many cases too). @@paulmayson3129

[@genovayork2468]

John Romanides? Seriously?

[@darkforce6763]

Ναι. Υπάρχει πρόβλημα; @@genovayork2468

[@skylinelover9276]

As they said Culture is more important than DNA... Because there is no such thing as pure race, Europeans especially in Mediterranean are mostly mixed European Hunter gatherers DNA, Neolithic Anatolians farmers DNA etc... And the East Romans is just like that, but they represent and enriched the Hellenic civilization not Latin, Albanian, Bulgarian culture and traditions.... That's the hard reality

[@AOA9871]

As someone of Antiochian Orthodox Levantine descent, our people have called ourselves Rūm or Roumi and sometimes still do.

[@morsecode980]

I have an analogy for the “Byzantines” Imagine the Roman Empire as a ship at sea. From its founding until 476, it was always captained by a Latin from Italy, eventually with a Greek as first mate. In 476, the Latin captain abandoned ship. The Greek first mate said “Well, I guess I’m in charge now” and took the wheel until 1453.

[@capitanbuzz]

In Spain, the Roman Empire is taught in schools as a evolving empire lasting until the 15th century. Looking at other comments, it seems that is the norm in the actual former lands of that empire.

[@joraninator]

my super sexy solid argument for naming it Byzantium is: Its sounds cool. source: It is known.

[@mazmurlo9283]

5:45 The Holy Roman Empire did control and rule over Romans. Not even the ones of Rome, the Romansh, of southern Switzerland (at the time part of the HRE) were and still are a group of Romans who have continued to identify as Roman up until the present.

[@Haverlock]

The flaw in this logic is considering the swiss people

[@giannisa134]

Add to this list the Greek speaking population of Istanbul who still call themselves Romans and of course the Romanians.

[@baneofbanes]

So did the Franks, and the Goths, and the Arabs, and the Lombards, and numerous other empires.

[@mazmurlo9283]

@@giannisa134 yeah, just talking about the ones living in the HRE. Iirc the Greeks of Ukraine/Russia will also still call themselves Romans

[@gilpaubelid3780]

​@@giannisa134Greeks, not greek-speaking.

[@danravecomique8381]

The Byzantine Empire is a Roman Empire(though its administrative center is Byzantium/Constantinople)

[@TheDAWinz]

Fantastic video Romaboo, very accurate it's what i've thought for the longest time as well. The comparisons to modern similarities also helps when showing this to the laymen.

[@MausOfTheHouse]

Average War Thunder/Roman history enthusiast

[@MarcusAgrippa390]

Think in terms of a river. Is the Nile still the same as when Nefertiti was alive? Many small but cumulative changes have occurred over time, the water itself is different as is the people who live alongside it and yet the name is the same. There's an old saying "you can't cross the same river twice" But from another perspective you certainly can and we do it all the time. In the end this whole question of Byzantine Rome is in my opinion much ado about nothing.

[@viperking6573]

Wow, amazing analogy!

[@pipebomber04]

Just like england. The people, language, religion and culture was so different 1000 years ago yet its the same england.

[@AaronDarkus]

I think the case of "Byzantines" is similar to what happens to the natives in the Americas. For example; when Christopher Columbus and the spanish arrived to Center and South America, they though they had arrived to India, the nation in South Asia. Instead of calling the natives "Native Americans", they called them vulgarly as "Indians" because of the confusion. I come from Latin America, and as a form of, let's say, "tradition", people refer to the natives of today as "the indians" or, in spanish "los indios". Both Byzantines and "Indians" are words that are not really historically correct (looking in retrospective) but have become so used in the popular imaginative / narrative / culture that is almost imposible to just erase it, at least not quickly. I think that the most important thing is not to attack everyone if they use Byzantine instead of Eastern Roman, but most importantly, to clarify that byzantine should be a synonym of eastern rome.

[@Viddao]

Yeah, I would use the word "Byzantine" if I was trying to emphasize the Eastern Medieval Roman Empire's connection to its capitol: Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul.

[@AaronDarkus]

@@Viddao Same.

[@Galahad_Du_Lac]

Indians is historically correct. It was the term used for the entirety of history after European contact up until fairly recently.

[@groggod666]

​​@@Galahad_Du_Lac of course it was used for most of history, for most of history colonizers didn't want to highlight the fact that the people they were conquering were legitimate inhabitants of said places by calling them 'natives'. Of course these 'natives' also conquered their own 'native' lands from previous 'natives' and so on, but that's besides my point.

[@Galahad_Du_Lac]

@@groggod666 It had nothing to do with that. They thought they got to India and the name stuck.

[@skylinelover9276]

Even the Germans used to call them selves Prussians (wich is originally baltic tribes).. its possible that they just don't care about nationality matter, east romans especially in the middle era of the empire, possible that majority of them just didn't care if they using roman and praising the Latins

[@midshipman8654]

what would the eastern roman ethnic names be for those from and living in the area around rome and central italy? Surely there would be a difference there and there were still old senatorial families around living in the various italian city states and villas in the early middle ages as well Something like latinoi? And what about people actually livinh in rome? I think a big point is that Rome, the physical city, was still an active entity, so its kinda semantically troubling to differentiate what “kind” of roman you mean. Though you could say “papal” a lot… which is based in Rome and does also take much legitimacy from its romaness. Saying eastern rome is kind of confusing too because for most of the time there is no western roman empire. but the east part is still kinda necessary since it also in part distinguishes it from Rome physically.

[@dinos9607]

I left my first comment below to introduce you to how western Europeans viewed both ancient and medieval Greek history and how with the term "Byzantine" there was an attempt to discredit the Roman heritage of the medieval Roman Empire and how, today, the introduced term "Eastern Roman Empire" is often used as an attempt to discredit the Greek nature of the Empire and the fact that this was basically an Empire of Greeks as Greeks by means of geographical selection inherited the Roman Empire. Now I have seen the whole video and can comment - and even if the video makes some good points, I have found some errors, culminating in the 24:34 where it says that "people of the Eastern Roman Empire traced their cultural ancestry to the Roman Empire". This is woefully wrong and I am left wondering how one who studies can do such an error. The answer of course is what I mentioned in my first comment, i.e. a selective reading of sources and isolation of bits and parts that validate the bias, the preconceived idea. So as per the video maker, the medieval Romans were referring to "their ancestors, the Romans (i.e. the Latin Romans), and the aristocratic families were claiming coming from illustrius old Latin families, and various Emperors, politicians, clergymen were making references to ancient Latin generals and politicians such as Scipio. That is a blatant lie, one that is not permissible from someone who supposedly researches these issues. The fact that there are such references is no surprise at all in a state that claimed, and rightfully so, to be a continuation of the old Roman Empire. The ancestries to illustrious Latin families of course come from 1-2 texts (some 8-9 centuries after disappearance of these Latin famiiles, LOL! ) and resemble the fake ancestry of Emperor Basil I to the Armenian Arsacid kings just to give him an aristocratic lineage (it was fake of course, Basil I was a Greek from North Thrace). These fake lineages appear precisely in apologetic texts that were supposedly combating contemporary Latin (i.e. medieval Italian) claims of illegitimacy of the Eastern Roman Empire. The reality however is only revealed when one sits down and actually does the work. There is a Greek site, "cognoscoteam", which was created precisely by Greek history students, particularly by byzantinologists, people with Phds, post-doctorates, academic careers, people who can read medieval Greek history in their own language - thus far more knowledgeable than your average Harvardian and Oxfordian professor. So one of them wanted to answer this question and sat down and measured the totality of references to ancient people in general and to ancient people as ancestors. He found that for all the reverence to Orthodox Christianity, the Saints, and excluding Jesus (who was mentioned naturally often as he is God), the references to ancient Greeks by far surpass the references to any Saints, the New Testament or Old Biblical stories. These religious references would appear only when fitting. However the references to ancient Greeks were abundant and appeared all over the place, said by all sorts of people, Emperors, aristocrats, soldiers, commoners, poor people, including also clergymen. So many more were the references to ancient Greeks that they were about double the references to New/Old Testament for all the religiosity of medieval Romans. As for the references of old Latins, like the.... handpicked-cherrypicked references here shown in the video these were not even up to the 1/10th in comparison to the reference to ancient Greeks and were almost always, with the exception of fake aristocratic lineages (LOL!) referring merely to the foundation of the Roman state. Latins were never really seen as their ancestors, but just as the founders of the Roman state. Now this could be a case of western European and North American academics merely by-passing obscure texts and sticking only to the ones they know. In Greece, the study of the Eastern Roman Empire is done in far more depth and Greeks thus are naturally far more knowledgeable on the matter. But then this error done here is inexcusable. That the Eastern Romans referred to ancient Greeks vastly more frequently than to ancient Romans is actually a widely known fact as much as the fact that Eastern Roman kids were learning how to read on Homer's Odyssey. The fact that the likes of Seneca and Suetonius are hardly ever mentioned in Eastern Roman texts and pretty much nobody gave importance to their writings but everyone was reading Plato and Aristotle and all other ancient Greek philosophers whose texts were saved, is a known fact. The fact that nobody (apart a few academics of the time) read the likes of Livy or Pliny but everyone copied Herodotus and Thucydides even imitating their styles shows clearly whom they considered as their ancestors - even more so when the references to Herodotus and Thucydides often come so randomly and suggest that the readers/audience were all knowledgeable of Herodotus and Thucydides' works in detail. The fact that almost nobody have a single F about Augustus (rarely mentioned and merely as the founder of the Roman state) but then we have plenty of depictions of Alexander the Great, including Alexander the Great with Olympias being depicted next to Jesus and Virgin Mary... what seemed to had been a common theme. This was an honour held for absolutely no old Roman Emperor. All these are known things. So why manipulate the facts? Why cook the data? To pas the narrative of a "Roman nation"? LOL! Yes, there existed a Roman nation back then and these were the ethnic Greeks, none else. There is no mystery about it. The term Roman may had started as a citizen term in late antiquity and then in Eastern Roman Empire evolved gradually and increasingly after the 7th-8th century crisis to mean the ethnic Greek and only the ethnic Greek. All those Isaurians, Syrians, Armenians, Bulgarians, Serbians etc. who were at various point Roman citizens, when were they mentioned as "Romans"? Why weren't they mentioned as such even if they may had an actual Roman citizenship? The term Roman denoted the ethnic Greek and that is what it was back then. The video referred to marginal tribes such as the Galatians in central Minor Asia becoming "Romans"....and sneakily pushing that as an "argument" that there was a different ethnic Roman identity. This is completely false. Galatians were described as "Romans" because Romans then were the Greeks and because Galatians had become Greek, i.e. they adopted the Greek language, the Greek customs, the Greek religion (i.e. Orthodox Christianity) and above all they had lost their own consciousness and memory as descendants of Galatians. I.e. they were fully Hellenised, thus Roman. And we even have the term Helleno-Galates in early Eastern Roman texts. As for the term "Greeks" and "Hellenes", these are found extremely frequently even in earlier Eastern Roman eras. It is just that academics are too lazy to search for these. Luckily, there are people who sit down and do the actual work and don't cherry pick to construct a narrative.

[@tiredidealist]

Just going to give my opinion before watching the video. I think calling it the Byzantine Empire is really useful, because it helps people understand what part of Rome's history you're talking about. I don't believe that calling them Byzantines detracts from their Roman identity or claim, and I don't think calling them Roman detracts from their Greek identity and history. I think the Byzantine Empire was legitimate, and I also think the HRE was legitimate. But I would never call the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire, just like I wouldn't drop the 'Holy' part of the HRE. Sometimes words and names aren't incredibly accurate in the strictest sense, but that doesn't really matter. The point of language is to convey meaning, and I believe that the names we use now achieve that goal perfectly well. Changing these conventions doesn't benefit anyone. I don't think it us using them would even bother the people of the past, so long as they understood our reasons.

[@lordfenix17]

For the cazuls, yes but it does need to get phased out, I like referring to The Roman Empire as the Roman Empire and not the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire or anything else.

[@joo_olenmiina]

I think that it is the roman empire but i think its okay to call is byzantine in games or when you want to talk about that period of time

[@Phaedon53]

"ἀλλὰ μετὰ κυρίων καὶ αὐθεντῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἀπογόνων Ἑλλήνων καὶ Ῥωμαίων........ἐλπίδα καὶ χαρὰν πάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων ." "...descendants of Hellenes and Romans .....hope and joy of all the Hellenes." From the last speech of emperor Κωνσταντίνος Παλαιολόγος.

[@gregoryheers2633]

That’s literally from the last day of the Empire’s life. In my estimation, Constantine was trying to appeal to all his subjects, including those with Hellenizing tendencies (mainly the intelligentsia, who had begun heading in a more Hellenic direction ever since the Fourth Crusade).

[@Phaedon53]

@gregoryheers2633 That is only one of the many sources in that direction. The Hellenization of the Empire was already on tracks since the 7th century , after the establishment of Greek as the official language. When paganism stopped being a threat , even the self-identifying terminology got enriched with the terms Greek and Hellenic. The 4th crusade was surely the final strike on Romanitas. The Nicaean Empire , the Despotate of Epirus, etc , were purely Greek states.

[@ntonisa6636]

That "speech” fragment, which many love quoting to death in these pointless youtube polemics, and in fact the entire siege account part of that chronicle has long been proven to have been added by Makarios Melissenos over a century after the events. It may be useful in demonstrating what the bishop of Monemvasia wanted to propagate to his audience in the late 1500s but it does very little to demonstrate the defunct empire's ideology or what Constantine could had actually told his troops.

[@Phaedon53]

@@ntonisa6636 That is one out of many, dear Antonio. Since you are Greek , you know the facts and the sources , right? www.oodegr.com/neopaganismos/romi/eikones/smerdaleos_2/APAT9SMERD01.jpg www.oodegr.com/neopaganismos/romi/eikones/smerdaleos_2/APAT9SMERD08.jpg www.oodegr.com/neopaganismos/romi/eikones/smerdaleos_2/APAT9SMERD09.jpg www.oodegr.com/neopaganismos/romi/eikones/smerdaleos_2/APAT9SMERD10.jpg www.oodegr.com/neopaganismos/romi/eikones/smerdaleos_2/APAT9SMERD11.jpg www.oodegr.com/neopaganismos/romi/eikones/smerdaleos_2/APAT9SMERD14.jpg www.oodegr.com/neopaganismos/romi/eikones/smerdaleos_2/APAT9SMERD17.jpg www.oodegr.com/neopaganismos/romi/eikones/smerdaleos_2/APAT9SMERD18.jpg www.oodegr.com/neopaganismos/romi/eikones/smerdaleos_2/APAT9SMERD19.jpg To name a few...

[@gilpaubelid3780]

​@@gregoryheers2633Then your estimation would be incorrect because there are plenty of sources from the entirety of the byzantine period where Byzantines are clearly saying that they are Greeks. And you're saying that actual Greeks had "hellenizing tendencies"? Considering the fact that they were Greeks it was much more than just a "tendency".

[@przedwczorajszyszprot9931]

We should just call it "Greek Empire". Sweet, short and intuitive.

[@Redditor_Lucis_Aeternae]

Literally the worst take I’ve ever seen

[@przedwczorajszyszprot9931]

@@Redditor_Lucis_Aeternae why?

[@Redditor_Lucis_Aeternae]

@@przedwczorajszyszprot9931 It was culturally Greek, but it was politically Roman. It was Rome’s legacy. Its military and society structural were Roman. Calling it greek is highly misleading and way too reminiscent of the horribly incorrect Enlightenment thinkers.

[@carlosaugustodinizgarcia3526]

Like Germanic Federation instead of Holy Roman Empire?

[@mybodyisamachine]

​@@Redditor_Lucis_Aeternae let's just say they were Romanized Greeks

[@argoarcontediatene8557]

I've always supported this theory, and the evidence brought by Kaldellis is quite indisputable. There once was a national group called "Rhomaioi", predominant in the Southern Balkans and Anatolia, that doesn't exist anymore. The modern Greeks carry on their cultural heritage, but it is not a madness to think that the Turks also genetically descend from them (the old turkic invaders mixed with the locals, who adopted their language, religion and culture).

[@viperking6573]

exactly 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 the closest cultural relatives of the medieval romans are the greeks, and turks share an ancestry of the med. romans in anatolia that stayed in the Turkish dominion. The westerners ( Romance speakers, Germans and so on ) are the cultural evolution of the romans who stayed under germanic dominion. Of course is more complex than this, but the idea of a Byzantine empire is just BS

[@Merdumgriz]

It does exist! no ethnicity is pure and most Turks does carry Helenic blood. Every nation consists of different ethic groups identifying them selves as a single group. Think it like this; your Nation might be French but you ethnicity wise can carry Breton blood.

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

@@viperking6573Absolutely NOT !!! The turkified Greeks have lost ALL rights to their Ancient Hellenic & Romios Identity! PERIOD

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

@@MerdumgrizThe turkified Hellenic Romioi have lost their right to identify & claim any of that! PERIOD. This is just a goody methods for turks to try to hijack History because of their inferiority complex. They take great pride in destroying anything related to the Hellenes & Romioi, including using their temples & shrines as sideshows! There is ZERO spiritual connection & very little genetic connection & zero linguistic connection & definitely doesn’t follow the organic Religious roadmap either! ZERO

[@Wfalen]

I have come to a personal, albeit a bit controversial decision on when to call it Byzantium Pre-Arab conquest = Eastern Roman empire, after the arab conquest = Byzantine empire. Basically it's because this is the moment they lost their richest provinces and never got them back. Also here we can definately say that the middle ages are on. The last vestiges of antiquity ended and even the remaining empire becomes much more feudal. Also at this time Italy starts to completely form into the medieval city states.

[@GrecoByzantine1821]

Byzantines were Greeks in everything and typically Romans only by name! 🤫 The Eastern Roman Empire was in language and civilization a Greek society. Bulgarians were Turkic or Slavs?Rus were Swedish or Slavs? Holy Roman Empire was Roman or Germanic empire?Moghuls were Turkic or Indians?Safavids were Turkic or Persians? Byzantines were Romans/Italics or Greeks? I can give many examples were a nation have a different origin from its initial name: 1)Bulgarians were initially a Turkic nation but gradually Slavicised so nowadays they consider themselves a Slavic and not a Turkic nation , 2)Moghuls had a Turco-Mongolic name but it was an Indian Empire in language, ethnicity and culture, 3)Russians name is derived from the Rus' people, who were a Swedish tribe, and where the three original members of the Rurikid dynastry came from but nowadays they are an East Slavic nation! 4)Safavids were initially a Turkic/Kurdish dynasty but gradually their nation and whole dynasty became fully persianised! 5)Holy Roman Empire was an empire made by Germanic people, who they talk Germanic dialects and had a Germanic culture, so the were "Romans" typically only by name! Same way the 6)Eastern Roman Empire initially was a Roman Empire but gradually fully Hellenized in every aspect like language, culture and also main ethnicity. Linguistically, Byzantine or medieval Greek is situated between the Hellenistic (Koine) and modern phases of the language. Since as early as the Hellenistic era, Greek had been the lingua franca of the educated elites of the Eastern Mediterranean, spoken natively in the southern Balkans, the Greek islands, Asia Minor, and the ancient and Hellenistic Greek colonies of Southern Italy, the Black Sea, Western Asia and North Africa. At the beginning of the Byzantine millennium, the koine (Greek: κοινή) remained the basis for spoken Greek and Christian writings, while Attic Greek was the language of the philosophers and orators. Byzantine was generally known to many of its Western contemporaries as the Empire of the Greeks. This was because of the dominance of the Greek language, culture, and population. Greek was not only the official language but also the language of the church, literature, and commercial transactions. Most historians agree that the defining features of their civilization were: 1) Greek language, culture, literature, and science, 2) Roman law and tradition, 3) Christian faith. The Byzantine Greeks were, and perceived themselves as, heirs to the culture of ancient Greece, the political heirs of imperial Rome, and followers of the Apostles. The Byzantine Greeks were the Greek-speaking Eastern Romans throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. They were the main inhabitants of the lands of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire), of Constantinople and Asia Minor (modern Turkey), the Greek islands, Cyprus, and portions of the southern Balkans, and formed large minorities, or pluralities, in the coastal urban centres of the Levant and northern Egypt. Throughout their history, the Byzantine Greeks self-identified as Romans (Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι, romanized: Rhōmaîoi), but are referred to as "Byzantine Greeks" in modern historiography. Latin speakers identified them simply as Greeks or with the term Romaei. Use of the Greek language was already widespread in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire when Constantine moved its capital to Constantinople, although Latin was the language of the imperial administration. From the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610-641), Greek was the predominant language amongst the populace and also replaced Latin in administration. At first, the Byzantine Empire had a multi-ethnic character, but following the loss of the non-Greek speaking provinces with the 7th century Muslim conquests it came to be dominated by the Byzantine Greeks, who inhabited the heartland of the later empire: modern Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, and Sicily, and portions of southern Bulgaria, Crimea, and Albania. Over time, the relationship between them and the West, particularly with Latin Europe, deteriorated. Byzantine Greeks weren't Latin/Romans. You should know the period when Byzantines with Belisarius reconquered Italian peninsula. They even ruled Rome itself for more than 220 years. This period is well known for its Greek Popes! They called those Popes Greeks for a reason! Simply because they were GREEKS!🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷 Ethnicity is not always connected to religion. Ksekolla to mualo sou. You probably has zero knowledge about the ancient Indo-Greek Kingdom who converted to Buddhism. Is that means that after their conversion they ceased to be Greeks? Of course no, they were still Greeks! kzbin.infogicXr7WsTyE?si=XqvhmcCiiyZyNHMq Ancient Greek Buddhist Kingdoms. They still considered themselves as Greeks and not Indians. If you still don't understand that then you are a moron. Same way the Byzantines Christians were Greeks and NOT italic-latin-romans. kzbin.info/www/bejne/e6XVo2N7ap6aZ6Msi=tYUSkcV7xrZS1j4K

[@Adsper2000]

Speaking Greek is not unRoman. Greek was the secondary language of the Roman Empire throughout its entire history, Roman philosophy was just Hellenistic philosophy, and most of the Roman Emperors were not ethnically Italian. You are misconstruing Rome by assigning a single language and ethnicity to it, as if Rome was not a fundamentally heterogenous empire. If you are going to claim the Eastern Roman Empire for nationalistic reasons, you should also claim the ancient Roman Empire too.

[@GrecoByzantine1821]

@@Adsper2000 Greek language was the FIRST language of the eastern Roman Empire since Emperor Heraclius 610AD and after. Greeks were the MAJOR ethnic group of the eastern Roman Empire and the only ethnic group which called themselves Romans, while the Armenians called themselves Armenians, the Bulgarians called themselves Bulgarians, the Assyrians called themselves Assyrians but still all of the above ethnic groups being citizens of the eastern Roman Empire. The Greeks lived all around the eastern Roman Empires borders and not only among the borders of modern day Greece. In your logic the Ottoman Empire was Ottoman but Not Turkish cause the Turks wasn't even the majority of the Ottoman Empire. In your logic the Second Bulgarian Empire wasn't a Slavic nation but a Turkic nation just because they kept their Turkic name (Bulgars) even though their ethnicity, language, culture were fully slavicized. In your logic, the Holy Roman Empire was a real Roman empire and not a Germanic empire...etc Roman/Latins NEVER heavily colonized the east and they NEVER ethnically or culturally or linguistically replaced the Greek descent "Roman" citizens. Those Greeks were the CORE ethnic group which shaped the IDENTITY of the Eastern "Roman" Empire in that extent that the Eastern Romans were "Romans" only typically by name! Just try to understand this and stop thinking by your western mentality.

[@Bruh-cg2fk]

Easter Roman Empire spoke Greek because that area was conquered by Alexander the great before making Greek the lingua-franca of the area also by been considered civilised by Italic-Romans reason why Greek language kept alive and the reason why the new testament was written in Greek which makes sense why Greek took more importance, the Eastern Roman Empire was also Christian

[@giannisgiannopoulos791]

Great video food for thought. All those who claim from 800 to today that the Eastern Romans were not Romans because they spoke Greek probably ignore that the Roman Republic, the same as the Roman Empire in Italy and its Eastern parts, was also Greek-speaking. The Roman Republic had already adopted the Greek culture, and thus someone can argue that the Roman Empire's culture was always Greco-Roman. What happened was actually that the not Holy, nor Roman G E R M A N I C Emperors of the Ottonian Dynasty of the West and their successors, started to call the Romans of the East Greeks in order t,o retaliate for the several humiliations they suffered from Emperors such as Basil I or Nikephoros II who were messaging or telling them that they will never be Romans because they were Barbarians, and also to consolidate the title of the Roman Emperor for themselves, something that Constantinople had never recognized for them. How ridiculous was that! The disdainful misnomer "Byzantine" consolidated its usage by the Renaissance offsprings, the Greekaboos Enlighteners of the infamous Age, who glorified the ancient Greek spirit and hated the Church and everything "backward" Christian to their guts, and hence the Roman Empire of the Middle Ages, the bastion state of Christianity. They were biased, hence untrustworthy, and certainly outdated. It's not unusual at all to meet Greeks, "minions" of the European enlightenment, ask them about the "Byzantine" Empire, and receive answers full of contempt like " C'mon, the Byzantines were neither Greeks nor Romans but a bunch of Emperors of Balkan, Syrian, Armenian and Arab descent, who spoke broken Greek!" For them, the last Greco/Roman Emperors were Constantine I (maternal side) and Julian the "Hellene"! They soon start parroting the glorious days of Ancient Greece from the Iliad to Alexander and even... Cleopatra, and they turn their heads the other way when they pass in front of a church where the flag/symbol of Orthodoxy and of the Eastern Roman Empire is waving. How ridiculously ignorant is this?! The Greeks, of course, did not just all of a sudden, vanish from the face of the earth after Julian just because they became Christians! IMHO what you say about Roman nationality is correct. The Romans, the same as the Greeks before them, always believed that the civilized world was anything that was lying inside their Romanized or Hellenized world. When Emperor Heraclius defeated the Persians and also used the title Basileus/King next to the Emperor of the Romans, he wanted to emphasize this special national identity of the civilized Romans who with the help of Christ, our Lord and Savior, defeated the heathen Persians. Those were the Romans of his time according to him. Civilized and Christianized, in an Empire with the homogeneity of a Kingdom. Lemme close with a few words about the Turk or even the Russians. What kind of Romans do they claim to be?! Did they E V E R take action in the name of the Roman Empire? N E VE R! The Russians were Christianized by Constantinople, adopted the Imperial double-headed eagle for prestige, and are bragging that they are the third Rome, constantly undermining the religious primus inter pares authority of the Ecumenical Bishop of New Rome/Constantinople in the Orthodox world now that the City is under Turkish hands ever since the 15th century. The Turkish part is even hilarious! Just note that the Muslim Turk celebrates every year his victory in Manzikert against the Romans! 🤣 Please, I can't stand this absurd monstrosity anymore. Thanks for sharing your precious thoughts and yes, Kaldellis is great. His lists are not!

[@kenshin9991]

Perhaps many will say that it's completely different and admittedly, it is, all situations are unique but I have to ask would you say that Taiwan is China? If you asked both parties in the dispute they'd claim to be China and Chinese but any honest observer would say these are two different things Taiwan and China. I'll be honest that I dont know how I would define the difference between the two but it seems very clear that they are different.

[@princelourenco1914]

for real, Byzantium is my favorite country to ever exist, and I like to call it Byzantium just cause it sounds better then (Eastern) Roman Empire, but they are Rome, and not that desgrace called HRE

[@orrorsaness5942]

Facts

[@MrCmon113]

Holy Romans have 1) city of Rome 2) emperor with penis 3) latin language 4) dapper looking priests 5) aryan chad genetics

[@raultalmon1467]

Crazy stuff that this word is still around. Eastern Roman Empire its a the facto continuation in every way of the Roman Empire. The population that could flee from Rome, went to Constantinopla. The city itself changed its population from 1 million, to 20 thousand. You can call it Roman Empire, or Estearn Roman Empire, there is no other legitimate way. Byzantium was a city, changed the name to Constantinopla by the Roman Empire.

[@fallennarcotic6981]

Ancient romans and ancient Greeks melted into one big civilisation. This civilisation changed from paganism into Christianity and kept the empire alive til 1453. Then it’s people split. Some continued with Latin and some with greek thus creating new nations. It’s easier to understand if one doesn’t try to use a label by any means. Also modern Greeks do not consider only ancient Greeks but also eastern romans as their ancestors. I’m sure Italians do as well. Hence the saying „Una faccia una Razza“.

[@karras.apostolos]

Why don't use Byzantine Roman Empire and Byzantine Romans differentiating it and also not denying its "Romaness"

[@monetizedyay6827]

For anyone curious, here's the top 10 list of Anthony Kaldellis 1. Constantine I 2. Constantine V 3. Anastasius I 4. John III Vatatzes 5. John Tzimiskes 6. Manuel Komnenos 7. Basil II 8. Alexios Komnenos 9. Leo III 10. Theodosius I I don't think Manuel I, Constantine I or Theodosius I belong on it, better substitutes would be John II, Maurice or Theodore I. Overall, don't disagree with most of the names included, really happy with the inclusion of Constantine V (G.O.A.T.) actually, maybe just the ordering of it.

[@TrajGreekFire]

he also didn't include Justinian I because Totilla dared to be a very competent commander therefore prolonging the pacification of the ostrogoths and Heraclius because "only few succesful battles and nothing else"

[@alanpennie8013]

​​@@TrajGreekFire However much you may dislike him it's pretty ridiculous not to include Justinian. He's obviously way more important than Anastasius. And if you're going to include Tzimisces as a military emperor you can't exclude Heraclius. We probably shouldn't take these lists too seriously.

[@ahmedabdolghani8879]

Would it be nonsensical to just call it byzantine rome or byzantine roman empire? Similar to changing from the roman kingdom to the roman republic to the roman empire?

[@SpectreEelman]

I have switched between Byzantine & Eastern Roman .. Though nowadays i tend to use Eastern Roman a great deal more. I'm fine with others calling it the Byzantine Empire - as long as they can acknowledge they're speaking about the Eastern Roman Empire...

[@x0lopossum]

27:52 Damn that sucks, they stole their name from them.

[@compatriot852]

6:47 This point doesn't make much sense when applied to living things. Dinosaurs probably best fit this analogy. Now let's say Dinosaurs are Romans. They are a diverse group across the known world. Now after the extinction, we only have a small group of Dinosaurs (Birds) that survived. Birds (Byzantines) are technically dinosaurs (Romans) via direct lineage, but they've changed so much, are the only surviving member, and they are only distantly related to their other dinosaur relatives, which is why we use the term bird (Byzantine) as it helps signify this change No longer rulers of the world, but rather now Chicken Roma slowly carved up

[@Uzair_Of_Babylon465]

Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁👍👍👍

[@legateelizabeth]

Ultimately its still faster than saying "the Eastern Roman Empire after there wasn't a Western Roman Empire for it to be East of." Since just calling it the 'Eastern Roman Empire' is also unspecific and is generally reserved for being paired with "the WRE" for the period after Diocletian showed us the power of flex tape by sawing this empire in half but while there were still TWO HALVES of the Empire. I don't like the term 'Medieval Roman Empire', because it doesn't address the fact that there's ANOTHER Medieval Roman Empire rocking around in more or less the exact same time frame, which is ALSO anachronsitically called something it never really called itself - 'Sacrum Imperium Romanum', as you discuss in the April Fool's vid, doesn't have the same connotations as 'HRE' does - and fits a lot more with what most people's ideas of 'medieval' looks like. That's *bound* to cause some confusion and does the exact thing you argue we shouldn't use Byzantine to do: de-legitimises the claim of another Roman successor as a way to attack them. "Byzantine" doesn't leave room for that error or that misinterpretation. It tells you the time period that's being spoken about, the empire being spoken about, and does so in a single word with a long history of use in this exact context. It's USEFUL, which is what language should be about. If we were going to be upset every time casual history fans - including ourselves - got the wrong idea of something, and blamed it on the wording? We'd have to go about tearing up the floorboards of our entire historiographical communication. And at the end of it everyone would still see 'the roman empire' as being the togas and the segmentata anyway, since they already do that for everything from King to Dominate.

[@joaomarcelo7708]

Byzantine does not make any sense, they didn't call themselves that. The term appeared after the empire was dead. Eastern also does not make sense, since the western half is gone. Medieval sounds perfect, it separates the empire from before and after 476 while still being The Roman Empire at the end of the day. After all, my greatest problem with the term Byzantine is that some people (especially the ones who don't delve much into this part of history) genuinely think it is a *new* empire, a sucessor state that comes with the death of a predecessor. Western and Eastern were just administrative nomenclatures that define the Emperors' area of rule, it was never meant to split the empire into two empires, just one empire with two administrative portions. It is completely different from something like the disintegration of Alexander's Macedonian Empire, where a bunch of new empires popped out after his death.

[@gregoryheers2633]

Yes, exactly! Why can’t we say, Medieval Roman Empire? Don’t we use the adjective “medieval“ to describe other countries (or art, etc.) in this period?

[@gilpaubelid3780]

Both terms are problematic. If you call it "byzantine" people don't understand that you're talking about the same state. If you call it "roman" you have Roman larpers trying to present the medieval Greeks as non-Greeks and as the wrong kind of Romans. Even in this video the medieval Roman identity is presented as an ethnic one rather than as the political one that it was and the greek ethnic identity of the Byzantines is buried under a bunch of revisionist theories that the historians have rejected multiple times the last few decades.

[@joaomarcelo7708]

@@gilpaubelid3780 I don't understand your comment at all. The medieval greeks did identify as Romans, they were Romans and Greeks at the same time, kind of a combination of both. I disagree with the idea of saying that they are "the wrong kind of Romans" or that there is nothing greek about them, that is preposterous, but besides that, it makes sense to me to see the medieval Roman identity as both political and ethnic. After all, why would the greeks of the time dislike the idea of being a Roman? Be it the greeks, the egyptians, the gauls, the Iberians or the britons, after some point they all came to identify as Romans, citizens of the Roman Empire.

[@ragael1024]

all emperors were romans. except for Zeno. that guy was an eye-sore'ian.

[@jeanettewu2537]

I still think they fit more the character of a government in exile or an expat community than an actual continuance of the Roman Empire. China doesn't stop being China and its people don't stop being Chinese because Taiwan exists and split off. Neither does Ukraine stop being the heir of Kievan Rus because Russia exists. The existence of Confederados in Brazil doesn't remove Dixieland from the US.

[@agamemnontroias7144]

Personally I have no problem with other using byzantine or roman empire what I have a problem with is people who reduce the hellenic influence of the Eastern roman empire the Helenes of the empire were undeniably roman citizens just as the Armenians citizens the Syrians etc. Also an undeniable fact is that the hellenic culture and customs were the dominant ones in the medieval roman empire the reason for that is that the Eastern part of the empire was always dominantly hellenic influenced since at least 90% of that territory originated from the hellenic kingdoms that Alexander left after his death

[@shadowfoxxie7182]

Honestly, I think Byzantine sounds cooler than eastern rome, but I think both names are good and valid.

[@NickariusSN]

Well, it's gotta be the ship of Theseus, if Theseus is still the one commanding it. No matter how much the Empire had changed, if it was Romans that still ran the Empire, it was definetly Roman

[@gurigura4457]

The problem is that its not Theseus' ship, it's the ship of his great-great-great (etc.) grandson, who was called Theseus after his dad. "Rome" conjures a certain image in most people's minds, even if it isn't an accurate image, and the Byzantine period is far enough from the late Republic that it causes confusion.

[@jaydenburgher2651]

@@gurigura4457 to be fair, I'm sure even in Constantine's time. Romans looked so different they'd cause confusion, you didn't have legions you had cataphracts. People wore pants not togas etc etc

[@viperking6573]

​@@gurigura4457I don't agree, the polity of "Rome" changed since the period of the tribes, to the kings, to the republic, to the empire, till the end, in ways that we don't even know. What's important though, is not to call in different names the Kingdom period, Republican period, Empire's period, Medieval period and so on, since most people think super erroneously that Rome fell in 476 or something, which is what really causes confusion and leads to an incorrect and untrue view of the facts

[@viperking6573]

​@@jaydenburgher2651but in the kingdom period they looked like Hoplites and didn't have so many greek words in their vocabulary, still you view them correctly as Romans, as you should do for the medieval period too. Caesar's legions were not as most people believe them to be, same for vikings having horns and so on

[@gurigura4457]

@@jaydenburgher2651 Oh, I agree, and I'm not trying to say that the ERE was not the Roman Empire. Just that the Ship Of Theseus thought experiment falls flat because of the great period of time the Roman Empire spanned.

[@gregoryheers2633]

Do you think "Romaic" could be used as a synonym of "Byzantine" in many cases?

[@amirhosainpirmoradi6754]

in nearly every persian textbook the empire is called the eastern Roman empire ( امپراطوری روم شرقی)

[@Proud2bGreek1]

Imagine an alternate reality where the British colonists who founded the 13 colonies of America regarded the natives as their equals and handed them full citizenship and the right to call themselves "British". Then an invasion happens and the British isles are conquered by someone else and never again emerge as a political entity. Then imagine that the few British colonists and the far more numerous natives who now also regard themselves as "British" rename the colonies to "Great Britain" while some of the people who conquered the British isles call them "Americans". That's the equivalent of what happened with Byzantium. It's a neologism used to help a modern audience understand the time and place that we're referring to.

[@DIEGhostfish]

12:26 Or the Mongols and Manchus just becoming new Dynasties in China.

[@theoldcavalier7451]

I called my girl the b-word She was not impressed

[@SDArgo_FoC]

It’s completely fine for convenience’s sake, but people just abuse and misuse the term. The same logic of misuse is applied when saying the Sassanids weren’t Persians, because historians call them Sassanids.

[@genovayork2468]

Who the heck says the Sassanids were not Persians?

[@SDArgo_FoC]

@@genovayork2468 every heard of an analogy?

[@genovayork2468]

@@SDArgo_FoC Rather plentifully, sir. I've heard good analogies and bad analogies. This is not among the good ones.

[@SDArgo_FoC]

@@genovayork2468 why so? I believe it’s the contrary, sir. I recommend checking the dictionary.

[@genovayork2468]

@@SDArgo_FoC Because you couldn't give people who say the Sassanids were not Persians.

[@Joseph-sb4qe]

Maybe it's not the best example but when I talk about the Eastern Roman Empire with friends and family I say Bizancio or Imperio Bizantino (Byzantium/Byzantine Empire in spanish) bc is a shorter name for the ERE and help them to identify that i talking about the Roman Empire in the middle ages, also i always liked how it sounds in spanish

[@baabaaer]

Ere ere!

[@SiGa-i1r]

Yo también. I say Byzantine (biz Anne tine rhyming with line) or eastern Romans. Cataphracts are cool.

[@ΑντώνηςΑντωνίου-ζ5χ]

The term Byzantine is very ok to use. Everybody understands what it stands for

[@Apollo1989V]

In the book of Daniel, in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream he saw a statue whose feet were partially iron and partially clay. Skeptics will deny this, but there is no other empire that had lasting control of the Holy Land other than the Roman that fits the iron and clay in the statue’s feet. The book of Daniel has the fourth empire as Roman. The clay part of the feet was the western half. The eastern half was iron and able to endure like iron.

[@bustavonnutz]

Majority of the Old Testament are just metaphors about historical events.

[@Apollo1989V]

@@bustavonnutz Starting in the book of Kings, there is significant archaeological evidence for the events via propaganda stele and other artifacts. Around the time Rehoboam would have reigned, Egypt tried to reassert itself. While the Armana letters cannot be confirmation of the conquest of Canaan, there was turmoil in the land that Egypt was either unable or unwilling to deal with. Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt not being found in Egyptian archaeology could be chalked up to Egypt covering up the event, plus the number exiting Egypt probably were inflated on the order of ten. The Middle Kingdom period saw an influx of people from Canaan moving into the Nile Delta region, so Jacob’s family could have been among them. And unless you were a king or powerful official before then, there would be no archaeological evidence to prove you existed. Circumstantial evidence suggest Abraham and his family left Ur around the collapse of the third dynasty.

[@rapecel]

The Roman Empire ceases being Roman when it no longer contains Rome, or it no longer contains Romans; a British Empire that does not encompass Britain is not a British Empire, and a British Empire with no ethnically or racially British people would also not be a British Empire. The Byzantine Empire was not Roman; it did not contain Rome, and its people were not racially or ethnically Roman. The Roman identity seen in the Byzantine Empire was decoupled and rebuilt with a Greco-subjective perception; that is to say, it differed from the Italic-specific Roman identity, which is the original Roman identity. Such an identity ceases to function when members of that identity are no longer racially continuous with their predecessors, as was the case in Italia, Hispania, and Gallia. When you start considering people like Galatians, who are ethnically Celtic, as first-citizen Romans, you have lost continuity. Calling yourself a Roman and thinking of yourself as a Roman does not make you a Roman. The Holy Roman Empire does not do this; it only claimed Roman legitimacy because it encompassed Rome itself, and was blessed by the leader of Rome (the Pope). The inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire did not think themselves Roman; they knew they were not Roman. When Francisco Pizarro conquered the Incan Empire, he invoked the Holy Roman Empire, but he did not call himself a Roman but instead a Spaniard. Roman legitimacy was thus based on the right of conquest and the protection of the Christian world against pagan heathens and heretics. It did not constitute LARPing with Roman traditions. The Byzantines were not Roman because they did not have that conquering spirit attributed to Rome of old. They were degenerated and deracinated by hordes of non-whites---a death by a thousand cuts. Their Empire survived because its fetishization of the Christian Roman identity was its only recourse for protection against Muslims---and not even that helped.

[@carlosaugustodinizgarcia3526]

Congratulations you confirmed that the byzantines were romans until 751 AD.

[@rapecel]

@@carlosaugustodinizgarcia3526 new Roman collapse date just dropped babe

[@KingKharibda]

Was there people in the byzantine/roman empire that viewed themselves as Greek rather than roman?

[@refuze2quit603]

I have an idea, it’s time to call them “Byzantine East-Romans which will soon be Turks” that sounds really nice and sorta encapsulates that core feeling of those in Eastern Roman Empire.

[@SpartanLeonidas1821]

turks are not east Romans. The Greeks that live in the nation of Greeks are! As a matter of fact, the turks take great pride in talking advantage of the Byzantines issues & taking & destroying those peoples Empire. So no, turks will not steal that as well, their legacy is very well established in their arab & moggoloid ways & origins! 😃 Also, the Romioi or the Modern Greeks should decide if they want those turkified Greeks & they already know that they DO NOT. They sufferer & kept their Heritage & Language & were treated as 3rd Class Citizens, those turkified ones DID NOT !!!

[@Id_k_]

To me they should be called the Roman empire/ Eastern Rome and the people Romans or eastern Romans because they are still romans but with difference with time and evolved with the situations and culture/language and all, but in the period of greek dominant in the Eastern Roman empire, unlike previously the Latin was dominant and phase now it's the greek phase. I like to think the Rome has two phases, the Latin and the Greek, the Regular roman empire and the Eastern Roman empire