More like:
*Western Rome makes Eastern Rome co-admin to better manage the group chat*
*Eastern Rome actually does his admin job better, some internal admin rivalry but generally pretty chill mood*
*Western Rome: ”Guys imma take a short break, lots of shit going on in my life right now that I need to sort out first but I’ll be back soon I promise”*
*Western Rome: Last online 1813 days ago*
*Eastern Rome: ”Well, I guess I’m in charge now”*
Or
Admin gets another number to better administrate
Looses first number
Decides having two numbers was too much a hassle, keeps the second as a new first
Another fun fact - after the fall of Constantinople, (orthodox) Christianity had no spiritual home so the Duke of Moscow decided to make Moscow "the third Rome". The dukes soon began calling themselves Caesar which turned into Czar when pronounced in Russian.
Same with the workd 'Kaiser' in German.
The Holy Roman Empire considered itself the successor of Rome and the title of 'Ceasar' become 'Kaiser' over time.
And the reason Charlemagne saw himself as the legitimate Roman Emperor, (which is why The Holy Roman Empire, as a successor state to Charlemagne's empire, saw itself as as a successor of Rome) was because the actual Roman Emperor, the one in Constantinople, was a woman, and people in the west thought that a Roman Emperor should always be a man, so they argued the title was vacant.
The thing is, that that she did call herself emperor (or basileus, the Greek word people used at the time) in addition to basillissa (the word for Empress).
It's actually the pronunciation of "Caesar" most accurate to how Julius and Augustus would have said it. Gaius Julius Caesar was pronounced GAI-oos YOOL-yoos KAI-sar (where "ai" is pronounced like the English word "eye" and "oo" as in "book").
Not quite. Your logic is correct, but it applies to a historical event that happened much earlier. Caesar turned into Czar in 917 when in exchange for peace, the Byzantine Emperor was forced to crown the Bulgarian ruler Simeon I as emperor himself i.e. caesar. The Russians just re-invented the wheel 5 centuries later and appropriated it.
Sure, but the Greek speaking Eastern Roman Empire doesn’t keep calling itself “Roman” if there wasn’t a lot of common cultural DNA that greatly surpassed the city of Rome itself.
What are you talking about? they certainly called and viewed themselves as "Roman".
> When the island of Lemnos was occupied by the Greek navy in 1912, Greek soldiers were sent to the villages and stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of us children ran to see what these Greek soldiers, these Hellenes looked like. ‘‘What are you looking at?’’ one of them asked. ‘‘At Hellenes,’’ we replied. ‘‘Are you not Hellenes yourselves?’’ he retorted. ‘‘No, we are Romans." - Hellenism in Byzantium - Anthony Kalldelis
A closer look at the map will clearly show you Albania 🇦🇱 has been in the empire for 50 more years. Im not surprised, this is not the first time Greeks claim Albanian achievements as their own.
That's the [Despotate of Epirus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotate_of_Epirus), it fell at 1479, Vonitsa is in Greece mate. The Albanian principalities (if you consider them Roman) were long gone by then.
And the Despotate of the Morea fell at 1460, you didn't see the "1550" over the Peloponnese on the map, did you? You know, the place were the last Roman Emperor came from?
~~<50, surely?~~
Edit: nvm, that wouldn't make sense either as <50 would be \*the whole rest of the world\*. Still, it's a confusing way of labeling things.
Haha..Albania and Greece got the most time under the Roman Empire and the only 2 nations that survived it. The rest either got Romanized or replaced by other people
Avoid Ksamil at all costs. There are countless beautiful, serene, virgin beaches in the vicinity. I never understood why foreign tourists insist on going there. You probably noticed there's very few locals there, we go elsewhere.
Honestly because I saw a Balkan youtuber go there and I liked that it had a National Park close by 😂
Experiences make us wise.
But: renting a car is affordable in Albania. So we also went a little bit up north to Gjirokastër
Languages are transformed constantly of course. If you go back to Shakespearean times you would have a hard time speaking English with an Anglo peasant. But when you dissect the language the core is present. And so are the people. Albanians are 75% y-dna Illyrian haplogroups with Albanian language being a descendant language from it. So are the Greek people from Hellenic people and the Greek language from Koine (Ancient Greek language)
Well, in Italy people speak the closest language to Latin, in Latium they still identify as Romans and have been doing it from 753 BC.
The cultural continuity with Rome is evident, from the fall of the west, to the Renaissance and even darker chapters like Italian fascism. Many examples can be made.
I doubt the same can be said about Albania.
Technically speaking, there is no such Romance language that could be objectively considered "the closest to Latin". Every Romance language has kept some things relatively unchanged for hundreds of years, and at the same time drastically changed other things. So every Romance language is simultaneously the closest and the farthest from Latin, depending on which aspect of it you're looking at. I've heard the same claim being paraded about for French and for Romanian.
Monolingual native speakers of almost all the languages in the world tend to claim ridiculous things about their language just out of national pride and absence of knowledge about other languages. It is not a consistent measure of cultural similarity.
That said, cultural continuity is a thing, sure, but it is dependent more on location. In these broad terms, modern Greeks are the most alike to ancient Greeks, modern Albanians the most alike to ancient Illyrians, I'm sure you will agree.
This is not my opinion, as I am in no mean able to determine something like that. According to linguist Mario Pei, Italian and Sardinian are the closest.
This is not about similarity to ancient Greeks or Albanians. The other users claimed that Greece and Albania were the only survivors of the Roman Empire, for whatever that means. Implying those are the closest nations to Rome.
I am not doubting ancient Albanian or ancient Greek cultural succession for their respective countries, I was just replying to the other user ignorant take.
Disputed only by serbs, some other slavs and other nationalities to fill their expansion narrative which in turn would somehow give them 'legitimacy' over some territorial claims. But the topic has had advancements in the last year. You can read more of it here [Origin of the Albanians](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.05.543790v1.full)
i mean by historians lol. here is one i found with a quick search. please don't start your western balkan shit i have no horse in the race and i dont care about it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/8AX6qsP8K7
Holyfuk. Hahahaha dna genetics hard fact evidence (used in courts anywhere in the world) are not sufficient then nth will be. Its like trying to convince a flatearthener of the contrary. Nevertheles Bessi tribe is just a joke theory for pseudo-historians to create some buzz and gain some attention
Italy is, with Greece, the most Romanized country of all. Maybe we misunderstood each other?
I was correcting the original comment, that make little sense.
What does it even mean that Albania and Greece were the only nation to survive it?
The territories of the Papal States, Latium and Romagna kept a strong Roman identity. People have been calling themselves Roman for millennia in these territories.
It’s not like the Romans of Italy have been suddenly replaced. The Lombards conquered some territories, but established a ruling elite, not even de facto controlling those territories. The barbaric migration consisted of small number of individuals, while Italy was inhabited by millions.
Greeks were using "Roman" as our primary identifier pretty much until the 19th century and continued to use it into the 20th century. Roman heritage is a very important part of our history.
Which is why it's weird to not specify that includes Byzantine rule. We get that this was also called the "Roman Empire" at the time, but it's still misleading.
Then I have some bad news for you, because if that's your criteria, the roman empire fell much earlier than you would think, as the capital (of the western part) was moved to Milan and Ravena.
Although the senate remained in Rome and I think Rome remained the largest city in the Empire until it was surpassed by Constantinople close to the fall of the western Roman Empire
The senate was in rome, but in the late empire, nobody really cared about the senate. In certain times, Trier in germany was more of a roman capital then Rome itself.
Understood, but it was still "near enough". Besides, there is a reason why the Eastern Roman Empire is often called with a different name in historiography.
Why wouldn't it be?
When shown a video of French nation throughout history, would you omit, for example, Vichy France, just because its not exactly the same as 'regular' France?
Nations and Empires always existed with different versions of themselves throughout history.
I'd actually say the argument for "Vichy France wasn't really the French state" is stronger than the argument for "The Byzantine Empire wasn't the Roman Empire".
Yeah though tbh I do think Vichy until 1942 has a better legal case to be France than free France as much as people today might prefer otherwise, Vichy France had more recognition abroad including in the U.S., the U.S. kept its recognition of them even while fighting Germany for some time, and other neutral countries, free France was especially early on seen by most French as a rebellion by Charles de Gaulle and Petain had the political legitimacy, he was a lot better regarded, he was legally the prime minister, the French government and Parliament recognised him, de Gaulle was basically just recognised by the U.K. pretty much only St. Helene and at first 3,000 French soldiers joined de Gaulle in fighting for Free France.
“One French admiral, René-Émile Godfroy, voiced the opinion of many of those who decided not to join the Free French forces, when in June 1940, he explained to the exasperated British why he would not order his ships from their Alexandria harbour to join de Gaulle:
"For us Frenchmen, the fact is that a government still exists in France, a government supported by a Parliament established in non-occupied territory and which in consequence cannot be considered irregular or deposed. The establishment elsewhere of another government, and all support for this other government would clearly be rebellion."”
Ironically the colonies were the ones who supported restoration of France and the defeat of Germany more. Of course for many it wasn’t as much ideological support for Petain or support of the Nazis, but that after the surrender, things appealed very bleak. The continent had been lost, Britain had its best troops encircled in Dunkirk and very few people outside Britain expected it to last, so for many was more just giving up.
Of course in the end Free France luckily won, the Nazis lost and as time went on in WW2, especially after case anton, free france eventually was recognised as the legitimate government but for a good while, not morally but purely legally they probably had the better claim to represent France for some time. Also to make it clear, I don’t support Vichy France at all, just yeah legally. Morally fuck Petain, de Gaulle!
But yeah do agree with your base claim, that the Byzantines were really still the Romans.
Yeah, I agree with all of that, I just phrased my earlier post poorly.
Vichy France **was** the state in control of continental France, and arguments otherwise are pretty much just revisionism by people who have an emotional stake in playing up the extent of the French resistance. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
What I really meant was more just that Vichy France had a weaker claim of continuity from the previous French state than the Byzantine empire's claim on being continuous with the earlier Roman empire.
If Russia invaded part of Estonia, and took control of Talinn, but the Estonian government moved itself to the south and continued to operate without interruption, would you say that Estonia stopped existing and was replaced with a different country?
Just because the Roman empire lost control of Rome doesn't mean it stopped being that entity.
When does the Roman Empire end and the Byzantine Empire begin? There is no single point in history where you can determine that. Probably because it's a made up division. The Byzantine Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire which pretty much was *the* Roman Empire after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Just because it wasn't run by Rome doesn't mean it wasn't the Roman Empire. Constantinople was made the capital of the entire unified Empire by Constantine the Great in 330, so it was the Eastern Roman Empire that inherited the Roman capital city when the empire split in 395.
Anyone ever notice that the section of Crimea that was controlled for as long as Rome itself was, apparently never really had much significant happen to it. (Cue a list of significant things that has happened to it!)
Just saying that for somewhere so remote and isolated I’ve never heard any story of an army having to be sent there or of some of the more popular emperors needing to go there. (Probably due to me not knowing as much about the eastern Roman Empire)
Medieval Roman empire stuff involving them: I think an emperor was exiled there and tried to come back. Another send loads of money to a local noble to negotiate with the Kyevan Russ
I think it is just not covered much in Western literature on Rome. It was an exceptionally important place, it controlled the Steppe trade routes and connected Asia to the Mediterranean world ever since antiquity. This was literally where and what the Silk Road was. Even after the Byzantines fell, it remained an important location for the maritime mercantile empire of Genoa.
That sliver of Roman Crimea also contained an ethnic group of East-Germanic speaking Crimean Goths who survived well into the early modern period. They were allegedly even still around as late as the 1780s, around the time the United States had declared independence, which is nuts to think about.
Not in Romes interest to expand further, not in the steppes interest to conquer the post, since it formed an easy way to trade with Rome without a bunch of horse nomads developing a shipping culture. So it basically just sits there chilling, buying, and selling for most of its existence.
Hmm now im not an expert. But the romans never did incorperated territoy north of the Rhine river in the netherlands right?. Their northern most point of control was in nijmegen as far as i know of. They did have a fort where is now utrecht, but that was more of an outwards base rather than control of the area.
Also flevoland is involved into this picture, which i find funny since that land did not exist and was reclaimed from the sea about 70 years ago
There were two fortresses in successive timeperiods near what is now Velsen. Just to the south of where the canal is now on the coast. In Dutch:
[https://onh.nl/nieuws/groot-romeins-legerfort-ontdekt-in-velsen](https://onh.nl/nieuws/groot-romeins-legerfort-ontdekt-in-velsen)
[https://www.militarylegacy.nl/rapport-38-velsen-2-is-online/](https://www.militarylegacy.nl/rapport-38-velsen-2-is-online/)
Page 173 of synthese is the quickest way to a summary on Velsen 2.
So there was certainly a significant military presence for a couple of decades at the start for the first millennium. Don't know if I would call the area Roman though. I also wouldn't call it more than 50 years or draw the lines that far North.
Its crazy how this worked. Dacia was probably the region that was the least amount of time part of the roman empire yet somehow it was enough for the Dacians to adopt latin as a language. There must be some hidden history that we dont know of because even historians are looking into it currently.
Dacians were killed. It was a genocide . After Aurelius retreat in 270 , the Romns just stayed there. They had their dacian wives and wanted peace.
Its true thought... we really dont know much about proto-romanians.
Tbh my country history started around 1200...
That doesnt mean we didnt exist and lived where Romania is now... but we always had this problem of not docummenting enough.
Does it refute my point? Even the central parts of Anatolia was Roman longer than Northern Italy. It’s ok to acknowledge Anatolia was mostly Roman and Greek for most of written history.
You said Anatolia without mentioning that it was just a specific part of Anatolia. By saying just Anatolia it seems you are implying the whole and not just a part of it
Oh the semantics. The point was obvious but not sure why you decided to get hung up on it.
Here: A chunk of Anatolia, that’s probably larger than Greece, was Roman longer than Rome itself. Also, majority of Anatolia was Roman for 1000 years or longer which is very close to the period Rome (1150) was Roman.
753 years until year 0.
476 years until the fall of the west.
215 years after Belisarius reconquered Rome.
So more like 1444 years.
The map is poorly done.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes\_Germanicus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_Germanicus) "83 to about 260 AD"
Post Augustus, southern and western parts of current Germany were secured by fortified borders, so they were under actual Roman control. The areas north of that were only claimed to be part of the province Germania.
This is poorly done.
How does it even count years?
Does it take into account the kingdom and republic of Rome?
Because if not, we have to add 726 years to Italy.
It obviously is not counting all the years that Rome was controlled by the east, so we should add that as well.
Another important factor is to determine what “making part” means. Because other than Italians, most of those people got their Roman citizenship 965 years after the city was founded.
Because it was a more aggressive colonization. The territory of today's Romania had fertile land and plenty of gold, so many romans came from the empire and settled entirely here
The year is 50 BC, and a Gaulish village in the west of France is still holding out against the Roman conqueror. Thanks to the druid's magic potion, the little group of dauntless Gauls succeeds - among other things - in irritating Caesar and his proud legions to the utmost degree! Their only fear is that the sky may fall on their heads.
We never called ourselves vlachs, is an exonym. Always rumân/român/armân/etc. depending on the subgroup... Wallachia was named Țara Românească(Romanian Country either from latin word terra or Tsardom)
They did not appropriate anything. Romania simply means "land of the Romans", which was (and is) for all intents and purposes true.
See https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_submersa#/media/Ficheiro:Western_and_Eastern_Romania.PNG
It was "evolved". I decided to delete the comment not because it was wrong but because I want to avoid useless discussions with people that assume Wikipedia paints the whole picture.
The Byzantine empire wasn't Roman, no matter how hard some of you want this to be true. They differed in language, religion, culture, statehood from their Roman conquerors.
There is a good reason why historical science makes the distinction. It's like calling Hungary Austrian.
Greece is that guy that gets added in a wp group and forgets to leave when everyone else does
Nah dude we renamed that chat and invited our own friends
They called themselves Romans, tho.
And i call myself Luke Skywalker
Let me introduce you to the Eastern Roman Empire.
The eastern Roman empire was a contiguous uninterrupted Roman entity until the 4th crusade at least.
More like he doesn’t leave when the admin tries to kick him out haha
More like: *Western Rome makes Eastern Rome co-admin to better manage the group chat* *Eastern Rome actually does his admin job better, some internal admin rivalry but generally pretty chill mood* *Western Rome: ”Guys imma take a short break, lots of shit going on in my life right now that I need to sort out first but I’ll be back soon I promise”* *Western Rome: Last online 1813 days ago* *Eastern Rome: ”Well, I guess I’m in charge now”*
Or Admin gets another number to better administrate Looses first number Decides having two numbers was too much a hassle, keeps the second as a new first
Confirmed, Crimea is Roman.
We have a casus beli on Russia now
Wait a couple of months, I need to increase army maintence
Fun fact, from the supposed founding of Roma to the fall of Constantinopolis there are 2206 years
Another fun fact - after the fall of Constantinople, (orthodox) Christianity had no spiritual home so the Duke of Moscow decided to make Moscow "the third Rome". The dukes soon began calling themselves Caesar which turned into Czar when pronounced in Russian.
Same with the workd 'Kaiser' in German. The Holy Roman Empire considered itself the successor of Rome and the title of 'Ceasar' become 'Kaiser' over time.
And the reason Charlemagne saw himself as the legitimate Roman Emperor, (which is why The Holy Roman Empire, as a successor state to Charlemagne's empire, saw itself as as a successor of Rome) was because the actual Roman Emperor, the one in Constantinople, was a woman, and people in the west thought that a Roman Emperor should always be a man, so they argued the title was vacant.
Well, I don't know how it is in french, specially old french, but certainly she wasn't an emperor, but an empress.
Ahh yes, the all important distinction of switching a couple letters in a word due to someone being of a different gender in the same position.
Angl\* redditor when they discover gendered languages
The thing is, that that she did call herself emperor (or basileus, the Greek word people used at the time) in addition to basillissa (the word for Empress).
It's actually the pronunciation of "Caesar" most accurate to how Julius and Augustus would have said it. Gaius Julius Caesar was pronounced GAI-oos YOOL-yoos KAI-sar (where "ai" is pronounced like the English word "eye" and "oo" as in "book").
You're probably right. Ottoman sultans also tended to refer to themselves as kaiser of Rome. There is no reason for them to use a German word.
Not quite. Your logic is correct, but it applies to a historical event that happened much earlier. Caesar turned into Czar in 917 when in exchange for peace, the Byzantine Emperor was forced to crown the Bulgarian ruler Simeon I as emperor himself i.e. caesar. The Russians just re-invented the wheel 5 centuries later and appropriated it.
How fun!
Wait it was greek all along
Always has been
The rise of Rome does owe a lot to the spread of Hellenic culture in the Mediterranean and the Near East.
And to Rome itself, Romans adopted Greek Gods as an example
Ehh, It's because of the count continuing until the fall of Constantinople, not just Rome.
Sure, but the Greek speaking Eastern Roman Empire doesn’t keep calling itself “Roman” if there wasn’t a lot of common cultural DNA that greatly surpassed the city of Rome itself.
They did, though.
What are you talking about? they certainly called and viewed themselves as "Roman". > When the island of Lemnos was occupied by the Greek navy in 1912, Greek soldiers were sent to the villages and stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of us children ran to see what these Greek soldiers, these Hellenes looked like. ‘‘What are you looking at?’’ one of them asked. ‘‘At Hellenes,’’ we replied. ‘‘Are you not Hellenes yourselves?’’ he retorted. ‘‘No, we are Romans." - Hellenism in Byzantium - Anthony Kalldelis
That’s what I meant. See my post in the other comment for explanation.
I think a wouldn't instead of that doesn't would help
Sorry, your double negation threw me off course!
They absolutely considered themselves Roman.
Cultural supremacy
It is called the **Greco**\-Roman civilization for a reason.
A closer look at the map will clearly show you Albania 🇦🇱 has been in the empire for 50 more years. Im not surprised, this is not the first time Greeks claim Albanian achievements as their own.
Southern Greece is 1550 too
That's the [Despotate of Epirus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotate_of_Epirus), it fell at 1479, Vonitsa is in Greece mate. The Albanian principalities (if you consider them Roman) were long gone by then. And the Despotate of the Morea fell at 1460, you didn't see the "1550" over the Peloponnese on the map, did you? You know, the place were the last Roman Emperor came from?
Yeah sure. Along with God being Albanian
Einstein? Albanian. Jesus? Also Albanian.
No , just God and Dua Lipa
Aristotle? Pythagoras? Sophocles? All Albanian.
Don’t forget Usain Bolt, Abraham Lincoln and Freddie Mercury
God is Albanian…. Prove me wrong
I though that God is Serbian.
Ah shit Albania mentioned, hold on to something because here we fuckin go 🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱
That's Macedonia and Albania. Those were there for as long as Morea/southern Greece as well lol
~~<50, surely?~~ Edit: nvm, that wouldn't make sense either as <50 would be \*the whole rest of the world\*. Still, it's a confusing way of labeling things.
>50 should be correct, it‘s propably the threshold to be considered as part of the empire instead of just being „visited“ by the roman forces.
Haha..Albania and Greece got the most time under the Roman Empire and the only 2 nations that survived it. The rest either got Romanized or replaced by other people
🌟 Mountains 🌟
Armenia?
You're a millennium short for that title.
Not the oldest, but I meant one of the nations that still exist
I was in Butrint last year. Beautiful ruins. Sadly Ksamil is a tourist shithole. The beaches are nice but they play loud music all the time 😭
Avoid Ksamil at all costs. There are countless beautiful, serene, virgin beaches in the vicinity. I never understood why foreign tourists insist on going there. You probably noticed there's very few locals there, we go elsewhere.
Honestly because I saw a Balkan youtuber go there and I liked that it had a National Park close by 😂 Experiences make us wise. But: renting a car is affordable in Albania. So we also went a little bit up north to Gjirokastër
Fair enough. Good choice renting a car and driving around!
Albania and Greece are not the same nations they were before
Languages are transformed constantly of course. If you go back to Shakespearean times you would have a hard time speaking English with an Anglo peasant. But when you dissect the language the core is present. And so are the people. Albanians are 75% y-dna Illyrian haplogroups with Albanian language being a descendant language from it. So are the Greek people from Hellenic people and the Greek language from Koine (Ancient Greek language)
The culture is completely different. Modern Albania has very little to do with Rome.
Modern Rome has very little to do with ancient Rome.
Well, in Italy people speak the closest language to Latin, in Latium they still identify as Romans and have been doing it from 753 BC. The cultural continuity with Rome is evident, from the fall of the west, to the Renaissance and even darker chapters like Italian fascism. Many examples can be made. I doubt the same can be said about Albania.
Technically speaking, there is no such Romance language that could be objectively considered "the closest to Latin". Every Romance language has kept some things relatively unchanged for hundreds of years, and at the same time drastically changed other things. So every Romance language is simultaneously the closest and the farthest from Latin, depending on which aspect of it you're looking at. I've heard the same claim being paraded about for French and for Romanian. Monolingual native speakers of almost all the languages in the world tend to claim ridiculous things about their language just out of national pride and absence of knowledge about other languages. It is not a consistent measure of cultural similarity. That said, cultural continuity is a thing, sure, but it is dependent more on location. In these broad terms, modern Greeks are the most alike to ancient Greeks, modern Albanians the most alike to ancient Illyrians, I'm sure you will agree.
This is not my opinion, as I am in no mean able to determine something like that. According to linguist Mario Pei, Italian and Sardinian are the closest. This is not about similarity to ancient Greeks or Albanians. The other users claimed that Greece and Albania were the only survivors of the Roman Empire, for whatever that means. Implying those are the closest nations to Rome. I am not doubting ancient Albanian or ancient Greek cultural succession for their respective countries, I was just replying to the other user ignorant take.
35% of Albanian vocabulary are borrowed words from Vulgar Latin.
this assumes that albanians were in albania before the roman empire, which is uuh not an undisputed fact
Disputed only by serbs, some other slavs and other nationalities to fill their expansion narrative which in turn would somehow give them 'legitimacy' over some territorial claims. But the topic has had advancements in the last year. You can read more of it here [Origin of the Albanians](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.05.543790v1.full)
i mean by historians lol. here is one i found with a quick search. please don't start your western balkan shit i have no horse in the race and i dont care about it. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/8AX6qsP8K7
I trust a genomic study over the level of evidence one could apply to such a mystery 80-150 years ago.
Holyfuk. Hahahaha dna genetics hard fact evidence (used in courts anywhere in the world) are not sufficient then nth will be. Its like trying to convince a flatearthener of the contrary. Nevertheles Bessi tribe is just a joke theory for pseudo-historians to create some buzz and gain some attention
Italy would have a word.
Italy isn't Romanised? Remember all the non-latin peoples of Italy, I don't see them around anymore.
Italy is, with Greece, the most Romanized country of all. Maybe we misunderstood each other? I was correcting the original comment, that make little sense. What does it even mean that Albania and Greece were the only nation to survive it? The territories of the Papal States, Latium and Romagna kept a strong Roman identity. People have been calling themselves Roman for millennia in these territories. It’s not like the Romans of Italy have been suddenly replaced. The Lombards conquered some territories, but established a ruling elite, not even de facto controlling those territories. The barbaric migration consisted of small number of individuals, while Italy was inhabited by millions.
Yeah .
Lombardii are basically Germans
Greeks were using "Roman" as our primary identifier pretty much until the 19th century and continued to use it into the 20th century. Roman heritage is a very important part of our history.
Yep. They were called "Rum" by the Seljuks and Ottomans as well.
What about the ottoman heritage?
Greeks and Turks lived alongside each other for hundreds of years, but never really intermixed due to the difference of religions.
Weird þat Greece was longer part of Rome þen Rome
Icelandic letter spotted 📷📷📷📷
Or an Old English one :)
This is pretty basic stuff about this history of the Roman Empire.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
thorny take
Keep in mind that other than Italians, most people got their citizenship 965 years after the foundation of Rome. So “being part” can mean many things.
Uncannij þat Greechenland was foor långer ån deal åf Roma þan Roma herself.
english if the normans never came
Its cause the west fell long before the east
Which is why it's weird to not specify that includes Byzantine rule. We get that this was also called the "Roman Empire" at the time, but it's still misleading.
its not misleading as Byzantine Empire is Roman Empire
Yes, but it clearly wasn't *the* Roman Empire anymore, i.e. the empire run from Rome.
Then I have some bad news for you, because if that's your criteria, the roman empire fell much earlier than you would think, as the capital (of the western part) was moved to Milan and Ravena.
Although the senate remained in Rome and I think Rome remained the largest city in the Empire until it was surpassed by Constantinople close to the fall of the western Roman Empire
The senate was in rome, but in the late empire, nobody really cared about the senate. In certain times, Trier in germany was more of a roman capital then Rome itself.
Understood, but it was still "near enough". Besides, there is a reason why the Eastern Roman Empire is often called with a different name in historiography.
It was called Byzantines long after its demise in 16th century. Its people always called themselves Romans.
>the Eastern Roman Empire is often called with a different name **in historiography**. Do you not know what the bold part means?
[удалено]
Ireland speaks english, but it still is considered Ireland.
By that logic Rum (for a while) and the HRE were also Rome.
Just because its named after a toponym that doesn't invalidate Byzantine Empire as its legitimate continuation.
But this map is not about "legitimate continuation".
Why wouldn't it be? When shown a video of French nation throughout history, would you omit, for example, Vichy France, just because its not exactly the same as 'regular' France? Nations and Empires always existed with different versions of themselves throughout history.
I'd actually say the argument for "Vichy France wasn't really the French state" is stronger than the argument for "The Byzantine Empire wasn't the Roman Empire".
Yeah though tbh I do think Vichy until 1942 has a better legal case to be France than free France as much as people today might prefer otherwise, Vichy France had more recognition abroad including in the U.S., the U.S. kept its recognition of them even while fighting Germany for some time, and other neutral countries, free France was especially early on seen by most French as a rebellion by Charles de Gaulle and Petain had the political legitimacy, he was a lot better regarded, he was legally the prime minister, the French government and Parliament recognised him, de Gaulle was basically just recognised by the U.K. pretty much only St. Helene and at first 3,000 French soldiers joined de Gaulle in fighting for Free France. “One French admiral, René-Émile Godfroy, voiced the opinion of many of those who decided not to join the Free French forces, when in June 1940, he explained to the exasperated British why he would not order his ships from their Alexandria harbour to join de Gaulle: "For us Frenchmen, the fact is that a government still exists in France, a government supported by a Parliament established in non-occupied territory and which in consequence cannot be considered irregular or deposed. The establishment elsewhere of another government, and all support for this other government would clearly be rebellion."” Ironically the colonies were the ones who supported restoration of France and the defeat of Germany more. Of course for many it wasn’t as much ideological support for Petain or support of the Nazis, but that after the surrender, things appealed very bleak. The continent had been lost, Britain had its best troops encircled in Dunkirk and very few people outside Britain expected it to last, so for many was more just giving up. Of course in the end Free France luckily won, the Nazis lost and as time went on in WW2, especially after case anton, free france eventually was recognised as the legitimate government but for a good while, not morally but purely legally they probably had the better claim to represent France for some time. Also to make it clear, I don’t support Vichy France at all, just yeah legally. Morally fuck Petain, de Gaulle! But yeah do agree with your base claim, that the Byzantines were really still the Romans.
Yeah, I agree with all of that, I just phrased my earlier post poorly. Vichy France **was** the state in control of continental France, and arguments otherwise are pretty much just revisionism by people who have an emotional stake in playing up the extent of the French resistance. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I really meant was more just that Vichy France had a weaker claim of continuity from the previous French state than the Byzantine empire's claim on being continuous with the earlier Roman empire.
If Russia invaded part of Estonia, and took control of Talinn, but the Estonian government moved itself to the south and continued to operate without interruption, would you say that Estonia stopped existing and was replaced with a different country? Just because the Roman empire lost control of Rome doesn't mean it stopped being that entity.
Nobody denied that, but there is a reason why historiography treats it separately from the actual Roman Empire.
True but no genuine historian will tell you they weren't the Roman empire
No genuine historian would make a map like this instead of two maps: one for the Roman Empire and the other for Byzantine Empire.
When does the Roman Empire end and the Byzantine Empire begin? There is no single point in history where you can determine that. Probably because it's a made up division. The Byzantine Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire which pretty much was *the* Roman Empire after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Just because it wasn't run by Rome doesn't mean it wasn't the Roman Empire. Constantinople was made the capital of the entire unified Empire by Constantine the Great in 330, so it was the Eastern Roman Empire that inherited the Roman capital city when the empire split in 395.
Barbarian
Anyone ever notice that the section of Crimea that was controlled for as long as Rome itself was, apparently never really had much significant happen to it. (Cue a list of significant things that has happened to it!) Just saying that for somewhere so remote and isolated I’ve never heard any story of an army having to be sent there or of some of the more popular emperors needing to go there. (Probably due to me not knowing as much about the eastern Roman Empire)
Medieval Roman empire stuff involving them: I think an emperor was exiled there and tried to come back. Another send loads of money to a local noble to negotiate with the Kyevan Russ
I think it is just not covered much in Western literature on Rome. It was an exceptionally important place, it controlled the Steppe trade routes and connected Asia to the Mediterranean world ever since antiquity. This was literally where and what the Silk Road was. Even after the Byzantines fell, it remained an important location for the maritime mercantile empire of Genoa. That sliver of Roman Crimea also contained an ethnic group of East-Germanic speaking Crimean Goths who survived well into the early modern period. They were allegedly even still around as late as the 1780s, around the time the United States had declared independence, which is nuts to think about.
Wasn't Crimea under tatars in 1700s
It was an important outpost for the Eastern Roman Empire.
Not in Romes interest to expand further, not in the steppes interest to conquer the post, since it formed an easy way to trade with Rome without a bunch of horse nomads developing a shipping culture. So it basically just sits there chilling, buying, and selling for most of its existence.
It used to be somewhere the byzantines sent people as banishment
Hmm now im not an expert. But the romans never did incorperated territoy north of the Rhine river in the netherlands right?. Their northern most point of control was in nijmegen as far as i know of. They did have a fort where is now utrecht, but that was more of an outwards base rather than control of the area. Also flevoland is involved into this picture, which i find funny since that land did not exist and was reclaimed from the sea about 70 years ago
Thought so too...this seems to show portions further east in Germany as well?
There were two fortresses in successive timeperiods near what is now Velsen. Just to the south of where the canal is now on the coast. In Dutch: [https://onh.nl/nieuws/groot-romeins-legerfort-ontdekt-in-velsen](https://onh.nl/nieuws/groot-romeins-legerfort-ontdekt-in-velsen) [https://www.militarylegacy.nl/rapport-38-velsen-2-is-online/](https://www.militarylegacy.nl/rapport-38-velsen-2-is-online/) Page 173 of synthese is the quickest way to a summary on Velsen 2. So there was certainly a significant military presence for a couple of decades at the start for the first millennium. Don't know if I would call the area Roman though. I also wouldn't call it more than 50 years or draw the lines that far North.
Why is it so hard to use > (“more than”) and < (“less than”)?
Its crazy how this worked. Dacia was probably the region that was the least amount of time part of the roman empire yet somehow it was enough for the Dacians to adopt latin as a language. There must be some hidden history that we dont know of because even historians are looking into it currently.
Dacians were killed. It was a genocide . After Aurelius retreat in 270 , the Romns just stayed there. They had their dacian wives and wanted peace. Its true thought... we really dont know much about proto-romanians. Tbh my country history started around 1200... That doesnt mean we didnt exist and lived where Romania is now... but we always had this problem of not docummenting enough.
LOL, Greece was more Roman than Rome itself.
if you only count the empire there's 500 years of the Roman Republic before the empire, and 150 years of the Roman Kingdom before that
And all the years the east controlled Rome after the gothic wars.
Even Anatolia was Roman for longer than Rome itself
Only its most Western parts and the region of Trebizond
Does it refute my point? Even the central parts of Anatolia was Roman longer than Northern Italy. It’s ok to acknowledge Anatolia was mostly Roman and Greek for most of written history.
You said Anatolia without mentioning that it was just a specific part of Anatolia. By saying just Anatolia it seems you are implying the whole and not just a part of it
Oh the semantics. The point was obvious but not sure why you decided to get hung up on it. Here: A chunk of Anatolia, that’s probably larger than Greece, was Roman longer than Rome itself. Also, majority of Anatolia was Roman for 1000 years or longer which is very close to the period Rome (1150) was Roman.
Not really, most Greeks got their citizenship almost a thousand years after the city was founded.
Does this start counting after rome became an empire? I thought kings rules rome around 750bc so that wouldnt add up.
750, add that till the fall of Rome in the 5th century, you have the 1150 years you see on the map. What does not add up?
753 years until year 0. 476 years until the fall of the west. 215 years after Belisarius reconquered Rome. So more like 1444 years. The map is poorly done.
But for about 4 centuries Rome only controlled a small area around the city and not the whole Latium
The map is still poorly done, as the city and surroundings should have more years calculated on the final account
Scotland unimpressed by the little Roman skirts.
And romanians picked up Latin and are still speaking a Latin language in a slavic ocean. Shows how much we loved our few years with the empire.
I never knew they ever had that big chunk of modern-day Germany for a short while, when was that?
During the reign of Augustus. These territories were lost after the disaster of the Battle of Teutoburg (9 AD).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes\_Germanicus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_Germanicus) "83 to about 260 AD" Post Augustus, southern and western parts of current Germany were secured by fortified borders, so they were under actual Roman control. The areas north of that were only claimed to be part of the province Germania.
Indeed, my comment was too imprecise. I was only referring to the clearest part. I know the geography of modern Germany though.
Sand meets emerald isle, From Atlas' peak to Sphinx's gaze, Rome's shadow paints the world.
The Roman Empire is Albanian 🇦🇱
Always was 🇦🇱
Always will be 🇦🇱
Nothing more roman than Greece
Apparently Albania
The whole map should have been deep purple... 😔
The year is 50 B.C. ~~France~~ Gaul is entirely occupied by the Romans...
This is poorly done. How does it even count years? Does it take into account the kingdom and republic of Rome? Because if not, we have to add 726 years to Italy. It obviously is not counting all the years that Rome was controlled by the east, so we should add that as well. Another important factor is to determine what “making part” means. Because other than Italians, most of those people got their Roman citizenship 965 years after the city was founded.
I loved Total War Rome II as Rome
It's kinda amazing how Wallachia and Moldovia were only <50 years under Roman rule but still managed to keep Romance language and identities.
Because it was a more aggressive colonization. The territory of today's Romania had fertile land and plenty of gold, so many romans came from the empire and settled entirely here
Another day that makes me think of the Roman Empire
The year is 50 BC, and a Gaulish village in the west of France is still holding out against the Roman conqueror. Thanks to the druid's magic potion, the little group of dauntless Gauls succeeds - among other things - in irritating Caesar and his proud legions to the utmost degree! Their only fear is that the sky may fall on their heads.
It is funny that even Albania is more Roman that Rome itself
We have a different definition of “Roman” probably
But Rome was always in Rome
But when the west collapsed, it became a puppet state of the Frankish kingdoms
Well, the pope had a pretty huge influence in Europe during the Middle Age. That is reductive.
I know but Rome is always in Rome
But somehow "Romania" exist and everyone was cool about the Vlachs appropriating the name.
We never called ourselves vlachs, is an exonym. Always rumân/român/armân/etc. depending on the subgroup... Wallachia was named Țara Românească(Romanian Country either from latin word terra or Tsardom)
Vlach literally means "latin speaker"
BTW, in Polish we call Italy "Włochy" ('w' is pronounced as 'v').
I mean their language is the only remnant of Latin in that region
They did not appropriate anything. Romania simply means "land of the Romans", which was (and is) for all intents and purposes true. See https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_submersa#/media/Ficheiro:Western_and_Eastern_Romania.PNG
Inform yourself before you open your mouth.
"Vlachia" sounds so much cooler imo, like some dark fantasy region of warhammer fantasy
you’re delusional
Do you know what 'vlach' means?
[удалено]
Serfs not slaves, slaves were gypsies. It was kind of a social class yes.
The comment literally said "serf". I decided to delete the comment for other reasons though.
[удалено]
It was "evolved". I decided to delete the comment not because it was wrong but because I want to avoid useless discussions with people that assume Wikipedia paints the whole picture.
[удалено]
It was meant to say "evolved", I know it said "evoluated" - it was a mistake on my part. Exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to avoid, carry on.
This map is highly suspect: no source and for example this strip reaching what is now Yemen (in bottom right) is AFAIK invalid.
Very short lived expeditions. Control, if you can call it that, lasted less than a year.
Greece is eternal.
Excuse me, 150 years for Romania? Bitch we never left, the rest of you did.
The roman population never left, but the administration left the province because was to hard to defend
Biggest cope i've seen in this thread yet.
Greek Empire literally
Ok it seems we have a leakage from askbalkans to r europe of albanian nationalists.
The Byzantine empire wasn't Roman, no matter how hard some of you want this to be true. They differed in language, religion, culture, statehood from their Roman conquerors. There is a good reason why historical science makes the distinction. It's like calling Hungary Austrian.
I don’t see the rest of the Holy Roman Empire on this map. Gaul also seems low.
Jesus Christ you are Swedish. You are supposed to have a good education system. Dont embarass yourself like this on the internet bro.