Were the Byzantines actually Roman?

[@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449]

What are your thoughts on the terms Eastern Roman V Byzantine? Support Dr. Jeroen W.P. Wijnendaele and his work above! Support this channel below! Celebrate the birthplace of civilization and get our Sumerian Shirt | Hoodie | Coffee Mug today! CLOTHES: teespring.com/Sumerian-Clothing?pid=212&cid=5818 COFFEE MUGS: teespring.com/sumerian-coffee-mug?pid=658&cid=102908 Check out our new store! teespring.com/stores/the-history-shop Get your Sea Peoples | Late Bronze Age Merch below! Mugs: teespring.com/new-sea-peoples-mediterranean?pid=658&cid=102950 Hoodies | Shirts | Tank Tops: teespring.com/get-sea-peoples-mediterranean?pid=212&cid=5819 Get your Hittite Merch below! Mugs: teespring.com/HittiteEmpireMug?pid=658&cid=102950&sid=front Shirts | Tank Tops | Hoodies: teespring.com/hittite-empire-shirt?pid=2&cid=2397 Trojan War Merch Below! Mugs: teespring.com/trojan-war-coffee-mug?pid=658&cid=102950 Tank Tops | Shirts | Hoodies: teespring.com/TrojanWarShirt?pid=2&cid=2397 To support the channel, become a Patron and make history matter! Patreon: www.patreon.com/The_Study_of_Antiquity_and_the_Middle_Ages Donate directly to PayPal: paypal.me/NickBarksdale Enjoy history merchandise? Check out affiliate link to SPQR Emporium! spqr-emporium.com?aff=3 *Disclaimer, the link above is an affiliate link which means we will earn a generous commission from your magnificent purchase, just another way to help out the channel! Join our community! Facebook Page: facebook.com/THESTUDYOFANTIQUITYANDTHEMIDDLEAGES/ Twitter: twitter.com/NickBarksdale Instagram: instagram.com/study_of_antiquity_middle_ages/ Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/164050034145170/

[@ChrisLarsen64]

Exceeeeeeeeeeeeent video.!! Oh and they were Romans

[@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449]

@@ChrisLarsen64 hahaha! Thanks for watching!

[@Leoforos13]

@@ChrisLarsen64 Greeks who spoke Greek and have been living in the region since antiquity

[@Leoforos13]

@Jordan & Jordan You will never answer my question and that’s good because it proves that you are wrong. MACEDONIA FOREVER GREEK

[@Leoforos13]

@@ChrisLarsen64 Byzantium will always be a part of the Greek history. I don’t know where are you from but I am sure that your country doesn’t have a history to be proud of

[@TheByteknight]

Greek Canadian here. I remember my grandfather once say that we were "Romans." He said this in (modern) Greek.

[@nuancedhistory]

There are still people calling themselves Romans in Turkey. We call them "Pontic Greeks."

[@koksalceylan3934]

@@nuancedhistory yes in Turkey we have still lots of Roma Gypies they are the real Romans.

[@nuancedhistory]

@@koksalceylan3934 The Roma people ("gypsies") are not Romans. Most actual Greek and Orthodox speaking "Romans" (Romaiika Greeks) were deported or exterminated in the population exchanges. The ones left in Turkey are the ones that submitted to forced conversion and assimilation, and speak Turkish, and are known as the Romeyka people.

[@keyos1955]

@@ΓάιοςἸούλιοςΚαῖσαρ Also inside Italians live the Roman and Greek soul

[@sandrojones8068]

@@koksalceylan3934 No.

[@vangelisskia214]

"We, the descendants of the HELLENES AND of the ROMANS." - Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos May 28th 1453 George Sprantzes - The Fall of the Byzantine Empire 1453/primary source from the war.

[@janeza382]

Romans call themselves ancient Hellene lol of course Romans learned alphabet.

[@pompeiusmagnus2276]

In the 14th and 15th centuries CE, the use of the Greek word "Hellene" to mean "heirs of classical Greek civilization" -- rather than meaning "pagans" -- was a sort of philosophical conceit invented by Constantinopolitan scholars to advertise their own newly-developed interest in non-Christian, classical Greek culture. For the rest of the Greek-speaking population still loyal to the Emperor in Constantinople, "Hellene" continued to mean "ancient pagan" and they called themselves "Romans" right up to and beyond the fall of Constantinople in 1453. After 1453, the Greek-speaking Christian subjects of the Ottoman Sultan continued to call themselves "Romans" right up into the 19th century CE. In the 1820s, when western-educated Greek revolutionaries arrived in Greece to proclaim the "liberation of the Hellenes," the local Greek population would respond, "No, we're Romans (Romaioi)," meaning a Greek-speaking member of the Greek Orthodox Church which was headed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, the former 'Roman' capital. From at least the 11th century CE onward, the 'Roman' identity of the subjects of the Emperor in Constantinople was as much ecclesiastical as it was political. "Byzantine" is a term employed for the convenience of modern historians investigating the Eastern Roman Empire.

[@vangelisskia214]

@Souleiman the Great "Suleiman I (Suleiman the Magnificent), Ottoman sultan, his father Selim I WAS THREE QUARTERS GREEK; (Suleiman's mother was of GEORGIAN origin)." 🤣🤣🤣 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Muslims

[@vangelisskia214]

@Souleiman the Great ACCORDING TO NUMEROUS GENETIC STUDIES MODERN "TURKS" ARE NOT REALLY TURKIC BUT MOSTLY OF GRECO-ARMENO-KURDISH ANCESTRY: "The largest autosomal study of Turkish genetics (on 16 individuals) concluded that THE TURKISH POPULATION FORM A CLUSTER WITH SOUTH EUROPEAN POPULATIONS, and that the East Asian (presumably Central Asian) legacy to the Turkish people is estimated to be 21.7%" Alkan, Can; Kavak, Pinar; Somel, Mehmet; Gokcumen, Omer; Ugurlu, Serkan; Saygi, Ceren; Dal, Elif; Bugra, Kuyas; Güngör, Tunga; Sahinalp, S.; Özören, Nesrin; Bekpen, Cemalettin (2014) "Whole genome sequencing of Turkish genomes reveals functional private alleles and impact of genetic interactions with Europe, Asia and Africa" "An admixture analysis determined that the Anatolian TURKS SHARE MOST OF THEIR ANCESTRY WITH NON-TURKIC POPULATIONS RESIDENT IN THE REGION, and the 12th century is set as an admixture date." Yunusbayev, Bayazit; Metspalu, Mait; Metspalu, Ene; Valeev, Albert; Litvinov, Sergei; Valiev, Ruslan; Akhmetova, Vita; Balanovska, Elena; Balanovsky, Oleg; Turdikulova, Shahlo (2015). "The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia" According to Cinnioğlu et al. (2004),[5] "There are many Y-DNA haplogroups present in Turkey. The majority of the haplogroups found in the people of Turkey are shared with their West Asian and Caucasian neighbours. The most commonly found haplogroup in Turkey is J2 (24%), which is widespread among the Mediterranean, Caucasian, and West Asian populations. Haplogroups that are common in Europe (R1b and I - 20%), South Asia (L, R2, H - 5.7%) and Africa (A, E3*, E3a - 1%) are also present. BY CONTRAST, CENTRAL ASIAN HAPLOGROUPS ARE RARER, (C, Q and O)."

[@vangelisskia214]

@@pompeiusmagnus2276 "As heirs to the Greeks and Romans of old, the Byzantines thought of themselves as Rhomaioi, or Romans, though THEY KNEW FULL WELL that they were ETHNICALLY GREEKS." (see also: Savvides & Hendricks 2001).Niehoff 2012, Margalit Finkelberg, "Canonising and Decanonising Homer: Reception of the Homeric Poems in Antiquity and Modernity", p. 20 or Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum 2003, p. 482:

[@KevinRobinson-ub7wp]

Did not know Johnny Depp was an expert on Roman history.....

[@ExodusToday]

Don't you mean..Byzantine?

[@janeza382]

Medieval Romanticism.

[@jaymesguy239]

Isn't every actor?

[@qgde3rty8uiojh90]

And Depp does a great Dutch accent too. What an actor. 😊

[@kidohchi]

Nah, pretty cool though.. hehe

[@obabas80]

Over time, they became one and the same. So much so that the term Greco-Roman was coined to describe this synthesis of Hellenic and Italic (Roman). They are the founders of western civilization.

[@DivineHellas]

Exactly

[@Firewallboy77]

No

[@DivineHellas]

@@Firewallboy77 Yes

[@hiphop24-s3s]

Modern Greek today's is direct decendants of Byzantines than the ancient pagan Greeks.

[@evzenvarga9707]

​@@hiphop24-s3sThe Byzantines are the descendants of the pagan Greeks, what's your point?

[@kimberlyperrotis8962]

I always just considered it Rome, but most of us end up in saying Byzantine, because so many other people say Byzantine, or those who don’t know any history, say “Rome was only in Italy”.

[@supercolinblow]

It depends on what one's definition of "Roman" really is. We have to answer that question before answering any about were they romans, greeks or otherwise. So: define "Roman".

[@DivineHellas]

Thank you.... what if Roman meant or part meant being Greek ?...

[@locomotivebearingdown5381]

In the words of Anthony Kaldellis, the guy who literally wrote the book on byzantine-Roman identity, "These were not Greeks pretending to be Romans, but Romans who spoke Greek". The so called Byzantine-Romans were what was left of the dream that was Rome. They were Romans and they carried the dying torch of Rome, just as Emperor Constantine intended when he built Nova Roma on old Byzantium.

[@frankvandorp2059]

A Roman used to be anyone with Roman citizenship, no matter where they lived, and this still was the case when the center of Roman power shifted to Constantinople. They were Romans, because they had the same Roman citizenship as Julius Caesar and called themselves Romans.

[@ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΗΕΝΩΣΙΣΗΜΟΝΗΛΥΣΙΣ]

I cannot believe that this is a serious debate. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, then it is a duck. No matter how much Heironymus Wolf wanted to deny it, they were Romans.

[@mydogsbutler]

Except it didn't quack like a duck. The orignal Romans spoke Latin not Greek. It didn't look like a duck as aside from having an absolute ruler its political structure was radically different to Latin Romans. It was a multiethnic empire with Greeks as its primary demography albeit they called themselves Romans. . They just adopted the name "roman' much like the later mostly German Holy Roman empire did.

[@mydogsbutler]

Heiroymus Wolf is the one that popularize the term Byzantine. This is because the Holy Roman empire insisted for centuries they were the "real" Roman empire. The modern use of the term Byzantine arose precisely because the western Roman empire refused to recognize the eastern Roman empire as a Roman. from 800 century onwards they called it Greek. Even the Pope that crowned Charlemange King of the Romans called the eastern Roman empire Greek.

[@mr.angelosonassis3069]

And their descendants are still Rhomaioi.

[@mydogsbutler]

@@mr.angelosonassis3069 And the descendents of ancient Greeks were eastem Romans. What's your point?

[@legioromanaxvii7644]

The Roman culture and legacy was huge in the medieval Roman Empire and quite ubiquitous. 1. For literature, they preserved both Greek and Latin literature. The libraries of New Rome were full of this kind of literature because, whether you like it or not Mr. Greek Nationalist, it was the Roman Empire and the common languages of the times were both LATIN and GREEK. They weren't reading only ancient Greek literary works. In fact, they tended to ignore Ancient Greek literature or modified it as it was anti-Christian and they especially cared for Greco-Roman works such as Galen, Plutarch, Herodotus (2nd century AD), Cassius Dio because they dealt particularly with the Romans! So as you can see, even in their literature they were conscious of the Roman legacy, not really the Greek one. Also anyway, reading Greek texts doesn't mean that they weren't Roman. Romans and everybody else from the Arabs to Russians to Americans were reading Greek literature. Are they Greek, too? 2. The whole judicial and legal system was undoubtedly Roman. It was subject to Christian morality but certainly not Hellenic morality which was seen as idolatry and scorned. This was a Christian Roman Empire where if someone were called Greek, they would have answer to the Church, the Government and/or even be exiled if their reach was long. the The numerous statements of Roman emperors rebuking the Ancient Greeks reflect on the anti-Hellenic sentiment. Anyhow, law in Eastern Rome was 100% Christianized and Roman. It should also be noted that the modern Greek state used Justinian's Codex until 1950. That is amazing. 3. Clothing was not Greek at all. Look at what the Ancient Greeks wore and compare it with the whole Roman Empire. The Romans wore different things; as different as what we wear today compared with 500 years ago. No, there was no Greek clothing in eastern Rome. It was all Roman. 4. Music was nothing like what the Ancient Greeks listened to. It was the music listened to in the Hellenistic and Roman ages for many, many hundreds of years. So even there, it was not Greek. 5. Entertainment. It was definitely not all of Greek origin. Persian games like tzycanium were brought into the Empire from the Sassanids. The Eastern Romans also watched gladiatorial games before Christianity gained momentum. They also enjoyed Roman horse-racing. The pinnacle of this was Hippodrome in New/Constantinople which meant to replicate the Circus Maximus in Rome. 6. Military, administration, politics, government, diplomacy, economy, national self-identity. These were ALL Roman and they are some of the most important elements in defining what a state is. Despite the nonsense that some Greek nationalists say, these things were definitely not of Greek origin. They were Roman in their intent and meaning. 7. Architecture. It was a unique evolution of later classical Roman architecture, which like it or not was much more advanced than that of the Ancient Greeks. The road network of the eastern half of the Roman Empire was still the same from the earlier Roman Empire with some lesser updates for Constantinople. There were still massive aqueducts, cisterns and basilicas in place which were produced in the Roman style. 8. Most of the most important and recognizable titles of the eastern half of the Roman Empire directly came from the classical Romans! And many evolved and lasted until 1453. Heck even Constantine XI's titles were Augustus and Caesar. 9. Demosthenes, Themistocles, Pericles and Leonidas were long forgotten, my very confused friend. The figures that mattered to them were Scipio Africanus, Constantine, Justinian, Hadrian, Trajan, Theodosius, Zeno, Julius and Augustus Caesar and not the Ancient Greeks, who were idolaters.

[@dkgamers1385]

Non greeks like you can't understand that people in greece used to call themselves both greek and Roman

[@pablogats4627]

Weird this comment proves the major influence Hellenic culture and language had on the empire

[@pyrix9569]

1. Literature is what you write, not what you read. They wrote in Greek language and thematically wise, their literature was either GREEK (epic poems influenced by Homer, Neoplatonic philosophers, historiography, romances shaped after the romances of the Hellenistic era) and ORIENTAL (hymns, lives of Saints etc) 2. Judicial system was undoubtely Roman, but what christian morality has to do with Romans? Christian morality is Oriental, Biblical tradition is middle eastern. 3. Clothing was neither Greek nor Roman! Roman women veiled loosely like Greek women or did not veil at all. Covering hair or face with a veil is an Oriental tradition, Assyrians started it.Roman Emperors preferred crowns with laurel leaves, a tradition from Greeks (Apollo's triumph). Byzantines wore heavy jewellery, drawing inspiration from the Middle East. 4. " It was the music listened to in the Hellenistic and Roman ages for many, many hundreds of years." You said it yourself: music was listened in the Hellenistic ages. Who hellenised those ages? Alexander the Great. The Romans appeared later. This kind of music is older than Hellenistic ages. Greeks used the LYDIAN FLUTE in their symposia, Dionysus is described to play it in Euripides's Bacchae and Greek women danced the "kodron". Music is Greek for sure. As for Art, the influence is GREEK and EGYPTIAN. Because Romans learned to create statuses from the Greeks, while the icons were painted in the Fayoum style. Akhenaten started monotheism, painting flat silhouettes with a solar discus, even iconoclasm comes from him. Byzantine culture was a mixture of Greek, Roman and Oriental elements. The funniest part of your comment was claiming the Greek and Oriental elements as "evolution of Roman culture"

[@Theguy-rk6vc]

Disagree completely on military organization and politics. By the time of the first crusades the byzantines were wholly reliant on muslim and western mercenaries, along with paying off their rivals/pitting them against one another. They would not risk fighting battles else they would be completely defeaeted and defenceless. Also consider that the Byzantines looked more like their feudal counterparts in the west than their Romans predecessors. The Emperor was reliant on the favor of his extreamly powerfull landowning aristrocrats supports due to the theme system.

[@TheManCaveYTChannel]

@@Theguy-rk6vcsolid points but youre nitpicking one specific era in history. Go read Maurice’s strategikon and tell me that’s not Roman. And despite all this, the eastern empire endured longer than its western counterpart.

[@legioromanaxvii7644]

There were a lot of eastern Romans claiming to be descended from classical Latin Romans or making comparisons between themselves and laudable Roman figures. Here are but a few of them. 1. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus states in the 10th century that the "paternal" language of the Romans is Latin, but now they are speaking the language of the Hellenes. Michael Attaleiates bemoans in the 10th century A.D. the fact that the Empire had given up Latin and other original Roman customs. John Lydos writing in the 8th century feels upset that they had lost their paternal language, Latin. 2. Michael Psellos narrates that Emperor Romanus III tried to mimic his forebears Hadrian and Trajan and utterly failed at it. 3. Nicephorus Bryennios states that the Doukas dynasty's origins were from Rome itself. Nobody knows for certain, but given that hundreds of thousands of Romans from the West had emigrated over with the Western half's collapse, it is a claim that we should feasibly take at face value. 4. Michael Doukas writing in 1477 claims that the Romans were done at last, and that "Rome" itself had fallen decisively in 1453 AD. There is no mention of the end of the Hellenes or the end of Greece. He simply talks about Rome and the Romans' legacy. Why, if he were Greek in his consciousness? 5. After defeating the Sassanids in the 7th century, Heraclius is hailed as "Scipio" and "Caesar" by the people of Constantinople. 6. Emperor Constantine XI encourages his troops to fight the Ottomans by reminding them of the Romans' bravery in the lengthy fight against Carthage. He then tells the troops that they are descendants of the Romans. A modern Greek would instead have referred to Leonidas and Thermopylae rather than the Roman Punic Wars. 7. Nikephoros Gregoras compares general Alexios Strategopoulos to Hannibal Barca in the 13th century because of his career. 8. Michael Attaleiates makes a comparison of his own Roman contemporaries with the Romans during Trajan's time, finding the decay to be unbearable. 9. Theophylact Simocatta refers to Emperor Philippicus studying the tactics of Scipio Africanus given that he felt kinship to one of his "ancestors". 10. Constantine VII talks about this successors in the De Administrando Imperio, referring to Julius Caesar, Constantine, Diocletian and Augustus. 11. The chronicles of Theopanes the theologian are FULL of claims referring to their ancestors the Romans. 12. Hesychius also makes allusions to the Romans being their ancestors. He also dates time from the founding of either Presbytera Rome or the foundaton of New Rome, alluding to Constantine. 13. Other sources make numerous comparisons to the Palaiologian, Doukas, Comnenian and other dynasties have direct descent from Romans of Rome. 14. Nicephorus II Phocas claimed to be directly descended from the Flavian families and bore the name "Flavius" in Greek. 15. Anna Comnene refers to herself as Roman and always refers to classical Latin Romans as Romans. But she never calls herself a Greek. However she does refer to the the ancient Greeks as Hellenes. This tells us that according to the emic approach, she identified with Rome and the Romans and not with the ancient Greeks, even though she could "hellenizein" as she tells us proudly. 16. Constantine VII refers to the Hellenes in the past tense and confirms that the "Hellenes" were lying. He always regarded himself as a Roman, successor of the grand line of classical Romans and not as a Greek, despite speaking minimal Latin.

[@mydogsbutler]

I'm pretty sure you are a cut and paste troll with anti-Greek political given you've completely edited out a huge number of references of eastern "Romans" identifying ancient greeks as their heritage.

[@mydogsbutler]

There are also Romans that considered ancient Hellenes their roots including the very last one.. That you edit that out demonstrates your political rather than historical motivations. Confirmed anti-Greek bigot.

[@mydogsbutler]

We are Greeks by genus as our education and language testifies. - eastern Roman philosopher Gemastus Plethos

[@mydogsbutler]

At least in the East, the context of Hellene in the Middle Ages was often religious rather than ethnic. Calling oneself Hellene was like saying one was a pagan which was frowned upon by Christians of that era.. However there are records of some eastern Romans claiming to be related to ancient Hellenes but still calling themselves Roman. The context of eastern Roman was not usually used as an ethnicity as you falsely claim. It was somewhat like saying British today. The eastern Romans discouraged ethnic identity in lew of Christian identity under Roman national flag. Despite that they called themselves Romans , there were eastern Roman emperors that eve claimed to be Armenian heritage. And of course, others that claimed to be related to ancient Greeks, including related to Alexander the Great.

[@mydogsbutler]

My suggestion to patronizing Greek hating bigots, e learn to report history in your own lifetime truthfully. Really not that hard to notice the former Yugoslavians little switch a roo of identity into apparently antihellenic founders of the Hellenistic period.

[@angelosdaresis1477]

"It is undoubtedly now known, regardless of national goals, that the Byzantine state is the organic continuation of the Roman Empire, that its art owes a lot to the Hellenistic achievement and the Eastern experience of those times, but as a cultural continuation (and not only linguistic) Byzantium is registered only as an experience of Hellenism." How much Greek is Byzantium - How Byzantine are the Neo-Greeks? Glykatzi - Ahrweiler Eleni

[@angelosdaresis1477]

"Let us remember of what men we are descendants of, and if one wishes to refer to our oldest ancestors, refer to the old Hellenes....and refer to the ancient Romans, from whom we are named after.... However, our origins lie in both of these genes...we are the heirs of Alexander the Great and his successors" Manuel Chrysochloras, "Peri tou Basileus ton Romaion" Epistule XLIX

[@vag_grig8105]

The Eastern Roman empire started as Roman, and was later hellenized because the heart of byzantium was Greece, and the main inhabitants of byzantium were greek people. That explains why greek became the main language. The byzantine Greeks identified as "Roman" because being called "greek" back then was instantly connected to the "pagan greeks" and unfortunately it was considered an insult.

[@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ]

The heart of the medieval Roman Empire was always Anatolia, not Greece. Greece was always the backwater region of the Empire and had little meaning for the eastern Romans. The Greeks were also a minority. Anatolian groups were always dominant and that is reflected in the ancestries of numerous emperors, officials and generals: none of them are of Greek descent or even come from Greece until far later, such as after the 13th century. "Byzantine Greeks" is a misnomer, and is not even a term that modern historians outside of Wikipedia use to describe the eastern Romans. They identified as Romans, because they were Romans. You are doing mental gymnastics to get around the problem of Roman denialism.

[@Day-wm7nn]

@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ "You are doing mental gymnastics" Oh, the irony, trying to gloss over what the initial comment meant, which was about culture and not about the geographical region of Greece.

[@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ]

@@Day-wm7nn The irony here is that you actually believe that eastern Roman culture was Greek. Perhaps some tidbits yes, such as the language. The religion was Iudaeo-Christian. This also influenced the music of the times. "Byzantine" hymns draw inspiration from Syrian and Iudaeic sources; they have little resemblance to ancient Greek music. The whole infrastructure, organization and machinery of this civilization was Latin, or Roman. Hence, why they believed themselves to the descendants of the Romans. Eastern Roman culture also was inspired by ancient Anatolian civilizations. There was influence from Armenians, Slavs and since Constantinople lied at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa, trinkets and culture from all over the world flowed through the eastern Roman Empire. It was not a Greek civilization by any means.

[@Day-wm7nn]

@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ You think the Greek culture had stagnated and did not evolve at all. So, according to you, everything not related to paganism or whatever couldn't be Greek, since the Greek culture was all about this. This couldn't be more wrong, but don't bother answering, I have seen your other comments and it's very clear you are a troll or you live on a different plane of existence.

[@pyrix9569]

@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ "It was not a Greek civilization by any means" It was, after 11th century. Anna Komnene, Michael Psellos, Gemistus Plethon walked on the footsteps of Homer, Plato, Aristotle. And before them, Julian the Apostate.

[@locomotivebearingdown5381]

In the words of Anthony Kaldellis, the guy who literally wrote the book on byzantine-Roman identity, "These were not Greeks pretending to be Romans, but Romans who spoke Greek". The so called Byzantine-Romans were what was left of the dream that was Rome. They were Romans and they carried the dying torch of Rome, just as Emperor Constantine intended when he built Nova Roma on old Byzantium.

[@mydogsbutler]

"Anthony Kaldellis, the guy who literally wrote the book on byzantine-Roman identity," No he's not. You just picked him to push your political agenda. This is further witnesses by you leaving out the context of what Roman meant back then... it was not an ethnicity but closer to a citizenship. A Roman could be of different ethnic background. The predominent one was Greek. And among the element they too may have called themselves Roman but many of them are on record calling ancient Greeks their roots.

[@soik1401]

There was some Greek nationalistic revival in the later years of the Byzantine Empire. This probably had to do with the fact that Latins regarded Rome as part of the West. And thus the Romans were the heritage of Catholics rather that Ortodox Christians. Remember that this was right after the great schism. As a result, Eastern Roman intellectuals, historians, emperors, started to refer themselves as Hellenes.

[@joek600]

Its more complicated. Its all about the continuation of the state. In the east there was a roman state with roman citizens of mostly greek descent ethnically. In the west some random unwashed barbarians completely dismantled the roman state, and thats why they dont get to call themselves romans anymore. They didnt have roman laws, roman organisation, roman values. They just had the ruins of Rome. People most of the times do not understand that the term ''Roman'' is not about ethnicity but citizenship.

[@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ]

@@joek600 Well said on all points except for the ethnicity part. The Decree of Caracalla is often brought up to show that everyone was "Roman". The citizenship aspect was actually worn down after Caracalla's decree. There were two main groups who had a Roman identity. They were the peoples of the Western Empire who were Latinized. The regions of Gallia, Hispania were ethnically and culturally Roman and largely prone to Latin-speaking even though the peoples were native Gauls, Spaniards, Celts and whatever else. When the Roman world was in its early infancy, the Romans were a distinct group of people and their Latin ethnicity was recognized. Later towards the end of the Classical Roman Empire, the Greek world also began to formulate a Roman identity. Greek identity became irrelevant, Constantine's transference of Roman authority to the East shaped Roman identity in the Greek East and opened the door for Roman customs in the heartland of Anatolia which by the late 6th century was highly Hellenized and Romanized simultaneously. So not only Latinized peoples but also Hellenized peoples had a Roman identity, it would be fair to say that either one was ethnically Roman. The term Roman was an ethnonym but it was also a citizenship.

[@pero33403]

@@joek600 And Christian faith, which survived in the East and is now called the Orthodox faith.

[@riccardobettinazzi5054]

​@@pero33403 the only true Christianity survived in the one church founded by Jesus Christ, and not in the schismatic sects that arose a thousand years later for political reasons in the east and north 

[@vangelisskia214]

"The Greece runestones (Swedish: Greklandsstenarna) are about 30 runestones containing information related to voyages made by Norsemen to the Byzantine Empire. They were made during the Viking Age until about 1100 and were engraved in the Old Norse language with Scandinavian runes." "On these runestones the word Grikkland ("GREECE") appears in three inscriptions,[1] the word Grikk(j)ar ("GREEKS") appears in 25 inscriptions,[2] two stones refer to men as grikkfari ("traveller to Greece")[3] and one stone refers to Grikkhafnir ("Greek harbours").[4] ."

[@fredyvaldez7295]

Yeah just listen to the outsiders instead of the people living there themself who called themself Romanoi, even the Turks calles them Rumca Roman's

[@vangelisskia214]

@@fredyvaldez7295 No offense but you seem to be a bit confused. The term "Roman" changed meaning many times over, through the passing of hundreds of years and even millennia. After the fall of the western part of the empire, gradually "Romios", "Graikos" and "Hellene" came to be SYNONYMOUS TERMS. Basically it meant the exact same thing. The Greek speaking orthodox Christian citizen of the empire.

[@vangelisskia214]

@@fredyvaldez7295 After the Empire lost non-Greek speaking territories IN THE 7th AND 8th CENTURIES, "Greek" (Ἕλλην), when not used to signify "pagan", became synonymous with "Roman" (Ῥωμαῖος) and "Christian" (Χριστιανός) to mean a Christian Greek citizen of the [Eastern] Roman Empire. "Roman, GREEK (if not used in its sense of 'pagan') and Christian became SYNONYMOUS terms, counter-posed to 'foreigner', 'barbarian', 'infidel'. The citizens of the Empire, now predominantly of GREEK ethnicity and language, were often called simply ό χριστώνυμος λαός 'the people who bear Christ's name'." Harrison, Thomas (2002). Greeks and Barbarians. New York: Routledge., p. 268

[@fredyvaldez7295]

@@vangelisskia214 first of all the term greek was never used by the Greeks as a ethnic term, it was used as a geographical term for example people from Pontos or Pontus where never called Greek because they didn't come from the geographical Greece which was determined by Romans in the first place, they referred to themselves as Hellenes whicg is a cultural term and yes as this page points out the term Greek became a synonym for pagan but we have to remember that ethnicity as we understand it today was not a concept of this time in history. The people called themselves Roman's because it was the continuation of the Roman empire it was the Empire, why do you think the Greeks even in the early 20th century wanted to restore the Roman Empire and not the Hellenic Empire? Until the Republicanism movement took hold the people referred to themselves as Romans. Also the Greeks still living in Turkey call themselves still Roman and not Greek, their Language also is Called Roman and not Greek

[@gilpaubelid3780]

@@God-Emperor-of-Mankind85 We are descendants of Greeks that after the edict of Caracalla in 212 obtained Roman citizenship (like the rest of the free men in the empire) and as a result became Roman citizens/Romans. In other words we are descendents of Greeks (ethnicity) that were politically Romans (citizenship) during the byzantine period. Graikos wasn't offensive, it was used as an ethnonym by the byzantines as well. And it certainly is not offensive to us Greeks today. You are saying that you are Greek but how come you don't know something that all the Greeks know ?

[@angelosdaresis1477]

‘…that in the race of us the Hellenes, wisdom reigns’ ‘ὅτι τε ἐν τῷ γένει τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἡμῶν ἡ σοφία βασιλεύει’ Emperor John III Doukas Vatatzes (1193-1254) to Pope Gregorio IX

[@vangelisskia214]

According to Greg Woolf (among most expert scholars in ancient Roman studies): "crucial to understanding Roman identity is that unlike other ancient peoples, such as the Greeks or Gauls, the Romans did not see their common identity as one necessarily based on shared language or inherited ethnicity". Romans were neither Greek nor Italian, specifically. "Roman" had always been a rather general term, applying not to a specific race or ethnic group and instead to those with Roman CITIZENSHIP, born in a Roman province, or those who reflected the characteristics of Roman people. "After the Empire lost non-Greek speaking territories IN THE 7th AND 8th CENTURIES, "Greek" (Ἕλλην), when not used to signify "pagan", became synonymous with "Roman" (Ῥωμαῖος) and "Christian" (Χριστιανός) to mean a Christian Greek citizen of the [Eastern] Roman Empire." Harrison, Thomas (2002). Greeks and Barbarians. New York: Routledge., p. 268

[@zuzudernegger9721]

Is California - America (USA)?... no coz it is California and its citizens are Californians. - If that's a valid "Question"... then the Byzantine question is valid too. The whole premise is that some nationalists are trying to claim a whole history and culture for themselves, including lands.

[@vangelisskia214]

@@zuzudernegger9721 "After the Empire lost non-Greek speaking territories IN THE 7th AND 8th CENTURIES, "Greek" (Ἕλλην), when not used to signify "pagan", became synonymous with "Roman" (Ῥωμαῖος) and "Christian" (Χριστιανός) to mean a Christian Greek citizen of the [Eastern] Roman Empire." "Roman, GREEK (if not used in its sense of 'pagan') and Christian became SYNONYMOUS terms, counter-posed to 'foreigner', 'barbarian', 'infidel'. The citizens of the Empire, now predominantly of GREEK ethnicity and language, were often called simply ό χριστώνυμος λαός 'the people who bear Christ's name'." Harrison, Thomas (2002). Greeks and Barbarians. New York: Routledge., p. 268

[@vangelisskia214]

@@zuzudernegger9721 "As heirs to the Greeks and Romans of old, the Byzantines thought of themselves as Rhomaioi, or Romans, though THEY KNEW FULL WELL that they were ETHNICALLY GREEKS." (see also: Savvides & Hendricks 2001).Niehoff 2012, Margalit Finkelberg, "Canonising and Decanonising Homer: Reception of the Homeric Poems in Antiquity and Modernity", p. 20 or Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum 2003, p. 482:

[@vangelisskia214]

@@zuzudernegger9721 "We, the descendants of the HELLENES (GREEKS) AND of the ROMANS." Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos May 28th 1453 George Sprantzes - The Fall of the Byzantine Empire 1453/primary source from the war.

[@bojanstare8667]

Bizantium has had the same different tribes as Roman, Great Britain, Holy Roman, Soviet union empire etc. Also Aleksanders empire with Greeks cheaty Hellenism. All empires have mixed a lot of different peoples, culture and lands. It isn`t question to whomthey were belong, but who was ruler. Bizantuim has had Greeks influence, but it wasn`t Greek empire.

[@vangelisskia214]

"Roman, GREEK (if not used in its sense of 'pagan') and Christian became SYNONYMOUS terms, counter-posed to 'foreigner', 'barbarian', 'infidel'. The citizens of the Empire, now predominantly of GREEK ethnicity and language, were often called simply ό χριστώνυμος λαός 'the people who bear Christ's name'." Harrison, Thomas (2002). Greeks and Barbarians. New York: Routledge., p. 268

[@sandrojones8068]

The Whole debate is a Joke ROMAN IS ROMAN. LATIN OR GREEK, ROMAN IS ROMAN

[@sandrojones8068]

@@God-Emperor-of-Mankind85 Exactly!

[@vangelisskia214]

According to Greg Woolf (among most expert scholars in ancient Roman studies): "crucial to understanding Roman identity is that unlike other ancient peoples, such as the Greeks or Gauls, the Romans did not see their common identity as one necessarily based on shared language or inherited ethnicity". Romans were neither Greek nor Italian, specifically. "Roman" had always been a rather general term, applying not to a specific race or ethnic group and instead to those with Roman CITIZENSHIP, born in a Roman province, or those who reflected the characteristics of Roman people. "After the Empire lost non-Greek speaking territories IN THE 7th AND 8th CENTURIES, "Greek" (Ἕλλην), when not used to signify "pagan", became synonymous with "Roman" (Ῥωμαῖος) and "Christian" (Χριστιανός) to mean a Christian Greek citizen of the [Eastern] Roman Empire." "Roman, GREEK (if not used in its sense of 'pagan') and Christian became SYNONYMOUS terms, counter-posed to 'foreigner', 'barbarian', 'infidel'. The citizens of the Empire, now predominantly of GREEK ethnicity and language, were often called simply ό χριστώνυμος λαός 'the people who bear Christ's name'." Harrison, Thomas (2002). Greeks and Barbarians. New York: Routledge., p. 268

[@sandrojones8068]

@@vangelisskia214 “We are the descendants of Hellenes and Romans” -Final ROMAN Emperor Constantine XI I Think i’ll take it from The Emperor himself and not Greg woolf.

[@vangelisskia214]

@@sandrojones8068 Being "Roman" was for a very long time simply a political/legal identity. Being "Hellene" (or "Greek") was an ethnic identity. The terms. "Roman", "Greek" and "Hellene" all changed meanings many times over through centuries and millennia. The term "Roman" in the 1st century, "Roman" in the 3rd century and "Roman" in the 9th century do not carry the exact same meaning! Why do most people deny this fact?! The fact of the matter is that at some point all three became SYNONYMOUS terms. "Roman" gradually from the 7th century onwards came to mean ONLY the Greek speaking orthodox Christians. "Greek" the same. "Hellene" also revived with its initial ethnic meaning and came to refer to the same peoples. All three terms referred AND STILL REFFER to the same peoples. And if you take it from the last emperor himself then its clear as crystal that he claims the heritage of both and even mentions the Hellenic heritage first. But yes of course, also the Roman..

[@sandrojones8068]

@@vangelisskia214 They were Greek, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t Roman

[@seamussc]

The Byzantine Empire's people, as we retroactively call it, were absolutely Romans. I think the problem isn't trying to establish who are "Romans" so much as who are "the true Romans." The Byzantine Empire being Roman does not make a literal resident of the city of Rome any more or less Roman, nor vice-versa. To me, it's like trying to say which Romance language is the "Real Latin" in the modern day sense, as if they aren't all diverged descendants of the original Latin language.

[@dimitrispvoice133]

With the difference that they were speaking greek and had the greek culture. Greeks to this day have the old nickname "Romioi", which means Romans. Even here in Cyprus we have a place we call "I Petra tou Romiou" (the Rock of the Greek) and we have hundreds of years old texts that call the Greeks, Romioi(Romans). So it was one and the same. This becoming an arguement now after so many years of actual history and facts, it's quite laughable to say the least.

[@damouno]

Maybe 'Greco-Romans' is term for Eastern part of Roman Empire !

[@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ]

@@damouno The only term was just Romans. "Greco"-Romans is not even remotely an accurate description of what the eastern side of the Roman Empire was. In its long history, many Romans spoke Latin and other languages. It was not a Greek empire but rather the Roman Empire's eastern remaining provinces, in which Greek culture was more important than in the West but it was Roman and the of the Romans.

[@keyos1955]

@@dimitrispvoice133 They didn't have Greek culture, this is completely fake. Their culture was fully Roman

[@MethaneHorizon]

@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ You can name yourself the Roman empire without being Roman peoples. The Eastern empire was a successor to Rome, but a Greek one at heart, not a Latin one. Americans call themselves Americans, yet most are European, and the USA is a European state. What you view yourself as doesn't matter against objective historiography.

[@dirremoire]

They self-identified as Romans to the end, so we have to honor that.

[@dimitrispvoice133]

Of course, they were part of the empire and in good terms with it. So the least the Greeks could do, is to go down as "Romans".

[@hachibidelta4237]

They are not all "Greek" since Anatolians have different dialects, then there is also Armenians, Albanians, Dalmatians, Serbians, Bulgars and some Syrians. The Macedonian dynasty, Lekapenos, Phokaides all linked to Armenia. However after the fourth crusade, yes they completely become Greek.

[@mak_m3788]

The last remaining Greeks there are still called Romans by the Turks. They call them “Rom”. And the rest of the Greeks they call Yunan, but also Rom

[@histguy101]

@@hachibidelta4237 Why would they all be Greek after the 4th crusade? And what does Greek even mean at that point? Certainly not racial or ethnic. The number of Greeks who descended from ancient Greeks and identified ethnically as such would get smaller and smaller with each generation beginning in ancient times. The 4th crusade was a thousand years later. Just look at how fast ethnic groups in the US lose their old identity as they become American and intermarry with others. The final dynasty of Byzantium, the Palaiologans(ruled from 1261-1453), claimed to originate from Italy in ancient Roman times. Also the Komneni who ruled the empire of Trebizond from 1204-1460 claimed their ancestors came from Italy in ancient times. The other Dynatoi families like the Phocas clan or the Doukas claimed the same thing. There may actually be a kernal of truth to this as the military colonies established in late Republican and imperial times did lead to a military aristocracy of Roman citizens in many provinces, continually filling the officer ranks through the generations, but even if it's probably just propaganda, it shows what their ethnic identity was, and how they saw their place in the world.

[@Nick-hi9gx]

No, we do not go by what people call themselves. We go by what their culture was; the culture of the Byzantines wasn't at all like the Romans of 500BCE or 1CE, they were an entirely different linguistic, ethnic and cultural group.

[@moshecallen]

The Greeks still sometimes use a word today which etymologically derives from them calling themselves Romans.

[@ghostofathens6600]

The true name is the Hellenic Republic people call it Greece just like the Turks and Persians call us yunanistan also Macedonia is Greece 🇬🇷

[@ghostofathens6600]

😂

[@ghostofathens6600]

@Jordan & Jordan little Bulgarian is crying to his mommy 😂

[@ghostofathens6600]

@@GloryToTheUnitedStates6037 many Greeks went to Italy so Rome was not all Roman and Romans were copying the Greeks and Greeks were the majority in east Roman Empire and the language they had was Greek not Latin and Greek influenced Latin many nobles spoke Greek so we just had the name Roman Empire and called ourselves Romans just like the soviets Union and soviets did

[@danhanqvist4237]

They were Greek-speaking Romans.

[@TheIronChancellor]

No

[@danhanqvist4237]

@@TheIronChancellor Well, that's what they thought themselves.

[@TheIronChancellor]

@@danhanqvist4237 No they thought tha they were descentants of the Greeks and the Romans

[@danhanqvist4237]

@@TheIronChancellor Greek-speaking Romans, then.

[@danhanqvist4237]

@@TheIronChancellor Ῥωμαῖοι

[@KeithShuler]

So all of them were Roman constitutionally, but culturally they were as night and day? Yet, they all saw themselves as Roman east/west.

[@ericponce8740]

Only the rulers of Constantinople can truly call themselves Roman Emperors. The rulers of the Holy Roman Empire were not the successors of the ancient Roman Empire.

[@michaelm-bs2er]

None of them were Roman emperors. They all claimed the name "Roman" for the sake of legitimising their right to rule. But the reality is the real Romans were far removed from power by that time.

[@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖων]

Well said, Eric Ponce 👍👍. The Constantinopolitans were the Romans and the HRE was fake.

[@michaelm-bs2er]

@@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖων the Constantinopolitans were Romans although they spoke Greek, carried Greek names, Greek folk customs and had no ties to the original Romans or traits of the native Roman/Latin culture. Sure, that makes sense. If the HRE were not truly Romans (and I agree they weren't), then for the same reasons, neither were the Byzantines.

[@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖων]

@@michaelm-bs2er How dumber can you be? The names were split between Greek, Latin and Hebrew names, some names were clearly Armenian, Lydian, Lycian and Gothic. The main languages spoken were both Latin and Greek, both Roman languages. The folk customs were hands-down Roman without any doubt. The so called "Byzantines" were actually less Greek than the ancient Greeks. No Greek gods, no philosophy, no Olympic Games, no gymnasia or scholae. These were unequivocally replaced by Roman and Christian things. Get over it, they were Romans and you will forever be a laughing stock to us for denying the Roman character of the Imperium Romanum/Basileia Rhomaion!

[@michaelm-bs2er]

@@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖων How ignorant can you be? The majority of the population were Greeks. Yes, there were Armenians and some Latins (Vlachs) but the overwhelming majority of the population was Greek. The Lydians and Lycians were long gone by that stage; there was no one left by the start of the middle ages who could speak those languages or maintained any aspect of those cultures. As for the Goths, they were an insignificant minority. The fact that they lost some aspects of the original Hellenic culture, like the Olympics, or had adopted Roman or Armenian or other foreign names is insignificant. All people and cultures change over time. But the dominant component of the Byzantine culture and people was still Greek. Latin was the only natural language of the Romans. Greek was an acquired language, studied by the upper class who could an afford an education. But Greek was not a Roman language and the fact that the Greek language eclipsed and replaced Latin should tell you something about the demographics of that state. It's important to note also that the Vlachs, who were also citizens of the Empire and spoke a Latin based language, were looked down upon by the common Greek-speaking Byzantines. Why would a people, who consider themselves to be by en large Romans, have such disdain for a Latin people? Have you ever thought about that? The reality is they weren't Romans and they themselves refer to their ancestors as Greeks/Hellenes whenever they are talking about their heritage, culture or education. You and all people on your side of the argument are the laughing stocks. You try to steal the heritage of the Latins, claiming your ancestors were Romans while writing your own names in Greek letters (which is absurd) and also dishonouring your own ancestors by saying they were dominated by a foreign people. The Romans, real Romans, were Latins. Just because other people became Roman citizens, it doesn't mean the Roman people ceased to exist as a distinct people. Because your argument hinges on this, it is offensive and should be torn down. Imagine if I said that all the Syriacs, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Jews, Assyrians and Persians who assimilated into the Hellenistic culture were genuine Greeks? Or more relevant to today, if I said the slavic Macedonians are truly the descendants of Alexander the Great's people, how would you and most of your Greek compatriots respond then? I guarantee you would be making the same arguments I am now.

[@God-Emperor-of-Mankind85]

The people of the Eastern Roman Empire considered themselves Romans, not Byzantines or Hellenes. After hearing about the liberation of Lemnos from the Ottomans by Greek troops during World War 1, where the people still considered themselves Romans and came out to see Hellenes, I stopped using the term Byzantine to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire.

[@ΜΕΓΑΤΟΤΗΣΘΑΛΑΣΣΗΣΚΡΑΤΟΣ-ω1δ]

My opinion as a Greek who believes in the old Olympic pantheon of the ancient Greeks. The eastern Romans are to answer for some of the worst sins against Hellenism. Their rejection of acceptance of the ethnonym Hellene means that they cannot be classified as Greeks. They spoke Greek but definitely did not feel that they were Greeks. They were Romans.

[@roboticceltic2388]

Oh so you are actually a cringy LARPer.

[@wodzisaww.5500]

So you can just invent definitions then? Read a medieval text for once.

[@mydogsbutler]

You are over generlizing. A. Roman was not an ethnicity in the eastern Roman empire but closer to a citizenship.. B., There are many many references of at least some eastern Romans claiming ancient Greeks as their roots.

[@mydogsbutler]

Greek speaking Eastern Romans were not to blame for the sins against Hellenism. It was the Latin speaking Romans, early Christian converts, that oppressed Hellenism between 4-6 century CE. The Latins were the one's that closed the Academy in athens. The Latins were the one's that ended 1000 year tradition of the Olympics. They were the ones that burned works that conflicted with Christian ideology. They passed laws that persecuted pagans until they converted. And so on. This is the exact period when the term "hellene" feel out of favour as it became associated with paganism. Christians back then were like the Taliban. By the 7th century Hellenism started to make a comeback in the east with the dismissal of Latin as the official language but by then a lot cultural damage had been done. Greeks had been calling themselves Roman Christians for centuries and paganism was still frowned upon. Although there was interest in ancient Hellenism it was a censored sort of way. Even today if you talk to some Christian Greek priest they get upset if a Greek says they are pagans.

[@RichMitch]

Jonny Depp looks well

[@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449]

Dude! I am so glad I am not the only one who saw that resemblance!

[@RichMitch]

@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 😂😂😂

[@ΒασιλείατῶνῬωμαῖων]

They were Romans.

[@vangelisskia214]

"Present your shield, swords, arrows, and spears to them, imagining that you are a hunting party after wild boars, so that the impious may learn that they are dealing not with dumb animals but with their lords and masters, THE DESCENDANTS OF THE HELLENES (GREEKS) AND THE ROMANS." Constantine Palaologus XI speaks in front of his officers and allies before the final siege of Constantinople by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed Bey George Sprantzes - The Fall of the Byzantine Empire 1453 - primary source from the war.

[@vangelisskia214]

Paul the Deacon (born¨720s), says that Maurikios was: “a Cappadocian by race . . . the first emperor from the RACE OF THE GREEKS” Paul the Deacon, History of the Lombards 3.15

[@vangelisskia214]

"The Frankish court (during the 7TH CENTURY A.D.) no longer regarded the Byzantine Empire as holding valid claims of universality; instead it was now termed the 'EMPIRE OF THE GREEKS'." LATE MEROVINGIAN FRANCE 640-720 Fouracre, Paul; Gerberding, Richard A. (1996). Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography, 640-720. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, p. 345:

[@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ]

Από τότε που οι ελληνικές πόλεις κράτη κατακτήθηκαν από την Ρωμη αφομοιώθηκαν και δημιουργήθηκε ένα πανέμορφο υβρίδιο με συνείδηση Ρωμαϊκη! Μέχρι και το 1821 (και πιο μετά ακόμα η γενία εκείνη ) αποκαλούνταν Ρωμαίοι γιατί θάβετε την αλήθεια? ΙΧΝΚ . Δοξα στην Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκη Αυτοκρατορία . Πρέπει να μάθεις ότι ασπάζεσαι γερμανική προπαγάνδα ήταν ο γερμανός ιστορικός ιερωνυμος Βολφ που ηθελε να μας αποκοψει απο την Ρωμη γιατι τον βοηθατε? Ο δικεφαλος αετος ξερεις τι δηλωνει? Ο αριστερος κοιτα στην δυση την παλια Ρωμη και ο δεξης στην Ανατολη την Βασιλευοσα.. Να εισαι υπερηφανος που εισαι Ρωμαιος! Ειναι ο ελληνορωμαικος πολιτισμος αδερφε μου συγγενεις ειμασταν με την αρχαια Ρωμη ουτως η αλλως γι αυτο εσμιξαν . Δεν υποστηριζω οτι πρεπει να γινουμε υβριδια με καθε λαο αν αυτο καταλαβαινεις ... Ελληνορωμαικος ειναι ο πολιτισμος μας και οι προγονοι μας ειχαν συνειδηση ρωμαικη αυτα δεν μπορω να τα σβησω.Πρεπει να αποκοληθεις απο την αρχαιολατρεια δεν σε κανεις περισσοτερο πατριωτη ισα ισα σε περιοριζει γεωγραφικα το Ελλαδα. Η Ρωμανια ειναι ελλαδα ειναι βαλκανια ειναι ανατολια. Καλο βραδυ και παλι να σε εχει ο Θεος καλα..

[@vangelisskia214]

@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ ΟΙ ΟΡΟΙ "ΡΩΜΙΟΣ", "ΕΛΛΗΝΑΣ" ΚΑΙ "ΓΡΑΙΚΟΣ" ΟΛΕΣ ΑΛΛΑΞΑΝ ΕΝΝΟΙΕΣ ΠΟΛΛΕΣ ΦΟΡΕΣ ΜΕΣΑ ΣΤΟ ΠΕΡΑΣΜΑ ΤΩΝ ΧΙΛΙΕΤΙΩΝ. ΑΛΛΟΤΕ ΕΙΧΑΝ ΚΟΙΝΗ ΣΗΜΑΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΛΛΟΤΕ ΟΧΙ. Ο ΟΡΟΣ "ΡΩΜΑΙΟΣ" ΑΡΧΙΚΑ ΑΝΑΦΕΡΕΤΑΙ ΣΕ ΕΝΑΝ ΚΑΤΟΙΚΟ ΤΗΣ ΠΟΛΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΡΩΜΗΣ, ΑΡΓΟΤΕΡΑ, ΣΕ ΕΛΑ ΚΑΤΟΙΚΟ ΟΛΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΙΤΑΛΙΚΗΣ ΧΕΡΣΟΝΗΣΟΥ, ΑΡΓΟΤΕΡΑ ΟΛΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΙΑΣ ΑΝΕΞΑΡΤΗΤΟΥ ΕΘΝΙΚΗΣ ΤΑΥΤΟΤΗΤΑΣ ΜΕΧΡΙ ΠΟΥ ΑΠΕΚΤΗΣΕ ΚΑΙ ΕΘΝΙΚΟ-ΘΡΗΣΚΕΥΤΙΚΗ ΕΝΝΟΙΑ ΜΟΝΟ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΗΝ ΠΤΩΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΔΥΣΗΣ ΣΤΑ ΧΕΡΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΣ ΣΥΡΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΒΟΡΕΙΑΣ ΑΦΡΙΚΗΣ ΣΤΑ ΧΕΡΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΑΡΑΒΩΝ, ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΈΝΝΟΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΕΛΛΗΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΥ . Ο ΟΡΟΣ "ΓΡΑΙΚΟΣ" ΕΠΙΣΗΣ ΑΛΛΑΞΕ ΕΝΝΟΙΕΣ ΜΕΣΑ ΣΤΟ ΠΕΡΑΣΜΑ ΤΩΝ ΧΙΛΙΕΤΙΩΝ. ΚΑΠΟΤΕ ΗΤΑΝ ΟΡΟΣ ΠΟΥ ΥΠΟΔΗΛΩΝΕ ΜΙΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΦΥΛΗ, ΑΡΓΟΤΕΡΑ ΠΗΡΕ ΕΘΝΙΚΟ ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡΑ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ. ΑΡΓΟΤΕΡΑ ΠΗΡΕ ΚΑΙ ΓΕΩΓΡΑΦΙΚΟ Η ΚΑΙ ΘΡΗΣΚΕΥΤΙΚΟ ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΠΑΛΙ ΚΑΘΑΡΑ ΕΘΝΙΚΟ. ΤΑ ΙΔΙΑ ΙΣΧΥΟΥΝ ΚΑΙ ΜΕ ΤΟΝ ΟΡΟ "ΕΛΛΗΝΑΣ". ΗΤΑΝ ΟΡΟΣ ΕΘΝΙΚΟΣ, ΕΞΕΛΙΧΘΗΚΕ ΚΑΙ ΣΕ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΤΙΚΟΣ, ΜΕΤΕΞΕΛΙΧΘΗΚΕ ΚΑΙ ΣΕ ΘΡΗΣΚΕΥΤΙΚΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΡΓΟΤΕΡΑ ΜΕΤΕΞΕΛΙΧΘΗΚΕ ΞΑΝΑ ΣΕ ΕΘΝΙΚΟΣ! Η ΟΥΣΙΑ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΜΙΑ. ΟΙ ΟΡΟΙ ΕΛΛΗΝΑΣ, ΡΩΜΙΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΓΡΑΙΚΟΣ ΜΕΣΑ ΣΤΟ ΠΕΡΑΣΜΑ ΤΩΝ ΑΙΩΝΩΝ ΕΦΤΑΣΑΝ ΚΑΠΟΙΑ ΣΤΙΓΜΗ ΝΑ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΣΥΝΩΝΥΜΟΙ ΟΡΟΙ! ΕΔΩ ΚΑΙ ΠΟΛΛΕΣ ΕΚΑΤΟΝΤΑΔΕΣ ΧΡΟΝΙΑ ΜΕΧΡΙ ΚΑΙ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΤΡΙΑ ΕΘΝΩΝΎΜΙΑ ΥΠΟΔΗΛΩΝΟΥΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΔΙΟ ΛΑΟ! ΟΤΑΝ Ο ΟΡΟΣ "ΡΩΜΙΟΣ" ΠΗΡΕ ΚΑΠΟΙΑ ΣΤΙΓΜΗ ΕΘΝΙΚΟ-ΘΡΗΣΚΕΥΤΙΚΟ ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡΑ ΚΑΙ ΟΧΙ ΠΛΕΟΝ ΑΠΛΑ ΝΟΜΙΚΟ-ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟ, ΕΝΝΟΟΎΣΕ ΜΟΝΟ ΤΟΥΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΟΦΩΝΟΥΣ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΙΚΟΥΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΟΧΙ ΤΟΥΣ ΔΥΤΙΚΟΥΣ ΛΑΤΙΝΟΥΣ. ΟΤΑΝ ΣΤΗΝ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΙΑ ΥΠΑΡΧΟΥΝ ΚΑΙ ΛΑΤΙΝΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ Ο ΟΡΟΣ ΔΕΝ ΕΧΕΙ ΕΘΝΙΚΟ ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡΑ ΑΛΛΑ ΚΑΘΑΡΑ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟ. ΟΠΟΙΟΣΔΗΠΟΤΕ ΑΝΕΞΑΡΤΗΤΟΥ ΕΘΝΙΚΗΣ ΤΑΥΤΟΤΗΤΑΣ ΜΠΟΡΟΥΣΕ ΝΑ ΕΧΕΙ ΤΗΝ ΡΩΜΑΙΚΗ ΥΠΗΚΟΟΤΗΤΑ. ΚΑΠΟΙΕΣ ΕΚΑΤΟΝΤΑΔΕΣ ΧΡΟΝΙΑ ΑΡΓΟΤΕΡΑ, ΤΟ ΝΑ ΕΙΣΑΙ "ΡΩΜΙΟΣ" ΑΠΟΚΤΑ ΕΘΝΙΚΗ ΚΑΙ ΣΥΝΑΜΑ ΘΡΗΣΚΕΥΤΙΚΗ ΣΗΜΑΣΙΑ, ΠΛΕΟΝ ΕΝΝΟΩΝΤΑΣ ΜΟΝΟ ΤΟΝ ΕΛΛΗΝΟΦΩΝΟ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟ. ΔΗΛΑΔΗ ΤΟΝ ΕΛΛΗΝΑ. ΚΑΙ ΕΣΥ ΠΟΥ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΥΜΝΗΣΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΡΩΜΙΟΣΎΝΗ ΕΤΣΙ ΑΠΛΑ ΜΕΙΏΝΕΙΣ Η ΚΑΙ ΣΒΗΝΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΑΡΧΑΙΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΙΑ, ΑΛΛΑ ΚΑΙ ΕΚΕΙΝΟΙ ΠΟΥ ΚΑΝΟΥΝ ΤΟ ΑΚΡΙΒΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΘΕΤΟ ΚΑΙ ΜΕΙΩΝΟΥΝ ΤΗ ΡΩΜΑΙΚΗ ΠΑΡΑΔΟΣΗ ΚΑΙ ΤΟ ΡΩΜΕΙΚΟ ΠΑΡΕΛΘΩΝ ΛΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΔΕΝ ΥΠΗΡΞΕ ΠΟΤΕ, ΕΙΣΤΕ ΤΟ ΙΔΙΟ ΛΑΘΟΣ. ΟΙ ΣΗΜΕΡΙΝΟΙ ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ ΘΑ ΕΠΡΕΠΕ ΝΑ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΕΡΗΦΑΝΟΙ ΠΟΥ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΟΙ ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΜΕ ΑΠΟΔΕΊΞΕΙΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΡΧΑΙΑΣ ΕΛΛΑΔΑΣ ΑΛΛΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΟΥ ΡΩΜΑΙΙΚΟΥ. ΟΛΑ ΤΑ ΕΘΝΗ ΕΞΕΛΊΣΣΟΝΤΑΙ ΜΈΣΑ ΣΤΟ ΠΈΡΑΣΜΑ ΑΙΩΝΙΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΧΙΛΙΕΤΙΩΝ, ΟΠΩΣ ΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΣΕ ΟΛΟΚΛΗΡΟ ΤΟ ΣΥΜΠΑΝ. ΤΟ ΝΑΙ ΕΙΣΑΙ "ΡΩΜΙΟΣ" ΠΟΛΙΤΗΣ ΔΕΝ ΣΗΜΑΙΝΕ ΟΤΙ ΔΕΝ ΕΙΣΑΙ ΚΑΙ "ΕΛΛΗΝΑΣ". ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟ ΕΝΑ ΣΗΜΕΙΟ ΚΑΙ ΜΕΤΑ ΟΙ ΟΡΟΙ ΕΓΙΝΑΝ ΑΠΛΑ ΣΥΝΟΝΥΜΟΙ. ΑΝ ΔΕΝ ΣΥΜΦΩΝΕΙΣ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ ΣΟΥ ΑΛΛΑ ΤΙΣ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΕΣ ΣΟΥ ΣΕ ΑΛΛΟΥΣ. ΚΑΙ ΕΣΕΝΑ ΝΑ ΣΕ ΕΧΕΙ Ο ΘΕΟΣ ΚΑΛΑ.

[@vangelisskia214]

@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ "The second Emperor of Nicaea, John III Doukas Vatatzes, wrote in a letter to Pope Gregory IX about the wisdom that "rains upon the Hellenic nation". He maintained that the transfer of the imperial authority from Rome to Constantinople was national and not geographic, and therefore did not belong to the Latins occupying Constantinople: Constantine's heritage was passed on to the HELLENES, so he argued, and they alone were its inheritors and successors." John Vatatzes, Ανέκδοτος επιστολή του Αυτοκράτορος Ιωάννου Δούκα Βατάτση προς τον Πάπαν Γρηγόριον, ανεβρεθείσα εν Πάτμω (= "Unpublished Letters of Emperor John Vatatzes to Pope Gregory, discovered in Patmos"), in Athinaion I (1872), pp. 369-378 (in Greek).

[@vangelisskia214]

@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ "Eustathius of Thessalonica was a Byzantine Greek scholar and ARCHBISHOP of Thessalonica. disambiguates the distinction in his account of the sack of Thessaloniki in 1185 by referring to the invaders with the generic term "Latins", encompassing all adherents to the Roman Catholic Church, and THE "HELLENES" AS THE DOMINANT POPULATION OF THE EMPIRE." Espugnazione di Thessalonica, Palermo 1961, p. 32

[@vangelisskia214]

@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ "Theodore II Laskaris, was eager to project the name of the Greeks with true nationalistic zeal. He made it a point that "the HELLENIC RACE looms over all other languages" and that "every kind of philosophy and form of knowledge is a discovery of Hellenes […]. What do you, O Italian, have to display?" " Theodore Laskaris, Christian Theology, 7 f.

[@joeshmoe8345]

I love the high-quantity output of this channel.

[@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449]

I love this comment! Thanks Joe!

[@avgvstvscaesar7834]

So many folks doing mental gymnastics in the comments. However hard some of you try to rewrite history, there was no Byzantine Empire. The Imperium was also not Greek. It was the Roman Empire, and of course that did mean that it was the protector and guarantor of the old Greek culture. Such was Rome, a civilization that borrowed, assimilated and spanned multiple continents and cultures. In the case of the Imperium from 323 to 1453 AD, its eastern half achieved survival in the more culturally Greek-speaking parts.

[@dbizo0003]

Canadian Greek here, i have done much research in my history of the Eastern Roman Empire and before. i can confirm that my Heritage is Roman. Many on here may think its different but in fact Greece and Rome are the same, if you go back far enough to the early Bronze age many Hellenics voyaged to explore via maritime travel, many Hellenic's colonized what today is known as Italy. and later on they formed the Roman Empire which in turn absorbed ancient Greece.

[@vangelisskia214]

"The Byzantine empire was CLEARLY, despite its multinational dimension, A GREEK EMPIRE while its neighbours considered it so, and whose unity was based on the power of authority, in the dominance of Orthodoxy and the use of Greek as the official language." Sylvain Gouguenheim, "La gloire des Grecs", 2017, pp..72, 73

[@piedmontatl]

There was no such thing as the "Byzantine Empire". That was a title devised by historians in the 1800s. It was always the Roman Empire.

[@frankvandorp2059]

This is historical revisionism. The neighbours of the empire all called them Romans, they called themselves Romans, and they were literally the same empire as the Roman empire that existed from 27 BC on. They just had shifts in culture and language, but so have countless other empires in the world. None of those things mean they weren't the Roman empire anymore.

[@vangelisskia214]

@@piedmontatl Modern historians stuck with the term "Byzantine" 1) because their colleagues from a century or so ago who actually named the discipline, mostly due to geopolitical purposes wanted to disassociate the "byzantines" and the "Basileia ton Romaion" from their actual descendants, the modern Greeks and 2) of course because the state from a point in time onwards was obviously not simply Roman but Greco-Roman. It was the organic continuation of the old Roman state but at the same time it was essentially something totally new and distinct. As a matter of fact in international historiography until the middle 19th century it was still mostly referred to as "empire of the Greeks". Yes, "byzantine" is an artificial term (like many other historical terms e.g. the "Hellenistic" period or the "dark ages") and I myself am not a big fan of the term. Surely the term "Byzantine" might seem anachronistic to people without a degree in Byzantine history, but it most certainly makes sense and does not seem anachronistic to the vast majority of modern Byzantinists who understand its purpose and actual meaning. In all universities worldwide the field has been called Byzantine studies for over a century and is considered a totally different field from ancient Roman studies. I think that says it all....

[@vangelisskia214]

@@frankvandorp2059 SLAVS: "In this respect, it is noteworthy that early-medieval written evidence from the Bulgar realm testifies to a Bulgar preference to the ethnonym Graikos (Greek), instead of Rhomaios (Roman), by the designation of the Eastern Romans. The use of the former ethnonym seems to have been predominant among the other Slavic peoples of the Balkans as well, should we consider the textual evidence in their languages that originates, however, from the late Middle Ages." Yannis Stouraitis, pp 130, "Byzantine Romanness: From geopolitical to ethnic conceptions: Early Medieval Regions and Identities" "The Romans and the Bulgarians viewed each other as distinct people, and many among the latter, especially the former ruling class, desired freedom from “GREEK oppression".” "Later medieval Bulgarians called the Byzantine period “the GREEK slavery.” Anthony Kaldellis, "Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade", pp. 174 SCANDINAVIANS: "The Greece runestones (Swedish: Greklandsstenarna) are about 30 runestones containing information related to voyages made by Norsemen to the Byzantine Empire. They were made during the Viking Age until about 1100 and were engraved in the Old Norse language with Scandinavian runes." "On these runestones the word Grikkland ("GREECE") appears in three inscriptions,[1] the word Grikk(j)ar ("GREEKS") appears in 25 inscriptions,[2] two stones refer to men as grikkfari ("traveller to Greece")[3] and one stone refers to Grikkhafnir ("Greek harbours").[4] ." wiki/Greece_runestones FRANKS: A western European primary source from the year 1182 referring to the inhabitants of Constantinople as "GREEK NATION": "It is said that more than four thousand Latins of various age, sex, and condition were delivered thus to barbarous nations for a price. In such fashion did the perfidious GREEK NATION, a brood of vipers, like a serpent in the bosom or a mouse in the wardrobe evilly requite their guests-those who had not deserved such treatment and were far from anticipating anything of the kind; those to whom they had given their daughters, nieces, and sisters as wives and who, by long living together, had become their friends". Holt, Andrew (January 2005)." Massacre of Latins in Constantinople,1182 Crusades-Encyclopedia. Archived from the original on 29 September 2007. Retrieved 1 December 2009. "The Frankish court (during the 7TH CENTURY A.D.) no longer regarded the Byzantine Empire as holding valid claims of universality; instead it was now termed the 'EMPIRE OF THE GREEKS'." LATE MEROVINGIAN FRANCE 640-720 Fouracre, Paul; Gerberding, Richard A. (1996). Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography, 640-720. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, p. 345:

[@vangelisskia214]

@@frankvandorp2059 "The neighbours of the empire all called them Romans" lol

[@BorninPurple]

For people arguing in the comments, they were Romans, that's what they called themselves throughout the Empire's existence. The Greek speaking part of the empire stopped referring to themselves as Greek from the 2nd Century (as far as I can remember) and there was a transition from Roman identity being civic/political to being Ethnic. This continued well after the Byzantine Empire fell to the 20th century; indeed, there are still Greek Speaking Muslims in Turkey who speak Romeika. Cypriot Greeks are still referred to as Rum by Turkey. There was no language requirement for being Roman, in the same way Americans who speak English aren't English, despite speaking the same language, so this isn't an excuse. The Byzantine being called Greek boils down to because they were called that by the West, partially as a habit and also as a way of delegitimising the Empire as Roman, by trying to legitimise a successor Roman Empire in the West. In the West, Romans were referred to as Greeks and continually kept being referred to as so until the Greek War of independence where, in order to gain support against the Ottomans, the name was changed because the West romanticised the idea that the Greek speakers that existed at the time, were the same as the Hellenes who lived more than 2000 years ago. Most historical arguments about the Byzantines being Greek comes from Anastasius the Librarian, who set up various arguments that had no legitimacy to them. This also coincides with the fact that in the Islamic world, the Byzantine were always referred to as Rum. If people are interested, I would highly recommend Anthony Kaldellis as a historian.

[@vonzuchter]

No they were not Romans. The eastern part of the empire was a greek world basically. Never adopted the Latin culture , all Latin people who migrated there were assimilated , same thing happened in all the empire , just like latins in Britain assimilated with the celtic natinvs and became britonic etc. Same thing happened in Spain and Gaul. What they called themselves is IRRELEVANT. The last emperor told in his last speech they were both Greek and Roman. Never understood why this is even an argument. It was a Greek speaking empire populated by many nation and a dominant greek speaking people who identified themselves as Romans. There were Armenian emperors and Illyrian emperors all called themselves Romans when they obviously were not. Simple as that. If they were romans then all modern greek are romans. If Byzantines were Romans then the Welsh and the Celtic people are romans too , so are the modern french people and spanish people.

[@BorninPurple]

@@vonzuchter yes they did adopt Latin culture, the Justinianic code was issued in Latin and the civic code was also Ronan. They stopped speaking Latin because that part of the Empire spoke Greek and it was more convinient to use. There was no linguistic standard for the Roman Empire in the same way American speak English but aren't English. Brazilians don't speak Brazilian and Chileans don't speak Chilean. Modern Greeks have more in common with the Eastern Romans than the Ancient Greeks and the modern Green identity is very young. That quote by the last Byzantine Emperor was due to an identity shift but it didn't last long in the sea of almost 2000 years of Roman identity. The modern Spanish or Welsh never called themselves Roman (though you have communities like the Romansh in Switzerland).

[@vonzuchter]

@@BorninPurple NO. They never spoke latin. At least the majority of the people. Only people of latin descent spoke latin for the first couple of centuries. Latin was only the official language up to a point when then the empire cut its ties with its Latin heritage keeping only the name. What they were referring themselves is IRRELEVANT. People if Northern Macedonia say they are macedonians... are they? No. They are mostly Slavic and Bulgarian. Saying the medieval and modern Greeks are romans is the same as saying the people of the former FYROM are ancient macedonias. Stupid.... Byzantine empire was a medieval Greek state after a point. We can debate wgen exactly did this happen. Most agree it happened when the empire lost all the areas populated with non greek speakers after the westerners conquered Italy and the Arabs Africa , Asia and Sicily. I would say it happened way before this. Latin culture was dead before the muslim conquests. Actually Latin culture never dominated the eastern part of the empire. Even when the emperors were real Latin Roman people still the empire was a greek world.

[@BorninPurple]

@@vonzuchter Latin and Roman are not the same. What about all the other places that didn't speak Latin? Egypt for example who spoke Coptic (where Latin didn't dominate)? Or Greek Speakers in the Middle East who survived after the Islamic Conquests? Or the Greek Speakers under the Ottoman Empire who were called Rum (which was the term in the Islamic world that everyone used). Roman identity became its own thing and wasn't defined solely as Latin speaking, that's an argument put firth by Anastasius the Librarian to discredit the Byzantine as Roman. This is despite the fact that the Eastern Romans had nothing in common with Ancient Greeks, and neither do modern Greeks. Language isn't an indicator of ethnicity or culture, otherwise everyone in South America would be Spanish or Portuguese and the United States would be called English, but we don't call them that because (though similar linguistically and culturally) they're not. Read Anthony Kaldellis work or listen to the History of Byzantium podcast (he hosts it).

[@vonzuchter]

@@BorninPurple Saying that modern greeks are related to ancient greeks is stupid. After 2000 years ofcourse they are not. Mycenean Greek world died ,then people were assimilated by the classical greeks. Then came the hellenistic era , then the Roman era , then the Byzantine era , then the ottoman era. Modern Greeks have the heritage of all these civilizations. Just like modern italians have the heritage of all the nations that inhabited the italian peninsula. Just like modern Turks have almost nothing Turkic left. Look at Turkic people in central asia or mongolia how asiatic they look. And look Turks and Azeris how Greco/Armenian/Persian they look. Byzantines were NOT romans. They just called themselves roman. Saying they were roman is just stupid. Had the romans killed everybody and colonized the area with italians , then yes byzantines would have been roman. But this did not happened. Eastern part of the empire remained a greek speaking world.

[@kimberlyperrotis8962]

I think a complicating factor is that many of the Eastern Provinces were not assimilated into Rome, by conquest or otherwise, until late in the Republican period, or early in the Imperial period. These areas had been significantly Hellenized by Alexander’s conquest and were still mostly Greek-speaking. To a certain extent, this part of the empire was Hellenic, with a superposition of Roman politics and culture, similar to the Anglo-Saxons of Britain for the first centuries after the Norman conquest. There was a core culture, in each case, that blended gradually with that of the conquerors. I know Greeks never considered themselves anything but Hellenes, after either of the conquests, by Rome and later, the Turks. Even after 400 years of occupation by the Turks, their influence is mostly limited to a few words, new foods, and other small cultural effects, like new musical instruments. They never became Muslim, spoke Turkish, etc., but remained Greek, always.

[@melihersoy9865]

Absolutely Eastern Rome.

[@angelosdaresis1477]

"With the collapse of the empire in the west, its eastern counterpart became, in reality, an entirely new and independent state, at once Greek by language and Roman in name: 'A Greek Roman empire'." Roderick Beaton, "The Greeks: a global history", New York: Basic books 2021, pp. 212

[@frankvandorp2059]

"Someone says it in a book, that means it must be true!"

[@angelosdaresis1477]

@@frankvandorp2059 At least he actually is an expert academic scholar... Naturally it is much more probable that what he says is true, than what a random guy like you says in YT...

[@TheManCaveYTChannel]

A new state that continues to practice Roman law, use Roman coinage like the solidus, continue to use titles such as Caesar, Augustus, Dux, etc, continued the official religion of Chalcedonian Christianity, continued to speak a language that had always been spoken in the eastern provinces (Greek), continued to be called Roman by their enemies, their allies and themselves…yeah that totally sounds like a new state.

[@angelosdaresis1477]

@@TheManCaveYTChannel "But the Byzantines did not understand this as a transfer of the capital; they conceived it as the transfer of the imperial rule, of basileia, to their city, to their land, thus actually creating a new state." Malatras, C. (2009) ‘The perception of the Roman heritage in 12th century Byzantium’ Rosetta 7.5: 1-8 "So, Elder Rome was rather different from New Rome, the Byzantines’ own Rome‘ἡµετέραν’." Malatras, C. (2009) ‘The perception of the Roman heritage in 12th century Byzantium’ Rosetta 7.5: 1-8

[@angelosdaresis1477]

@@TheManCaveYTChannel Anna Komnene states in the Alexiad, that the imperial rule has been transferred: "to OUR OWN LAND and OUR OWN IMPERIAL CITY and so did the primacy of the sees". (Μεταπεπτωκότων γὰρ τῶν σκήπτρων ἐκεῖθεν ἐνθάδεεἰς τὴν ἡµεδαπήν τε καὶ ἡµετέραν βασιλίδα πόλιν καὶ δὴ καὶ τῆς συγκλήτου καὶ ἅµα πάσης τῆς τάξεως µεταπέπτωκε καὶ ἡ τῶν θρόνων ἀρχιερατικὴ τάξις)

[@peterroberts7684]

Byzantium was both Greek and Roman,they were living ancients,ancient Greeks and Romans of antiquity ,surviving into the late Middle Ages.,the Western Crusader states were backward barbarians ,in comparison to Eastern Romans..

[@janeza382]

Byzantium was city . Christianity was from Macedonia. Cannons to rule are copied by Romans from ancient values as bad copy of Macedonian empire.

[@janeza382]

@@ΓάιοςἸούλιοςΚαῖσαρ You are Roman and Greece is not exclusive ancient Hellenic... Slavic and Greek are not nations but affiliation of Christianity.

[@sto_karfi842]

@@janeza382 Affiliations of Christianity? Dear friend the inhabitants of Laconia became christian at the end of 8th century.How can their national identity so far, be affiliated with christianity?I don't have any problems with Skopje being called Macedonia, but if they like it so why don't you demand union with greece, you would have ended in Greece what so ever if we did not choose to take Thessalonica instead of the greek/vlach Monastiri, your so called Bitola.And in the very end, the most important isn't what the ancient athenians say about the macedonias, but what the Macedonians thought for themselves, and in a time where slavic influence were an imaginary concept somewhere lost in slavic steppes, the Macedonians were already 100% greek according to themselves.

[@janeza382]

@@sto_karfi842 So you are Vlach now...

[@keyos1955]

@@janeza382 Christianity was from the Roman Empire. Came from Roman territories, was spread by Romans citizens inside the Roman Empire and became the official religion of Rome

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

Byzantine is made up term,they were eastern ROMANS.

[@Leoforos13]

The majority of the population was ethnic Greek. The eastern Roman Empire is part of the Greek history

[@Leoforos13]

@Jordan & Jordan You again. I am still waiting for the evidence you have because your proof is your own word. Which means that anyone who is not stupid will not believe you

[@Leoforos13]

@Jordan & Jordan you never answer because you know that you spread lies and you don’t know what to say

[@ISaidItIDidIt]

@@Leoforos13 not true. By your logic the Latins in the crusades were latins. People spoke Greek and Latin as official empire languages. Doesn't mean they were majority actual greeks.

[@Leoforos13]

@@ISaidItIDidIt Greeks are the majority in the region since antiquity. During the Byzantine era the population was Greek because this is where Greeks live

[@obabas80]

It is very simple really. The Hellenes came first. Their culture and civilization was unique and very advanced till after Alexander’s death, the Greeks wore themselves out with civil wars. The Romans came on to the scene and through their contact especially with the Greek colonies in southern Italy and Sicily, learned much from the Greeks. So much so, that after having conquered mainland Greece itself, the Romans respected and thought very highly of the Greeks and their civilization. The Romans were very powerful and completely “Romanized” and dominated once previously powerful cultures. The Gauls, dominated, romanized and even speak a Latin derived language. The Celts, crushed and Romanized to near extinction. England and the British isles, thoroughly romanized, the English language is almost half Latin derived. Hispania, practically completely romanized and with a direct romanized language borrowing. There are some examples, there are more. BUT, in the east, since Alexander and his campaigns, Hellenism was too powerful a force and though Rome administered the areas, they could not touch and penetrate the former Hellenic lands and the Greek language not one bit. However, their administration and laws did take hold, and the Hellenic peoples of the east did take on a “Roman” identity of sorts. Who would not want to take on the veneer of the illustrious Roman name and all the clout it brought with it? The Greeks did as they took control of the eastern Roman Empire. They were mostly purely Hellenic by ancestry and most certainly Greek in culture and language. The Romans could never penetrate and utterly “Romanize” the Greek lands as they had done in the west. The “Byzantine empire” is therefore more a fusion of Greco-Roman identity. It is the product of the incomplete and partial influence of Rome in the east due to Hellenic cultural supremacy in the east. Make no mistake, from the elite, to the average farmer, the “eastern Romans” were continuously aware of their differences and uniqueness of their “Greekness” from Rome in the west. They were however keen to adapt the Roman Empire name, but they always knew they were different. To claim they were simply “Roman” and no different than the west, is ignorant at the least, and brash and foolish at the worst for ignoring the intricacies of the history of the Roman Empire and the dozens of different peoples that lived within its borders. It is not and cannot be that simple.

[@obabas80]

@Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti yes, this is true. But don’t forget, this change in terminology by the Turks mostly occurred after nationalism and the formation of the modern Greek state in 1821. Prior to that, the Turks called all Greek speaking Christians as Rum, or the Rum millet, including those in ottoman occupied mainland Greece. The Greeks in Greece still to this day refer to themselves, often poetically as Ρωμαίος (Roman), but after nationalism took hold iin the modern era, we became the Hellenic Republic. Old imperial names I guess. Something similar like the term Ottoman no longer being used. The Greeks used to interchangeably use ‘Turk’ and ‘Ottoman’, but since the formation of the Turkish Republic, we no longer use ‘Ottoman’.

[@obabas80]

@Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti 👍👍

[@InHocSignoVinces5987]

If we could ask Constantine the Great what "Byzantines" were, he would say ROMAN.

[@sistematv4736]

c-p Rûm means "Roman" or "Greek", ėli means "land" and Rumelia (Ottoman Turkish: روم ايلى‎, Rūm-ėli; Turkish: Rumeli) means "Land of the Romans" in Ottoman Turkish. It refers to the lands conquered by the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans, which formerly belonged to the Byzantine Empire, known by its contemporaries as the Roman Empire (German historian Hieronymus Wolf coined the neologism "Byzantine Empire" in 1557, more than a century after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, in his work Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ.)[1] Although the term Byzantine Empire is used by modern historians, the empire's citizens and emperors called themselves Romans and embraced a Roman identity. Various languages in the Balkans have long used the descriptor "Roman" to refer to the lands of the former Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. Indeed, today the term survives in the region as Bosnian: Rumelija, Greek: Ρωμυλία, Romylía, or Ρούμελη, Roúmeli; Albanian: Rumelia; Macedonian and Serbian: Румелија, Rumelija and Bulgarian: Румелия, Rumeliya. The old Latin documents in Genoa use the term Romania, the common name for the Byzantine Empire during the Middle Ages. Originally, the Seljuks used the name "Land of the Rûm" (Romans) to define Anatolia, which the armies of the Seljuk Empire gradually conquered from the former Eastern Roman Empire after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. The Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate was called the Sultanate of Rum by its contemporaries, meaning the "Sultanate of the Roman Empire" or "Roman Sultanate", which mostly covered central Anatolia until the Battle of Köse Dağ in 1243. Afterwards, it was replaced by the Anatolian beyliks, among which the Ottoman Beylik rose to prominence in the 14th and 15th centuries and eventually became the Ottoman Empire. However, following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire into Anatolia and the Balkans in the second half of the 14th century and after the conquest of Constantinople (now Istanbul) in 1453 by Mehmed II, the term Rumeli ("Land of the Romans") came to apply exclusively to the Balkan region of the Ottoman Empire. The region remained primarily populated by Christians; though gradually, the Albanians, Bosniaks and Pomaks, among others, converted to Islam. Many grand viziers, viziers, pashas and beylerbeyis were originally from Rumelia.

[@iuiu8831]

One at last mentioned ALBANIA.

[@halflifeger4179]

Personally, I call it the Roman/Eastern Roman Empire up to around the death of Heraclius. Afterwards, it‘s the Byzantine Empire for me, because there is a very noticeable break in continuity with the 7th century Islamic conquests that heralded the beginning of the Middle Ages in the eastern Mediterranean. It‘s an artificial distinction, but a useful one.

[@vangelisskia214]

"After the Empire lost non-Greek speaking territories IN THE 7th AND 8th CENTURIES, "Greek" (Ἕλλην), when not used to signify "pagan", became synonymous with "Roman" (Ῥωμαῖος) and "Christian" (Χριστιανός) to mean a Christian Greek citizen of the [Eastern] Roman Empire. Roman, GREEK (if not used in its sense of 'pagan') and Christian became SYNONYMOUS terms, counter-posed to 'foreigner', 'barbarian', 'infidel'. The citizens of the Empire, now predominantly of GREEK ethnicity and language, were often called simply ό χριστώνυμος λαός 'the people who bear Christ's name'." Harrison, Thomas (2002). Greeks and Barbarians. New York: Routledge., p. 268

[@janeza382]

@Souleiman the Great Yes but western Rome was built on foundations of eastern Rome ;)

[@John-el.]

@@GloryToTheUnitedStates6037 nah we Greeks are fine with our ancestors being eastern Romans you can keep your city :)

[@theveryproudmoroccan2834]

@@GloryToTheUnitedStates6037 stfu.

[@theveryproudmoroccan2834]

@Souleiman the Great yes and no. We do have evidence that the roman Greeks called themselves both Greeks and Romans. There was a noticeable change during heraclius's reign which is the change of the official language from Latin to Greek and the hellenization of The eastern Roman empire. Also that Byzantine thing isn't Greek propaganda. It was a thing invented by historians of the Renaissance to distinguish the Greek speaking eastern Roman empire to the western one which was latinized. The eastern Roman empire was indeed the same state as the western one. But it became greeker with heraclius. But it was still roman though and we Helens called ourselves mainly roman since calling yourself an Helen was connected to being a pagan. I do acknowledge the fact that a united Hellenic people is a new concept. But that doesn't detach us from our ancient Greek and romanized Hellenic ancestors.

[@vangelisskia214]

"Eustathius of Thessalonica ; c. 1115 - 1195/6) was a Byzantine Greek scholar and ARCHBISHOP of Thessaloniki. disambiguates the distinction in his contemporary account of the sack of Thessaloniki by the Normans in 1185 by referring to the invaders with the generic term "Latins", encompassing all adherents to the Roman Catholic Church, and THE "HELLENES" AS THE DOMINANT POPULATION OF THE EMPIRE." Espugnazione di Thessalonica, Palermo 1961, p. 32

[@dillonblair6491]

They were still the Roman empire so thats irrelevant

[@vangelisskia214]

@@dillonblair6491 "With the collapse of the empire in the west, its eastern counterpart became, in reality, an entirely new and independent state, at once Greek by language and Roman in name: 'A Greek Roman empire'." Roderick Beaton, "The Greeks: a global history", New York: Basic books 2021, pp. 212

[@vangelisskia214]

@@dillonblair6491 "But the Byzantines did not understand this as a transfer of the capital; they conceived it as the transfer of the imperial rule, of basileia, to their city, to their land, thus ACTUALLY CREATING A NEW STATE. First and foremost, they considered themselves as descendants of Constantine the Great and not of Alexander the Great, David or Augustus." Malatras, C. (2009) ‘The perception of the Roman heritage in 12th century Byzantium’ Rosetta 7.5: 1-8

[@vangelisskia214]

@@dillonblair6491 "The Greek ideal that was revived in Byzantium surpassed the Roman ideal, which was left to the "Latins". a term that included without distinction the various peoples of western Europe who were treated as a compact set in opposition to the Greeks." "The Byzantine empire was clearly, despite its multinational dimension, a GREEK empire while its neighbours considered it so, and whose unity was based on the power of authority, in the dominance of Orthodoxy and the use of Greek as the official language." Sylvain Gouguenheim, "La gloire des Grecs", 2017, pp. 72,73

[@dillonblair6491]

@@vangelisskia214 None of this even contradicts or disproves my statement. They were still the roman empire. As they literally maintained continuity of government (literally the only part that matters) and survived until at least 1204. And literally any criteria you can apply to say the byzantines weren't roman, can apply to any country older than like 50 years. (And ironically even the western or United roman empire)

[@crustymcgee6580]

When did the ruling dynasties of Byzantium switch from being Roman to predominantly ethnically Greek? When did the language of political administration change from Latin to Greek?

[@crustymcgee6580]

@@God-Emperor-of-Mankind85 but did the political elite, including the military leadership, undergo an ethnic turnover from native Latin speakers to citizens from Greek-speaking communities? Or did the royal dynasties and elite political leadership preserve their Roman ancestry?

[@John-el.]

Greek was always the common language of the eastern empire, after heraclius latin fell out of use and became a minority language

[@TheManCaveYTChannel]

Not sure why that matters if being Roman was never an ethnicity.

[@platonathen6132]

in today's Turkey you can still find people with Roman roots. According to a genetic study, a large number of the population of today's Turkey still have Roman or Greek genes. in the course of time to better stand in the Ottoman Muslim Empire. many were adapted to Muslims the Ottoman culture learned the language and this as well as influenced the Ottoman culture. I come from the east of Turkey, we were forcibly integrated into Turkish culture and traditions. The process is currently still ongoing. Byzantines who have remained have been assimilated Terra Romanum

[@GloryToTheUnitedStates6037]

When I see "Eastern Roman Empire", I click. They were ROMAN. No such thing as a Byzantine Greek Empire. Nevertheless, great stuff as usual.

[@heroduelist9242]

Byzantine empire was a roman empire that became a greek empire especially after the 4th crusade

[@jackmack6217]

@@heroduelist9242 It never became a greek empire. It was a roman empire until the end, they just spoke greek, and most romans spoke greek. Even Gauis Julius Ceasar spoke greek.

[@heroduelist9242]

@@jackmack6217 Italy started as greek colonies where greeks were there for 600 years before Rome..Rome was an open city with 50% of the population being Greeks the rest were Etruscans..

[@jackmack6217]

@@heroduelist9242 Still? Doesnt make them greek? That makes zero sense? Spain today was once islamic but it the yarent islamic now? they are Spanish?

[@heroduelist9242]

@@jackmack6217 They don't make them Greek,Rome was a continuation of Greece..but the byzantines were all Greeks..from their kings to the common people

[@Bryon1187]

I've read Anna a couple of times - wrote my Master Thesis on the 1st Crusade, but never caught that unique use of Byzantines. Probably because I only read translations🙄😆

[@PetroniusArbiter66]

Great interview.

[@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449]

Thanks for watching!

[@PetroniusArbiter66]

@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 Do you sell those Sea Peoples sweatshirts?

[@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449]

@@PetroniusArbiter66 you bet I do! Proud to say it’s the most popular channel merch that I have!

[@wardafournello]

First we need to define what we mean by the word Roman. 1.A Latino 2.Resident of the city of Rome of various nationalities? ( by the way Rome is a Greek word Ρώμη =meaning power ,and the Greeks used to call themselves Romans ,Ρωμιοί, i.e. the strong ones). 3.A citizen with Roman citizenship of various nationalities?

[@joeshmoe8345]

One comment: he said we don’t call native Americans as Indians anymore, furthermore that they don’t call themselves that. I’ve seen this before where people say “Indian” is offensive to native Americans. This is wrong. I went to a powwow thing with a native friend at mission San Luis Rey in Oceanside, CA and they had a huge poster saying something like “welcome something band of Mission Indians”. I asked my friend about it because I’ve heard mentioned that this is offensive. She explained that it depends how it’s used, but generally Indian is just the most common term on and off the reservation. A Cocopah guy I knew had “Indian Pride” blasted on the front of his neck, like ear-to-ear and collar bone-to-chin huge tattoo. The idea that the term Indian isn’t used by Native Americans, much less that it is offensive, is a myth. Native Americans didn’t know what the fuck India was, it’s just an exonym to them. An interesting parallel is the term “West Indian”. It’s common and sometimes used by “West Indian” people themselves. No one says that’s improper or offensive or racist. And it would be ridiculous to say one wouldn’t call themself West Indian. On that note I always say Native American because it’s confusing as fuck to call non-Indians as Indians since awareness of actual India is now common. But it’s incorrect to say natives don’t use or even identify with “Indian”.

[@deorum-legions]

I look at it like this. If suddenly the eastern half of the United States collapsed (including Washington DC), but The west (with California as a supposed new capital) remained intact, does it cease to be “American”? Perhaps east coast and west coast US doesn’t have nearly the same cultural divergence as Rome and Constantinople. But it was all Rome. The fall of the west does not automatically make the east less Roman than it was the day before Odoacer’s conquest. This dichotomy between Byzantium and Rome may be rooted in an archaic scholarship of previous generations. But I am merely a fellow history enthusiast with a keyboard. I could be very wrong in my conclusions.

[@giannarosize]

In the next episode: "Western Rome" roman or Italian?

[@dimitrispvoice133]

It's just SO SIMPLE. But yet, some prefer to make an issue out of it ...some envious (and obviously unhistorical) people.

[@dimitrispvoice133]

@@trantorcapitalofthegalacti3173 I think what he meant is what it came to be in that area after the end of the Roman Empire, its cultural orientation and the effects of the great schism. They were Romans in the west as there were Romans in the East, yet they were divided as it is universally known. The one heavily influenced by Latin and Catholism (future Italy) and the other by Greek and Orthodoxy (future Greece). Despite the significant differences people still focus in what all of them were called, Romans, instead what they actually were, especially in Byzantium, majorly Hellenes and a minority of Illyrians, Armenians etc. Since some outsiders are a little confused, Greeks don't call themselves "Greeks", they never did, that's a Latin term, they call them selves "Hellenes"(from Helen of Troy) to this day. There were also still some people of old age time ago and during the Greek rebellion they called themselves "Romioi" (Romans) since they identify with that title as well. But for them, Romioi and Greeks were one and the same. It's written in books and even in places, like the place in Cyprus called "I Petra tou Romiou" (The Rock of the Greek).

[@dimitrispvoice133]

@@trantorcapitalofthegalacti3173 I would agree completely if we were talking about Greece's different historical periods. They are all different. But like I said, someone who is not greek (hellene) needs to understand that for the greeks the word "greek" and "Greece" doesn't exist, it never did. That's what's been called from foreigners through Latin. Since forever and to this day, "Greeks" call themselves "Hellenes" and call Greece "Ellada". That's its name, not a name that represents a historical period in Greece, but its actual name from the ancient times until now. The Hellenes (Greeks) of the East Roman Empire were calling themselves Romioi (since they were Roman citizens) but they were not considering themselves different than Hellenes.

[@dimitrispvoice133]

@@trantorcapitalofthegalacti3173 I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say the Romans or Rhomaioi were only greeks. I just said the Greeks of the Roman Empire called themselves "Romioi"(not Rhomaioi) which is a different way to say Romans and only applied to the Roman Greeks and by the Greeks. Rhomaioi though were how all the Roman citizens were called by Greeks despite background. So being a Hellene didn't mean you were necessarily Rhomaios and being a Rhomaios didn't mean you were necessarily a Hellene. During the Byzantine era however the majority of Rhomaioi were Hellenes (Romioi).

[@paulmayson3129]

​@@GloryToTheUnitedStates6037 The Romanity (Romaness) of the Modern Greek is not based only on the language, which is but merely one of the so many characteristics that were encompassed in that national and political identity. Even today the Modern Greeks call their Greekness (Hellenesmus) as Rhomiosene, which is the nature of being a Rhomios, meaning a Roman, hence the Modern Greeks still adhere to Romanitas.

[@martincristian4567]

To be more specific, Anna Komnena speaks about dacians and scythians too, not just byzantines. It is because more than a thousand years before, during the life of Herodot, there where some places called Byzantium, Dacia or Scythia, and Anna calls the people living in those places during her life using the names those regions had in antiquity. Its like somebody living today is not using google maps, but an atlas from 1900 and calls people living in Naples Sicilians because they live in the Kingdom of the two Sicilies.

[@tritonsa27]

This was indeed a great topic and reflection of the truth. Very good effort on bringing more understanding of a touchy subject.

[@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449]

Thanks for watching!

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

The true legacy of the Byzantine Empire is the majestic blending of our Ancient Greek identity with our splendid Christian Orthodox tradition. That is in fact, our heritage as modern Greeks. B B B B 🇬🇷 ☦️

[@TomSeliman99]

Did you forger about all those thracians, illyrians, Armenians leaders?

[@vangelisskia214]

"All through the Middle Ages the Byzantines considered themselves the guardians and heirs of the Hellenic tradition." Runciman 1970, p. 14

[@InHocSignoVinces5987]

This was Constantine's legacy. To move Roman civilization outside of its originating center. The Romans were rather effective in instilling Roman nationality in peoples who were not originally Italic. The eastern Roman Empire was the effective spread of Roman culture in lands wherein Romans did not live from the beginning.

[@colinc7842]

Wow, Johnny Depp really knows his shit. Jokes aside, this is a great interview 👍🏼

[@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449]

He does! Thanks for watching Colin!

[@jermainemoss7809]

Peace and blessings. Great show didn't want it to end. Will watch again lol. Thank you for the information.

[@vangelisskia214]

"The second Emperor of Nicaea, John III Doukas Vatatzes, wrote in a letter to Pope Gregory IX about the wisdom that "rains upon the Hellenic nation". He maintained that the transfer of the imperial authority from Rome to Constantinople was national and not geographic, and therefore did not belong to the Latins occupying Constantinople: Constantine's heritage was passed on to the HELLENES, so he argued, and they alone were its inheritors and successors." John Vatatzes, Ανέκδοτος επιστολή του Αυτοκράτορος Ιωάννου Δούκα Βατάτση προς τον Πάπαν Γρηγόριον, ανεβρεθείσα εν Πάτμω (= "Unpublished Letters of Emperor John Vatatzes to Pope Gregory, discovered in Patmos"), in Athinaion I (1872), pp. 369-378 (in Greek).

[@GLRAVGJSKSG-lr8bx]

We just inherited the administration of the empire.. Racially speaking we were Greeks( as always)... Not many Romans mixed up with Greeks at those times

[@dinos9607]

The term "Roman" started off as a city name, of the city of Rome. By extension it named also the tribal mix of Latins and Etruscans (and a few Greeks as per Romans' own admissions) which lived there, i.e. we could use it as a tribal term prior to Imperial times. By late Imperial times the term was strictly political denoting citizenship. When the Empire split, the term continued to be political denoting citizenship - there was never any notion of "Roman ethnicity". By mid-Middle Ages and with the loss of Egypt, Syria and Danubian regions the Empire was confined for the most in the Greek regions and as such de facto the high majority of Roman citizens were ethnic Greeks. Contrary to erroneous, propagandistic notions, the Greeks always considered themselves as Greeks and kept using the term "Hellenes" in spite of all talk about "Christians not wanting so". In reality the "anti-hellenes" rhetorics of earlier christians were confined in the Syrian and Egyptian east and were not even aimed at ethnic Greeks but rather the term "Hellenes" denoted all pagans, this, I underline, only in the eastern provinces. But we keep seeing casual usage of the term "Hellenes" in its ethnic sense in all times. By 1000 AD the term Hellenes (and its Latin equivalent "Graeci") is in full usage in its ethnic sense while also the term Roman, previously a political/citizenship term, takes on an ethnic sense denoting Greeks. E.g. the Bulgaria, Serbian or Armenian subjects of the Empire are not noted as Romans but rather mentioned with their ethnic terms, not to mention they were not even governed with the same laws as the Greeks. There was a clear ethnic delineation there. Things are much more simple than people want to make them. For the most it is the incapability and lack of will of western Europeans to understand the fact that Greeks, through the waves of history, inherited the political structure of the Roman Empire.

[@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ]

The ethnonym Greek was shunned and received negatively by the Eastern Romans. This is pretty commonly known, so where are you getting your facts that the Eastern Romans self-identified as Greeks? This is byzantinology 101; the term Greek and most things having to do with Ancient Greece were avoided because of their association with paganism. Even in the works of Anna Comnene, we see that she calls herself Roman and she calls the Ancient Romans Roman as well. While narrating the conquest of Greece by Rome, she calls the Ancient Greeks "Hellenes". Why did she not call herself a Hellene too if it were the number 1 choice of self-determination? Instead she self-identities with every opportunity as "Rhomaia". And how do you explain the fact that she refers to Koine Greek as "Hellenice Glossa" but she talks about the common vernacular Greek of her day as "Rhomaice Glossa"? It spits in one's face that there was a Roman consciousness among the Eastern Romans. There was a short-lived Greek revival among the aristocratic class in Constantinople owing to Latin pressure where some of the elite called themselves Greeks but it was interrupted and the upper brass never seriously entertained the notion about changing the Roman name and titles which they had been using to self-determine for 1.000 years. You talk about "Greeks" who were not Romans but your falsehoods would get you laughed out of a university classroom if you told them what you wrote here.

[@dinos9607]

@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ _The ethnonym Greek was shunned and received negatively by the Eastern Romans_ ... really? Did you find some Greek writer from Athens, Thessalonica and Constantinople saying so? Or are you gonna bring me non-Greek christians of Syria and Egypt using the term "Hellenes' for "pagans" and doing so there in the east and aiming at hellenizing Syrians/Egyptians rather than at ethnic Greeks. How serious is that? And even in Syria, did they shun the term "Greek" or "Yunan"? No. Why? As for Greece, we keep finding tons of texts with references to "Hellenes" which of course is not surprising at all. But it is moronic to expect to find descriptions of "Greek state" and "Greek people" in official texts when this was the Roman Empire. Similarly to USSR which would not speak of Russia and Russians but of USSR and Soviets. _so where are you getting your facts that the Eastern Romans self-identified as Greeks?_ You self-identify as per your ancestors. Eastern Romans considered as their ancestors Homer, Plato and Alexander the Great, not Seneca, not Cicero, not Titus Flaminius and not even Augustus who would get poor mentions as founder of the Roman state and only for that. The only Roman (him, biologically half-Greek but well...), who would get frequent mention was Constantine the Great. For apparent reasonsLOL! _This is byzantinology 101; the term Greek and most things having to do with Ancient Greece were avoided because of their association with paganism_ In official records. Sovietology 101. In any other text the terms Greeks/Hellenes appear as frequently as ever. _Even in the works of Anna Comnene, we see that she calls herself Roman and she calls the Ancient Romans Roman as well_ Yes she uses the S T A T E term. She was a Roman citizen. But at her time the term Roman was already on its way to being equated to ethnic Greek. I see however that you conveniently shy away from the fact that she also spoke of her ancestors.... and guess who she spoke about. LOL! Certainly not Sulla or Marius or Pompey! _While narrating the conquest of Greece by Rome, she calls the Ancient Greeks "Hellenes"_ So? She uses the term "Hellenes" to describe the Greeks of the ancient era and uses the term Romans to describe the Greeks of her ear. So what? Homer hardly ever mentions the name "Hellenes". He uses the term "Achaeans" instead. According to your twisted logic he does not speak of Greeks because he does not use the term "Hellenes". Listen, nations do use several terms even at the very same time. It is like saying Persians were not Iranians and Iranians are not Persians playing with words. Apparently according to you two nations populate Finland and Hungary, the Finnish and the Suomi and the Hungarians and the Magyars respectively. You do understand that your logic is insanity. _Why did she not call herself a Hellene too_ Why Russians officially self-identified as Soviets between 1917 and 1991? This is what you ask me. I repeat : at her time the term "Roman" was being equated to ethnic Greek. She also spoke of her ancestors. Go figure who these where. _And how do you explain the fact that she refers to Koine Greek as "Hellenice Glossa" but she talks about the common vernacular Greek of her day as "Rhomaice Glossa"?_ Hahahahah..... you literally answer yourself that! LOL! I told you time and time again. In her time, the term "Roman" was equated to Greek! For Zeus' shake, it can't be more evident than that. She decribed her own language (i.e. G r e e k ) as Roman. She used the term "Hellenes" in a historic context just like we speak of "Achaeans" in historic context. What is so difficult for you to comprehend? _It spits in one's face that there was a Roman consciousness among the Eastern Romans_ You are really not that smart are you? What is really your nationality? I really want to know because I am not impressed by your intellectual skills. The medieval Greeks continued to run the same Roman state that Augustus founded in 27 BC. Doing so they also u s u r p e d the Roman name and equated it to "ethnic Greek". Particularly after the loss of Syria and Egypt (but at times even before that), the very term "Roman" meant invariably ethnic Greek. Try finding a Bulgarian or a Serbian or an Armenian being described as "Roman". Good luck.

[@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ]

​@@dinos9607 A post filled by ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments and red herring logical fallacies. And you didn't really answer any of my questions or present any evidence to support your conclusions. When you are ready to be a big guy and converse normally, come back and we can tackle the subject-matter at hand. But given your behavior, not only I am not going to read your comment in full, but all your readers will close their minds to your message and outright ignore you. Believe me, behavior and choice of words has a big impact and when you speak with a childish tone, nobody will listen.

[@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ]

@@trantorcapitalofthegalacti3173 Σε ευχαριστώ για το σχόλιο. Σ' αυτή την εποχή παρακμής που διανύουμε, όλα να τα περιμένεις. Έχουμε γεμίσει μάστορες από όλες τις κατευθύνσεις.

[@dinos9607]

​@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ LOL! None of what you mention is a historical argument. Bring me evidence, not personal opinions. Did Eastern Romans mention their ancestors? Yes they did. Who were they? You know very well but don't dare say. Why? Because you care not about historical veracity but about propagandisation. I state clearly the state was Roman, the term was used initially as citizenship term and later on as an ethnonym of Greeks. You claim existence of a distinctive "Roman nationality". What was that really? Where was that? Did Slavic and Armenian subjects of the Empire carry that nationality? LOL! Nope. Only those who self-identified as Greeks self-identified as Romans. That they used the term "Roman" interchangeably with "Greek" is an old story but from 1000 AD onwards we can't find any non-Greek using this term to self-identify and we can't find any Greek or non-Greek calling "'Roman" a non-Greek. What is your problem with this historical reality? You have a different opinion? Bring on hard evidence. I suggest you start by the letters of Ioannes Vatatzes to Pope Gregory IX precisely because they discussed the exact same issue. All the rest of what you want to say is irrelevant as it is your own personal opinion.

[@michaelpatm]

What a non-question. As if when the Romans first conquered the Greek world (which would later be territorially almost identical with what became the Eastern Roman Empire) they transferred all the Greeks from their lands and replaced them with Romans. That would be the only way for the later Eastern Roman Empire to not be completely Greek.

[@michaelpatm]

@@trantorcapitalofthegalacti3173 the Greeks of Asia Minor, the Greek mainland, and the Aegean islands, three regions which would be the core (as in long-lasting part, especially the former) of the Byzantine Empire, need "definition" of whether they were Greek? Greeks had been living there and expanding since before the 8th century. That was ridiculous.

[@michaelpatm]

@@trantorcapitalofthegalacti3173 what a load of bollocks! Not only am I not talking about ethnic descent (wtf), but for cultural, linguistic, religious traditions, but even if I was, your last sentence is the most idiotic, non-scientific, non-existent notion I have ever read. I never argue on the internet, and I will not, but this was so utterly stupid, that I just simply had to waste these 1 minute to reply.

[@wankawanka3053]

@@trantorcapitalofthegalacti3173 by that logic literally everyone today is mixed

[@developer3406]

The Greek population in modern Ukraine is still known as Rhomaios or Tauro-Romaic, referencing the Byzantine Empire. I remember my grandfather speaking “Rumaika Ρωμαίικα” and referring to me as Rumeis.

[@wankawanka3053]

The majority was roman by law greek by blood

[@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ]

The majority were definitely not of Greek blood. The whole Roman Empire was mixed. Latin and Greek were the main common tongues of the Roman Empire. So tens of millions who had neither Greek or Latin descent spoke these languages. Latin-based languages are spoken by hundreds of millions of people nowadays, that does not mean that they are all descended from Latium, in Italy. Eastern Romans were mainly Greek-speaking, but not of Greek descent.

[@wankawanka3053]

@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ the majority were the greek especially after the loss of africa cope

[@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ]

@@wankawanka3053 Because you say so? They were not Greek. They were a multi-ethnic state whose nationality was Roman. Being Greek was irrelevant to the Roman citizenry. Only being Roman mattered. The two main languages of Roman society were Latin and Greek. Just like in Canada, English and French are spoken by Canadian citizens, regardless of their ethnic background. The one coping it seems, is you.

[@wankawanka3053]

​@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ doesn't change the fact that the majority was greek 😂 even the non greek dynasties ended up become greek by marriages with greeks take the Macedonian dynasty for example 😌

[@wankawanka3053]

​@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ eep coping

[@cabellero1120]

Roman, of course Byzantium was pretty much Rome, East Diocletian wanted to expand the empire. Constantine The Great, Emperor of Rome Scouted out new territories for what remained of the Roman Empire.

[@ramsaysnow9196]

They weren't byzantines that's for sure!

[@dimitrispvoice133]

Yes, because they were greek :). To this day, older Greeks call themselves Romioi, which means Romans, the hellenistic way they used to call their selves in Byzantium(whatever it left from the Roman Empire)

[@davidconnon1214]

SAMA, thank you for this fascinating discussion. I found Dr. Jeroen W.P. Wijnendaele to be clear and concise in his explanations.

[@mirros945]

19:48 "fastest ticket to the jail, call him the emperor of the greeks" that quote made my day haha! Good one! In my opinion its worth noting that when it comes to empires, it means that the whole population of it is made of many other nations, after all this is what an empire is, huh? Its super complicated, for example where I come from, the city's history is mostly related to the roman times since it was something back then (Abritus) and also its where Trajan Decius found his death(also his son died there so 2 emperors died at the same time?). So that area played a huge part of the Roman Empire's history, this is where it starts to collapse slowly, yet at the same time I dont think we consider ourselves Romans today, right? Thats why Im confused when someone says the ERE. is greek? yeah, but its borders were so huge. I understand the fact they've addopted the greek language back then, but Im just trying to say that every contry in the region should be partly considered a successor of the ERE. Im pretty sure when my fellow bulgarian horsemen settled where we are today lots of 'romans' remained there. Same applies to Nicae, Western Balcans, Cyprus and so on. Also I think its worth mentioning something about the Orthodox christianity and the role it played in forming the ERE as an empire in such episode or perhaps its worth some 30 more minutes of a separate episode! Anyone, thanks for the video guys. Havent been reading a lot historical articles recently but this one felt good!

[@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449]

Thanks for watching friend and that part made me laugh out loud. Hahahaha.

[@michaelm-bs2er]

It's a null point. The reason why you'd be put jail for saying such a thing political; not because they were really "Romans", but because those words themselves would be a challenge to the legitimacy of the Emperor. It's a seditious statement. It doesn't mean that they sincerely considered themselves Romans in the truest sense of the word.

[@mr.angelosonassis3069]

'Rhomaioi' was always the self-designation of the descendants of the late Roman Empire. In the “Romaic Grammar” by E. A. Sofocles, published in 1842, we read on page iii of the preface: “Romaic, or, as it is often called, modern Greek is the language spoken by the modern Greeks.” On page iv in the same preface we read: “The revolution of 1821 has restored the ancient appellation ‘Ellines’, but as it is used chiefly by the inhabitants of Bavarian Greece, who perhaps do not constitute more than one-fourth of the Greek nation, it may safely be said that the mass of the people still call themselves Romeii and their language Romaiki.” Even today, the designation of Rhomaioi is often used.

[@OmegaTrooper]

The Byzantines are the ultimate ship of Theseus

[@janeza382]

...for the west

[@piedmontatl]

There was no such thing as the "Byzantine Empire". That was a title devised by historians in the 1800s. It was always the Roman Empire.

[@tyranosaurusrex8781]

Even today the Greeks call themselves Romans (Romios)

[@tyranosaurusrex8781]

@@ΛαβύρινθοςτηςΜέδουσας We are not Romans we are also Romioi

[@iuiu8831]

But SPOKE ALBANIAN LANGUAGE

[@tyranosaurusrex8781]

@@iuiu8831 A few

[@wankawanka3053]

@@iuiu8831 albanian language is fake

[@mydogsbutler]

??? Greeks know we called ourselves Romans but don't call ourselves Romans today.

[@Louis-tr6uc]

Problem: Russell Means, famous American Indian writer, actor, politicians (he also ran for USA president years ago) wrote an entire paper on how he refused to be called a "Native American" but insisted that he's an American Indian. He said that Native American is a term created by the federal government. He said that when the European came over here they called his people Indians, that for centuries the Europeans fought his people as Indians. That the name American Indian holds awe and fear and history and that Native American is nothing. Mind you that back in the 1960s he and like 8 others from his Indian tribe took over Alcatraz with nothing more than a few knives and bows and arrows and held it for a few days until the federal government sent in the military. That was because the USA government had leased Alcatraz Island from those Indians for a certain amount of years but when that lease over the USA government refused to return that land to those Indians. He also said that when his people reclaim all of their lands here they'll do it as AMERICAN INDIANS not as "Native Americans".

[@costasvrettakos]

It was nor Greek or Roman. It was the new Christian way of things. It was maybe a tiny bit more Greek than the "older" Roman empire if you consider they worshiped the same gods same architecture philosophy and upper class was speaking Greek... The civilisation is called Greco-Roman after all, much before Constantinople. Also almost none of the emperors of Byzantium were of Greek ethnicity.

[@vonzuchter]

Almost all emperors after the 10th century were Greek or Anatolian Greek or Armenian or even of Illyrian descent. The latin culture has dissapeared by then. Ofcourse they still selfidentified as Roman. But Roman they were not

[@costasvrettakos]

@@vonzuchter which is the Latin culture that disappeared and which is the Greek culture that kept Going on? Other than used language.

[@christospanagopoulos5821]

Was the roman state of the Greek nation. So simple.

[@philpaine3068]

I think we should take our cue from Life of Brian, and call it the Wohman Empire ---- even though people in it spoke Gweek.

[@spiritchannels]

"He has a wife, you know. Her name is Incontenentia... Incontenentia Buttocks..."

[@BettiVB]

Very informative! Loved it. Thank you

[@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449]

Thanks for watching Betty!

[@Leoforos13]

The empire was Greek. The people were Greeks and they spoke Greek

[@alashiya9536]

@Jordan & Jordan bs

[@alashiya9536]

These people referred to their realm as Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων. The empire was equally Greek and Roman. On the one hand, this was the Eastern half of the Roman Empire, the part that never fell in 476AD. It carried on with the Roman legal, financial and social structure. It had the same world view and followed the Christian religion not the pagan Greek religion. The ancient Greek spirit had been dealt a great blow by the late Roman worldview, using Christianity as it's main weapon. On the other side, this part of the empire encompassed the entirety of the Greek Peninsula and Aegean islands, as well as Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt, areas that were Hellenized since Alexander and his successors hundreds of years earlier, but with some regions like Ionia and the Pontus having greek presence a lot earlier. So in short this was a land inhabited by Greeks and Hellenized peoples who spoke the Greek language but over the centuries of being part of Rome and as adopters of Christianity, wanting to shake off their pagan roots, they came to adopt the Christian Roman identity instead. The Eastern neighbours of the Byzantines, the Persians, Arabs and Turks all called them Rum which means the Romans. Also the Greeks of Asia Minor indentified as Romioi up until the 20th century. The issue of the greekness of Byzantinium is something that Greeks still argue about to this very day and, being true to their Greek roots, it is certain that they will carry on arguing over this for centuries to come.

[@manichaean1888]

So, you suggest that in Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Tunisia they also were Greek-speaking Greeks?

[@Leoforos13]

@@manichaean1888 Greeks were the majority in the Balkans and Asia Minor. In Syria and Palestine the Greeks were a large minority and Tunisia was not part of the empire

[@MarkVrem]

@@manichaean1888 Greeek means people that speak the Greek language. It wasn't an ethnicity back then, it was the language of commerce. Language of the Mediterean Sea and all the coasts that surround it. Latin was administration mostly. Merchants and people that want to make money spoke Greek, even if you lived in Rome.

[@sakellarioudimitris7439]

Not only us Greeks but all Orthodox of every race, nation and language!

[@19angela71]

Of course, people of Byzantine Empire considered themselves Romans. They considered themselves Romans even under the Ottoman Empire. The fact that Greek people finally recalled that their culture is more ancient than just Roman culture could be attributed to the War for independence and...Lord Byron who certainly contributed to the revival of Ancient Greek culture.

[@vonzuchter]

no... Greeks never considered themselves Romans. It is just a name. The language was always greek , the religion was greek orthodox. We still use the name Romios just like the name Grekos and Hellenes. In fact the Byzantines hated everything that had to do with the Latin culture after the division of the churces. Romans was just a name

[@19angela71]

@@vonzuchter I am not trying to undermine the national feelings. I just thought that the war for Independence played a crucial role in a national and cultural awakening of Greece. Finally, Greek got their own state and stopped thinking in terms of being a part of a great Empire.

[@DarkSlayer010]

Next, Dr. Russell Crowe on the history of the Assyrian Empire.

[@belialord]

Yes

[@pero33403]

The Bible (New Testament) was written in Greek. St. Paul was writing to the Romans in....GREEK, not Latin.

[@anonymousb.l.x.2331]

No they were Greek. And the fact that they viewed themselves as Roman doesn't mean anything. Modern Macedonians view themselves as successors of the Ancient Macedonians but they are slavs, and have nothing to do with them

[@carlosaugustodinizgarcia3526]

The same way people from Quebec are not Canadians and Corsicans are not french? Byzantines were romans but not Latin Romans.

[@sgeosg]

@@carlosaugustodinizgarcia3526 the culture was greek the language greek the heart of the empire was mainly inhabited by Greeks but it was an empire with other ethnicities also

[@hermonymusofsparta]

Bad comparison. The Modern North Macedonians have no connection. The Byzantine Empire is a direct continuation of the same polity with no break.

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

Every single Muslim on the planet calls them Rome because of the Quran. It's only western European Christians who argue the Romaness of the Eastern Romans. Even some people in modern Levant and Egypt and even Turks call themselves Roman sometimes in their language for geographic reasons. The word Byzantine until recently didn't exist in the Arabic language. Or other languages in the Muslim world. They were Roman. On the basis that the Byzantines called themselves "Romans" by nationality I call them Romans. They maybe multi-ethnic and multi-cultural. But if you ask all the contemporaries every single last one of them would identify ethnically as something but their nationality as Roman. Some people in the region still call themselves Roman in whatever language translatable to it. I am sure at least 1 person spoke Latin in 1453 and in Ottoman times. Many people called themselves Roman and foreigners have been seen calling them Roman. So they must be Roman. Just because that's what they called themselves by nationality all the time back then. If you want to be pedantic than call it the Eastern Greco-Roman empire.

[@stefanodadamo6809]

When did people from the East begin to refer to themselves as Romans? Probably about the times of Ammianus Marcellinus. It was probably the shock of barbarian aggression, that the Greek world hadn't experience in, like, half a millennium(!), coupled with official Christianization and the sacralizaion of the imperial office that pushed Greeks to onsider themselves "Romans", not so much in the sense of "Latins", but in the sense of "imperial subjects/citizens" opposed to the "barbarians" who weren't. In tiem they were less and less "Hellenes", confining the word to mean "pagans clinging to the old gods", and more and more "Romans", that is persons fully integrated in the official set of practices and beliefs of the late empire.

[@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ]

Absolutely. It was Christianity coupled with the integration into the Roman state mechanism which led to the Roman identity of Greeks. Another factor to consider, and I know that this sounds odd, but the Greeks considered Latins a "Greek" race which had been conquered by Italic outlanders. Some Latins also suspected that they were related to Greeks as well. It helped that the Romans borrowed Greek culture, too. Anyone who wasn't a Latin or Greek was a barbarian. Latins and Greeks were the Romans.

[@stefanodadamo6809]

@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ there's a kernel of truth, in the sense that the Greeks kept memory of a time when the Magna Graecia colonies were overrun by Italic confederations and partly destroyed or forced into alliance with them. This is mentioned already in Herotodus, and for a time expedtions were sent to italy tio support the Greel cities, like that of Alexander Molossus (cousin of the Macedon) and later of Pyrrhus of Epirus.

[@barbaralucas1220]

This was brilliant! Love history so much. Thank you for your work sir!

[@djcorvette8375]

"Roman" is much more than an ethnicity. its an idea. they were Roman and Greek

[@trantorcapitalofthegalacti3173]

They were not Greek. The Eastern Roman empire was simply too ethnically diverse to be simply categorized as being Greek. "Byzantium" was indeed a Greek-speaking state, but as is too often the case too many forget that it was not always officially Greek-speaking. At one point, Latin was also an administrative language. And the ethnic components of the state mainly comprised a great variety of different groups. The only point in its history that the Greek ethnic group begins to dominate affairs is after the 14th century after which Anatolia and other Mediterranean provinces are utterly lost and just parts of Greece and ancient Thrace remain.

[@jackmack6217]

@@trantorcapitalofthegalacti3173 if they were greek explain why when Emperor Charlemagne sent a diplomat to Constantinople and said diplomat called the emperor nicephorus a Greek emperor which was a affront and a insult which resulted in a complete diplomatic dispute between HRE and ERE.

[@fr.sokratisdimitriadis3987]

The confusion comes from the fact that when a layman hears the term "Eastern ROMAN Empire" he thinks that it means from Rome, that is, LATIN. But this Empire was Greek, not Latin. After the 2nd c., when Roman citizenship was given to all the residents of the Empire, everybody was a Roman and Roman did not mean Latin any more but had an international meaning (i.e. citizen of the Empire). The Byzantine Greeks, especially the Emperors, wanted to keep the prestige and privileges that came with holding the claim to be the continuation of the Roman Empire and called themselves Romans in the general meaning of this term. Anyway, they held a clear distinction of their ethnic identity from the Latins and were even fierce enemies of the Latins for most of the 1000 years of their history. In the West, the Frankish Empire (Charlemagne) first and then the Holy Roman Empire (German), both of which were not Latin, held the claim to be the real continuation of the Roman Empire and started to call the Byzantine Empire as "the Greek Empire". So, I think it keeps things more clear if we distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the Roman Empire and so it helps to continue calling it BYZANTINE.

[@GHST995]

Rome conquered Greece but the Greeks conquered the Romans.

[@KeithShuler]

Well said, the Byzantines placed a premium on all things Greek.

[@KeithShuler]

@@God-Emperor-of-Mankind85 O God, the omniscient one, I yield to your incomprehensible knowledge. You have given me true Gnostic teaching and I feel as if I'm becoming a god.

[@mak_m3788]

Byzantium is a later term, last couple of centuries and it comes from The place the empire was located. Eastern Roman Empire is Greek. The wrote Greek, the spoke Greek, Greek names, Greek religion, Greek bishops, Greek saints, Greek names of the churches, they identifies as Greeks, the Turks until now Call the Greeks Rom, as in Roman and Yunan. Tha later refers to Ionia, what we now call Asia Minor. It was all Greek. The names have been changed so it can appear otherwise. Any educated person knows that it was Greek. The major temple, Hagia Sophia bares a Greek name. Why would anybody construct the greatest architectural building of that time, and name it with a name of a different people? Why would their major weapon be called Greek fire and not Roman fire, or Byzantine fire. God gave you a brain, put it to work

[@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ]

Nope. The names were a combination of Latin, Jewish and Greek names. Even until today, the names of the modern Greeks are a combination of either Latin, Jewish or Greek names. Some of the Latin names in use today are Romanos, Constantine, Aimilios, Markos, Marios, Claudios, Adriana. The Jewish names are ones such as Michael, John, Anna, Emmanuel, Thomas. I won't go into the Greek names, because they are mostly Gregory, Theodore, George, Leo. There were other minority names in use, such as Armenian names, Lydian names. The eastern Romans had two national languages: Latin and Greek. These two languages were used heavily. Latin began to lose ground only after the 7th century as the the northern Balkan provinces which spoke Latin were taken away from the Empire. That is not to say that there were not still big areas remaining where citizens were still speaking Latin until about the 9th century, but eventually Greek became more useful for all Roman citizens. The overwhelming body of these citizens were not of Greek descent. Many ethnicities existed within this state even until the late 12th century AD. Greek was the national language very much like how English is the main language of Americans. The Hagia Sophia does bear a Greek name, but it was built by the Roman Empire. At a time of the Empire in particular, when the state was still speaking Latin alongside Greek. This was during Emperor Justinian's reign. The army, government and administrative services were speaking Latin, but the Christian Church always used Greek (even in the Latin-speaking provinces). This is why the Hagia Sophia got a Greek name and not a Latin one. Nonetheless, it was still built by the Romans, and employs Roman engineering principles in its construction. The Hagia Sophia is nothing like an ancient Greek building. It is thoroughly Roman, and the proof is in its design which relied heavily on Roman building techniques. The part where you say that the eastern Romans had "Greek religion" is downright hilarious. Judeo-Christianity is an ecumenical religion adopted by the Romans as the state religion of the Roman Empire. There is nothing Greek about this religion, aside from the language used to render the Church's services. Christianity is above all else a Judaeic religion adopted by the Romans, thanks to Constantine and Theodosius and Justinian more than anyone else. Nothing Greek here. "Greek" fire is again a misnomer. Only the Europeans Germanic kingdoms sponsored by the Latin-speaking Pope of Rome called it Greek fire, from which most sources get the name. The eastern Romans themselves called it either Roman fire, sea fire or liquid fire. Greek fire is again not the correct name. Your claim again that all educated people think that the medieval Roman Empire is Greek is utter nonsense. Most educated people do not call the eastern Romans Greeks. Most know that eastern Rome continued Roman traditions and culture and it was not Greek anymore in many ways. Even the old ethnonym Greek was not in use. Most people realize that the "Byzantines" are Romans, and *NOT* Greeks.

[@mak_m3788]

@@ΡωμαϊκόνΠύρ so many inaccuracies that I won’t bother, have a great one

[@susytomable]

Thank you!

[@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449]

Most welcome!

[@ThomasGazis]

The usual "leftist", nation-nihilist propaghaanttaa that the predominantly Greek Byzantium was "Roman", with no Greek constituents! In his propaaghandistiicck fervor though to call Byzantium "Roman" this Dutch professor commits a MAJOR error! He states that until the 7th century CE the people in Asia Minor were speaking Latin, but from that century onwards they SUDDENLY changed their mother language and started speaking Greek! Apart the absurdity of such statement, the people in Asia Minor never spoke "en masse" Latin! Greek has always been the "lingua franca" in that region (till the Turks invaded and usurped it)!

[@fank72001]

He missed a few points such as that the religion was Greek orthodox and defined the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (or Byzantium) more than anything else. Greek was the main language and the Greek culture dominated it. Even if they called themselves romaioi they were actually Greeks.

[@BorninPurple]

This is actually nonsense and based on arguments by Anastasius the Librarian e.g. The Eastern Romans weren't Roman because they spoke Greek. There was never a linguistic requirement for being Roman. These people were Roman, their land was called "Empire of the Romans", "Polity of the Romans" or Romania which means "Roman Land". For all intents and purposes, they were Roman.

[@vonzuchter]

@@BorninPurple No they were not Roman. They were 'Roman' until the muslim conquests. After that it was basically a medieval greek state. Greek people were the dominant culture almost all regions with non Greek speaking population were gone. Everybody else in the western world called them Greeks. They called themselfs romans but roman identity was gone centuries ago. Even today we use the term Romios. The germans called their empire Holy Roman Empire. This does not mean they were roman. What I am saying is that its diffent what they called themselves and what they actually were. If they were Romans then we modern greeks are Romans which sounds 100% ridiculus and it is. Language and culture stopped being Roman after the Latin language was abandonded and after the Greek orthodox church became the official religion. I never understood why this is even a debate. They were a medieval greek empire that selfidentified as Roman. Its as simple as this.

[@BorninPurple]

@@vonzuchter linguistics is not an excuse, there was no language requirement for being Roman, in the same way Americans who speak English aren't English. Your making the assumption that they would be if we looked back 200 years from now. Language isn't a signifier for ethnicity. You can speak a language and be another ethnicity. They don't speak Brazilian in Brazil or Chilean in Chile. The Islamic world referred to them as Roman, they were identified as "Rum-I-millet" under the Ottomans. Romios is a term now for an Orthodox Christian who abides by the Patriarch in Constantinople. Even with your line of argument that isn't true. They abided by Roman law, a Roman military system and Roman culture. The only people who didn't call them Roman were the West who tried to prop up the Holy Roman Empire. The people called themselves Roman because they were.

[@fank72001]

@@BorninPurple it is not only linguistics. The whole culture was Greek. What do you mean by roman? That they were Italians? They were Greeks calling themselves roman among others because they were part of the Eastern Roman Empire. As the slavs were slavs and the armenians were armenians, the greeks were greeks. They didn't suddenly change their identity.

[@BorninPurple]

@@fank72001 the Greek culture stopped existing well into the Roman Empire. The Romans assimilated Greek elements but the Eastern Romans and Ancient Greeks were culturally different on so many levels. Customs, clothing, identity, military, law etc were different. The only thing that was consistent was the language which we've just agreed isn't a sole signifier.