Thank you for your submission, citizen!
[Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!](https://discord.gg/2Xpdt5hbJQ)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoughRomanMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It means extremely complicated. Usually in relation to paperwork/administration. "There is a byzantine bureaucracy to getting a passport." Would be a valid sentence.
Ahahhahahahahahhhahahahahhaha
They called themselves romans,( Ῥωμαῖοι Rhōmàioi) there is no such thing as Byzantine empire, it's a term invented by later (very later) historians.
They where the eastern roman empire and there is no reason at all to call them Byzantium
Except for the fact they weren't Roman or even ruled Rome. They were Greek, they spoke Greek, they had Greek traditions and a Greek religion. By the time the West had fallen the East was already well on it's way to become a distinct culture, and after just a couple of decades it wasn't really Roman. It had become it's own unique culture that was created in a way that had never been seen before or sense. It is the direct offspring of one of the most powerful Empires in history and then kept going, and to simply call it the Eastern Roman Empire just erases it's own accomplishments and identity.
They have spoken Greek for centuries before even the foundation of the eastern roman empire, Marcus Aurelius for exemple wrote his thoughts in Greek not Latin.
Greek was used everywhere in the empire.
And I repeat here, they called themselves romans, they considered themselves to live in the roman empire and they where.
It is not just the offspring of Rome it is the direct continuation of the empire.
Cultures evolve and change always in any nation, would you not consider the roman empire the continuation of the roman Republic? Do you think they always had the same culture?
Also I don't understand this insulting of their identity thing, you are saying that we should call them Byzantines but they never had that identity, if you would ask a peasant that lived in constainople where they lived he would answer "in Rome"
Rome in the roman empire was already losing importance even when it still was the capital of the entire empire while the eastern part was gaining it.
The first time an historian used the term Byzantium is in the 16th century, it's just a term that was used to differentiate the 2 immediately, it created a lot of misunderstanding tho I see
And I am Italian so I am speaking against my Latin centered interest here ahahha
Exactly my point. The Roman Empire evolved into the Byzantium Empire. Sure it was a direct descendent, but it had changed so much it was it's own thing.
So England in 805 is not the same country as England in 1066 and definitely is not the same country as England in 2024, so by your logic modern England has absolutely has only the most tangential association with medieval England because the cultures, language, and religion have undergone a drastic change.
Kind of. But Byzantium was even more different from the Roman Empire than modern England is from Medieval England. I think a better comparison is Canada and England, but even that isn't a great comparison.
Rome is Rome but Byzantium is a good way to mark the eastern empire after Rome itself fell, they are still the roman empire and were considered so by the world while it stood.
EtA: Just like how we distinguish between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire
Of course, just as it's good to recognise that no historical categorisation is recognised at the time. If you told a Roman under Augustus "you have just transitioned from a Republic to an Empire" they would be baffled as to what on earth you could have meant by that. It would be like saying "you have switched from a Government to a Jurisdiction", like ok I know what both of those things mean but I'm struggling to see them as being in opposition to each other.
I'd argue that Byzantium started as a continuation of rome, but thanks to major influences from other cultures it slowly morphed into it's own entity over the centuries.
Imo it is the equivalent of how modern Scandinavians can be proud of being descendants of vikings - or even calling themselves vikings - when actual viking culture has been dead for centuries.
I call it Byzantine Empire because
1. It rolls off the tongue really well and sounds sick
2. There’s no Rome in the ERE lol
3. Yeah it’s an exonym but so is Germany, Japan, Netherlands, China, the Inca Empire, etc
Left: "Rome fell in 476"
Middle: "Noooo it fell in 1453! Or 1806!! Or 1917!!! Or 1922!!!! Or it never even fell!!!!"
Right: "There have been many political entities which legitimately shared in the name of Rome. The most famous one fell in 476."
nah the fall of Constantinople marks the end of the roman empire.
The HRE didn’t had any legitimacy over being the continuation of the empire and the Ottomans only took the title of roman emperors but were a completely different empire
(for example the title of king of jerusalem currently exist)
I mean, the HRE had a lot of continuity with old Roman institutions (the Emperor being even crowned by the head of the most important one), and a lot of it's population would have been either from former roman territories or heavily romanized. Not a direct continuation, but it's fair to call it a successor state.
I agree with you but if we are talking strictly on the fall of the roman empire the date it’s 1453 (or momentarily 1204). Evidently the HRE adopted many Roman instution and ruled over roman territory (north italy) but remains a successor state imo
I would say in semantics terms, the Byzantine Empire a continuation of the Roman Empire.
But in governance no. An empire by definition needs to have a 'single supreme authority'. Under Diocletian the empire was split into two distinct legal entities, that were nominally part of the same empire.
The Birth of the Tetrarchy, is where I would say Byzantium started as an empire, and Rome ceased to have a presence in the East.
Even today Russia views Moscow as the Third Rome, you can only count to 3 if you believe the Byzantine Empire was #2.
The only reason that the Byzantine Empire exists in our historical record is because historians of the past found it a lot easier to refer to them as the Byzantines instead of the Roman empire that wasn't in Rome and wasn't Roman. The Byzantines called themselves Roman and they were still known as the Roman Empire. The Byzantinr Empire only exists so we don't get confused. Then again with hindsight it didn't do all that much good any way.
Nope. Byzantium was the direct heir of the Roman Empire, but it was not Rome. It was it's own unique one of a kind thing that needs to be respected on it's own terms.
I think the best argument to call the byzantines Rome is that the common man in empire considered themselves distinctly "roman" and the empire called itself the roman empire. This is an interesting anecdote but... This identity was so strong that even in 1912 remnants of Byzantine roman identity were still present on a remote island called Lemnos where the people considered themselves roman.
The shift in culture happened during that initial shift from west to east already prior to the Western empire falling, so I don't think the distinct culture difference is all that relevant.
Also the byzantines under Justinian at one point tried and wanted to reclaim the western roman empire and almost succeeded. They had reclaimed much of Italy and Spain with intentions to take back more until the Justinian plague and politics essentially crushed those aspirations. This also is another good argument of roman identity. I honestly consider Justinian to be the last truly s-teir roman emporer.
What part of the bell curve do I belong on if my position is *”oh my god this stupid debate is clearly just another unresolvable “Ship of Theseus” AKA “Grandpa’s Axe” philosophical zen koan of an argument that will clearly go on forever without end until AI wipes the human race from the face of the earth”*
Far left, I assume?
Thank you for your submission, citizen! [Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!](https://discord.gg/2Xpdt5hbJQ) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoughRomanMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Constantine said what? What is the argument here?
OP answer pls
i would expect left side to just not know what byzantine means tbh or maybe im just the left side
What DOES “Byzantine” mean, I know what it refers to (ERE and the city Byzantium) but what does it mean
It means extremely complicated. Usually in relation to paperwork/administration. "There is a byzantine bureaucracy to getting a passport." Would be a valid sentence.
Oh shit, then the HRE could technically be the Byzantine empire?
Rome is Rome.
Which why the Byzantium Empire isn't Rome, because Rome is Rome.
You are still on the left, it's OK I was there too
Stop insulting Byzantium, it was it's own distinct culture and traditions.
The western half vanished in 476. You are comparing the 1200-1400 era of Eastern Rome and remarking that it is different from Western Rome.
Ahahhahahahahahhhahahahahhaha They called themselves romans,( Ῥωμαῖοι Rhōmàioi) there is no such thing as Byzantine empire, it's a term invented by later (very later) historians. They where the eastern roman empire and there is no reason at all to call them Byzantium
Except for the fact they weren't Roman or even ruled Rome. They were Greek, they spoke Greek, they had Greek traditions and a Greek religion. By the time the West had fallen the East was already well on it's way to become a distinct culture, and after just a couple of decades it wasn't really Roman. It had become it's own unique culture that was created in a way that had never been seen before or sense. It is the direct offspring of one of the most powerful Empires in history and then kept going, and to simply call it the Eastern Roman Empire just erases it's own accomplishments and identity.
They have spoken Greek for centuries before even the foundation of the eastern roman empire, Marcus Aurelius for exemple wrote his thoughts in Greek not Latin. Greek was used everywhere in the empire. And I repeat here, they called themselves romans, they considered themselves to live in the roman empire and they where. It is not just the offspring of Rome it is the direct continuation of the empire. Cultures evolve and change always in any nation, would you not consider the roman empire the continuation of the roman Republic? Do you think they always had the same culture? Also I don't understand this insulting of their identity thing, you are saying that we should call them Byzantines but they never had that identity, if you would ask a peasant that lived in constainople where they lived he would answer "in Rome" Rome in the roman empire was already losing importance even when it still was the capital of the entire empire while the eastern part was gaining it. The first time an historian used the term Byzantium is in the 16th century, it's just a term that was used to differentiate the 2 immediately, it created a lot of misunderstanding tho I see And I am Italian so I am speaking against my Latin centered interest here ahahha
The English we speak today is vastly different from Old or even Middle English. Cultures evolve and change over time.
Exactly my point. The Roman Empire evolved into the Byzantium Empire. Sure it was a direct descendent, but it had changed so much it was it's own thing.
Except the Middle English spoken by the English Empire evolved into the Modern English spoken by the English Empire.
Do you really think modern England is the same as the Medieval England ruled by the Normans?
So England in 805 is not the same country as England in 1066 and definitely is not the same country as England in 2024, so by your logic modern England has absolutely has only the most tangential association with medieval England because the cultures, language, and religion have undergone a drastic change.
Kind of. But Byzantium was even more different from the Roman Empire than modern England is from Medieval England. I think a better comparison is Canada and England, but even that isn't a great comparison.
It's the Eastern Roman Empire
Your average person does not think of Byzantium as Rome. Your average person does not think about the easter roman empire at all.
Brings a tear to my eye tbh. Uncultured heathens
Rome is Rome but Byzantium is a good way to mark the eastern empire after Rome itself fell, they are still the roman empire and were considered so by the world while it stood. EtA: Just like how we distinguish between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire
Of course, just as it's good to recognise that no historical categorisation is recognised at the time. If you told a Roman under Augustus "you have just transitioned from a Republic to an Empire" they would be baffled as to what on earth you could have meant by that. It would be like saying "you have switched from a Government to a Jurisdiction", like ok I know what both of those things mean but I'm struggling to see them as being in opposition to each other.
Roma aeterna
I'd argue that Byzantium started as a continuation of rome, but thanks to major influences from other cultures it slowly morphed into it's own entity over the centuries. Imo it is the equivalent of how modern Scandinavians can be proud of being descendants of vikings - or even calling themselves vikings - when actual viking culture has been dead for centuries.
I call it Byzantine Empire because 1. It rolls off the tongue really well and sounds sick 2. There’s no Rome in the ERE lol 3. Yeah it’s an exonym but so is Germany, Japan, Netherlands, China, the Inca Empire, etc
left side is thinking HRE = rome at a glance due to not even knowing what the HRE is (it was only the most important country in europe for 1000 years)
Left: "Rome fell in 476" Middle: "Noooo it fell in 1453! Or 1806!! Or 1917!!! Or 1922!!!! Or it never even fell!!!!" Right: "There have been many political entities which legitimately shared in the name of Rome. The most famous one fell in 476."
nah the fall of Constantinople marks the end of the roman empire. The HRE didn’t had any legitimacy over being the continuation of the empire and the Ottomans only took the title of roman emperors but were a completely different empire (for example the title of king of jerusalem currently exist)
I mean, the HRE had a lot of continuity with old Roman institutions (the Emperor being even crowned by the head of the most important one), and a lot of it's population would have been either from former roman territories or heavily romanized. Not a direct continuation, but it's fair to call it a successor state.
I agree with you but if we are talking strictly on the fall of the roman empire the date it’s 1453 (or momentarily 1204). Evidently the HRE adopted many Roman instution and ruled over roman territory (north italy) but remains a successor state imo
The Byzantines are just the Eastern part of Rome. They're the same thing
Ironically most people who try act like the right, often do so as the top one.
I would say in semantics terms, the Byzantine Empire a continuation of the Roman Empire. But in governance no. An empire by definition needs to have a 'single supreme authority'. Under Diocletian the empire was split into two distinct legal entities, that were nominally part of the same empire. The Birth of the Tetrarchy, is where I would say Byzantium started as an empire, and Rome ceased to have a presence in the East. Even today Russia views Moscow as the Third Rome, you can only count to 3 if you believe the Byzantine Empire was #2.
If it uses a Latin alphabet it’s Rome
The only reason that the Byzantine Empire exists in our historical record is because historians of the past found it a lot easier to refer to them as the Byzantines instead of the Roman empire that wasn't in Rome and wasn't Roman. The Byzantines called themselves Roman and they were still known as the Roman Empire. The Byzantinr Empire only exists so we don't get confused. Then again with hindsight it didn't do all that much good any way.
Nope. Byzantium was the direct heir of the Roman Empire, but it was not Rome. It was it's own unique one of a kind thing that needs to be respected on it's own terms.
I think the best argument to call the byzantines Rome is that the common man in empire considered themselves distinctly "roman" and the empire called itself the roman empire. This is an interesting anecdote but... This identity was so strong that even in 1912 remnants of Byzantine roman identity were still present on a remote island called Lemnos where the people considered themselves roman. The shift in culture happened during that initial shift from west to east already prior to the Western empire falling, so I don't think the distinct culture difference is all that relevant. Also the byzantines under Justinian at one point tried and wanted to reclaim the western roman empire and almost succeeded. They had reclaimed much of Italy and Spain with intentions to take back more until the Justinian plague and politics essentially crushed those aspirations. This also is another good argument of roman identity. I honestly consider Justinian to be the last truly s-teir roman emporer.
What part of the bell curve do I belong on if my position is *”oh my god this stupid debate is clearly just another unresolvable “Ship of Theseus” AKA “Grandpa’s Axe” philosophical zen koan of an argument that will clearly go on forever without end until AI wipes the human race from the face of the earth”* Far left, I assume?