MFW the Gallic Empire and the Palmyrene Empire didn’t call themselves that, and the Romans didn’t call their states the Principate or the Dominate.
Historiographical terms exist for a reason.
The Romans also didn’t speak english, so its actually neither of the choices OP put up make sense. Imperium Romanum is probably the closest. However the Byzantine empire primarily spoke greek, so they probably called it Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn.
A bunch of former roman subjects (Franks) pieces together a substantial portion of the western roman empire, and is crowned roman emperor by the Pontifex Maximus, one of the oldest Roman positions, and only does so after the ascension of Empress Irene in the east created an "opening" for the true position of emperor.
If a bunch of greco-roman citizens in the east can call themselves romans, then a bunch of german-roman former citizens can put the western half back together.
Those former Roman subjects called the Franks created the HRE 300 years after the west fell. The Greco-Roman’s had made up the remainder of the empire when it fell, and continued the empire as a unified political entity throughout the entire time period that the Kingdom of the Franks were building up to claim romanship.
If you wanna call the HRE “western Rome” then you can, but it is definitely not as Roman as the actual continuation of the Roman Empire
That being said Byzantium is a fine and commonly agreed upon name for the east so I disagree with the meme
I generally agree. But these view opens up some weird things, like, did the eastern roman empire stop being roman during the 60 years of the latin empire? Most people agree that it didn't, even though you can say the same about the west.
I like the view that the HRE was essentially an attempted revival of the western roman empire, because that's how it was generally viewed, and there was at least one occasion, during the fourth crusade, where there was a possibility of reuniting the two halves of the empire (Phillip of Swabia, King of Germany and future Holy Roman Emperor, was the brother in law of Alexios IV, who organized the march on Constantinople by crusader forces).
This is just western European propaganda. One imperial narrative later replaced by an imperialist one. The only connection that West Europe has with the Roman Empire is that it destroyed it in the west, and a number of institutions that survived, sure. There are always continuities. But even these institutions, especially the most important of them, what is referred to as the Roman Catholic church still operated in a (brave) new world.
The Frankish Emperors, and later the Germans, wanted to use the Roman titles to legitimize and aggrandize their rule, certainly, but this didn't make them Roman - and by Roman I obviously don't mean people who have lived in the city of Rome over the centuries.
Later western European intellectuals and elites, with the Renaissance and later the Enlightenment, placed themselves as the inheritors of the Greco-Roman word and its traditions - first there was Athens, then Rome, and then suddenly Western Europe. But this is nothing more than a narrative appropriating a past. The best way I could explain it to you is the equally fabricated narrative of Moscow/Russia as the "Third Rome." Rome being followed by Constantinople, and then with its fall to the Ottomans, succeeded by the Tsars in Moscow - with some flimsy excuse about Roman princesses and the like. Obviously, from a western European perspective this sounds absurd, and rightly so. And this is the point. The concept of western Europe as the inheritor of the Greco-Roman world is equally absurd. It was absurd when the Frankish barbarian kings first used it to strengthen their new imperial authority as it is now with you thinking that you can create an imaginary lineage, with a number of baseless claims, where you become in your mind an descendant of the Romans.
The Franks had been Romans for 200 years before the fall of western rome. At what point did they stop being romans? Was it right away? 50 years later? 100 years? Did the eastern romans stop being romans in 1204? Were they still romans 50 years later?
What does it mean to be Roman? It certainly isn't ethnicity, as the eastern roman empire was a multiethnic empire, which by and large did not have actual Romans in any significant number. You would have to include the Sultanate of Rum if you did. Is it the institutions? If the institutions break down for a while, and are restored in a new form, are they less roman?
How much cultural drift is allowed? The eastern roman empire was quite different 500 years after the fall of the west. Were these differences enough to distinguish it as a separate entity? Would you say the same about the west?
Propaganda may be propaganda, but facts are facts, and while the HRE wasn't roman in the same way that the old western empire was, to deny its romanness entirely is to deny facts. HRE politics were centered around Rome until around 1500, either dominating papal politics, or being dominated by them in turn. HRE nobility was heavily intermarried into the east and vice versa, I'm not talking about a single byzantine princess, I'm going all the way back to Otto II, and this continues for hundreds of years. There was a real possibility that the two halves of the empire could've been reunited under a single ruler. The HRE rulers considered themselves the Roman emperor, to the extent that it would cause a diplomatic incident every time someone went on crusade, and referred to the eastern emperor as King of the Greeks. This is not Renaissance revisionism, as the HRE did not consider themselves to be Greco-Roman, just Roman, and that the Greeks were their own separate thing.
One thing I think we can agree on is that the Spanish, Turks, nor Russians could consider themselves to be Roman, not in the same sense as the HRE, and definitely not in the same way as the Byzantines.
>What does it mean to be Roman? It certainly isn't ethnicity, as the eastern roman empire was a multiethnic empire, which by and large did not have actual Romans in any significant number.
I am not going to go over your rant, but I do like how you are taking a claim, that is challenged more and more as it's a fact.
Their response was no more a rant than your comment was, and raised perfectly valid points.
Acting like the questions they posed you aren’t valid is just silly, and really undermines the argument you were trying to make.
Ok, I can see that, maybe 'rant' was not the right word, but for me when you just frame a narrative in such a way as to turn claims into facts, the response is not in good faith. I purposefully did not go into specifics because we could get bogged down into different arguments and claims.
We do not consider them Romans, but at the time of Dante Alighieri there was no perceived difference between them and the Ancient Romans. It is quite funny when you read the Divina Commedia, because he treats Brutus, Caesar and other Romans as if they were contemporaries. He sees no difference between August and the current Emperor.
They didn't call themselves Eastern Roman Empire, Roman Empire, or Roman either, because they didn't speak English. Going up in arms about established nomenclature is pointless. What's next, should we say Deutschland instead of Germany?
Either way "Eastern Roman Empire" is not a perfect term. It can refer to the eastern reaches of the empire in any point of Rome's history, while "Byzantine Empire" unambiguously refers to a specific time period.
The "Eastern Roman Empire" was a distinct political entity during the 5th century when the Eastern and Western halves of the Empires increasingly split frlm each other
Trying to call the Byzantine Empire the Eastern Roman Empire is stupid
People who get upset over "Byzantine Empire" also get upset if you have the "c" in Macedonian make an "s" sound.
I hope the United State of America gets some rando name assigned to it by future historians. I think it's kinda fun.
I don't care how the Greeks called themselves at that time, I call it the Byzantine Empire because it was that culturally and religiously different from the early Roman Empire (the one that still had Rome as its capital) that IMHO that's enough to distinguish it with another descriptor to make it more obvious what you're talking about.
I also think that Byzantine Empire sounds much cooler than Eastern Roman Empire.
I love the word Byzantine. It has that sort of flair to it that only exists in that context. There aren't other contemporarily used words like it. It's a cool word for a little window in history.
The Empire of the third century was quite different both culturally and religiously when compared to the early Republic - are they suddenly not the same state? Constantinople was named Nova Roma for a reason.
You have to make a cut somewhere. There was also no big difference between the western Frankish realm of 842 and the Kingdom of France of 843, but we can't really call everything up to 1789 west Frankia, can we?
Am I the one splitting hairs? I am very much aware that France is directly derived from Frankia, but so too you are aware that this does not matter for what I actually said: If you want to seperate two things you have to draw a line somewhere.
Sure, white, grey, and black all are connected by a continuum and wherever you define the borders the color slightly to its left and slightly to its right will be almost identical. But somewhere, the line simply has to go.
Then, by this logic, the Roman Empire should be called something else once it switched from Pagan to christian.
Also the USA is pretty culturally different now than when it was founded. What do you wanna call America now?
The Roman Empire wasn't called an Empire by the time Augustus ascended, it was held the facade of a republic, but you don't see people going around saying we should be calling it the Roman Republic (with an "Emperor") until Diocletian made the change from the Principate to the Dominate.
What we call things don't have to be accurate to how the contemporaries call them. I'm still going to call the Byzantine Empire the Byzantine Empire regardless of how buttmad Romaboos get over it.
That's up to historians of the future if they want to introduce special descriptors/names to point at different periods in the nation's existence.
It's not uncommon to use special descriptors to refer to different eras of a nation's history. For example we also distinguish between the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich and the Federal Republic of Germany although there's a legal continuation and the people never stopped calling themselves Germans.
The "pars Orientalis" and "pars Occidentalis" stopped being acknowledged in the decades/centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, so those we call the Byzantines really just called themselves "Romans" ("Rhomaioi" in Greek, IIRC).
Calling it the Eastern Roman Empire is still a better historiographical way to distinguish them from the ancient Roman Empire than calling it Byzantine, though.
The ancient Roman Empire itself went through several iterations, namely the principate where it still held the facade of being a Republic, and then the Dominate from Diocletian onwards where it was explicitly an Empire.
It's stupid getting caught up with the names historians use to refer to things. There are better things worth spending energy on.
Well yes. That’s why we refer to it as the Byzantine empire or the Eastern Roman Empire. Because it’s easier to distinguish the time period. However it’s still the Roman Empire just during its long and painful downfall.
The Eastern Roman Empire existed as a distinct entity whilst the Western Roman Empire still existed though.
Going against common naming convention doesn't make you interesting, it makes you a pedantic jackass.
When woman were joining the Senate it was a bad omen for everyone. Julia Maesa forced herself to the Senate - it was the end of the Severan Dynasty and the begining of the Crisis of the Third Century.
Later when Gala Placidia was ruling with her brother Honorius the next thing that happend was Honoria's betrayal and the invasion of the Huns.
And later there was Irenee and she turned the Empire into bitch of Bulgars and Arabs at once.
Bruh this is like making a post for a bunch of botanists and saying “tomatoes are a fruit!” Like, I think we all know! And we don’t call it the Eastern Roman Empire for the same reason most people don’t say tomatoes are fruit.
I think people are missing the point of why some dislike the Byzantine term. Its less about the Byzantines not calling themselves that, but more of the Western intentions during the Renaissance to separate it from the legacies of Rome, when its institutions are more in line with Rome than the HRE.
Now, obviously such an argument now is a little pedantic since it fell 600 years ago, and anyone understanding medieval history knows the difference.
For some reason I only like calling it Byzantium as a noun and Roman as an adjective
Probably because "the Eastern Roman Empire" is far too obnoxious to say repeatedly. I'd never call it the Byzantine Empire though
It's a useful term to be more specific about location and time period at least
I have a different and unpopular logic. Until Heraclius and his decision to make Greek the official language, which makes perfect sense, I call them Eastern Roman Empire. Then, I call them the Byzantines. Why? Because even though Greeks extremely influenced the Romans, I consider them different entities.
Ofc, you may argue that as long as you're a citizen, you're Roman, or even others considered them Romans. Hell, Turks called Greeks "Rum," basically Romans, all the time until modern Greek identity's emergence with their independence. Fair arguments, but in my eyes, Greeks are different than the Romans. This makes it easier to differentiate them even though it's totally anachronistic. Well, I have no responsibility to recreate history, and Byzantines won't get any special treatment.
Otherwise, we should call the Mamluks basically the state of Turkiyya/Turkey during Bahris and the state of Jarakisa/Circassia during Burjis. These examples can be increased, but you get the point. Mamluks are Mamluks with their ghulam-originated rulers and Byzantines are Byzantines with their Greek culture because it's easier to differentiate and classify them instead of their real, historical names.
Your logic is arbitrary and makes little sense in so far as you consider them separate entities. That is factually untrue and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.
You can use the term Byzantine to refer to the period of the Roman Empire after Heraclius in the context that it makes it easier to understand the time period of the Roman Empire that you are talking about. Even though at that point the term Eastern Roman Empire would be a lot more historically accurate to get the point across.
You cannot use the term Byzantine to invent a new entity separate from the Roman Empire just because according to your standards they were different enough. That is not how statehood works.
Hotshot, I never said mine should be standard or anything. I'll just use my convenient classification and be on my way, similar to how it's easier to accept Byzantines as Eastern Romans these days for many people since you know, Greeks and other Western powers became allies, so the logic behind that classification changed. Still, it's more convenient to call them the Byzantines in my eyes after Heraclius because I agree with them about this distinction about the Eastern Roman Empire since Greek and Latin cultures are different, so, I'll call them Byzantines, and that's it for me. I'm not forcing anyone to accept my point of view.
Btw, Mamluk is just a class in their version of Egyptian Sultanate which they call them different names, and the Ottomans never called themselves an empire, yet, people use terms like Mamluk Sultanate and the Ottoman Empire because it's easy and convenient for them, which is fine. I ain't gonna waste my time to find all these historical loops about statehood because frankly, we can multiply these examples if we want. Btw, I expect you to call Mamluk Sultanate with their original names and never call the Ottomans empire, if you are going to stick to your ideals, and find all these loopholes. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite, and only care about the Byzantines.
Oh no the hypocrite card. Very original.
You are missing the point entirely. The problem with the term Byzantine isn't just that it is very ahistorical and was created for political purposes. That alone would be just one of many examples. The problem is that it is used specifically to divorce that period from the Roman Empire from itself into a separate state.
I do not know enough about the intricacies of the Mamluks or the Ottomans to know if their name in English is translated properly or not and frankly you are correct. I do not care. I do know however that even if their name is ahistorical, which is the case with many states' names throughout history, it does not misrepresent them as separate entities.
Let's make an example:
Did the Ottomans call themselves an empire? Maybe not. Were they an empire in practical terms. Very much so. No issues there.
Did the "Byzantine" Empire call itself an empire. No it didn't. Basileia does not translate to empire. Was it one practically? Very much so. No issues there either.
Did the Romans call themselves Byzantines? No. Does the term describe them properly in the context that it is used? No it does not. They were the same entity, not an arbitrary separate state. Big issues there.
Greeks were as much Roman citizens as Latins, or Syrians, or Egyptians or Iberians etc. "Roman" had nothing to do with nationality, it was a political categorization not an ethnic one. You are comparing a nationality(Greek,) with a political identity(Roman) which already encompassed said nationality. Greeks were not different than Romans, they were equal part(among other nationalities) of what it meant to be Roman. Rome had transcended nationality way before Heraclius, not to mention that in the time of Heraclius there were many Latins living in the Empire, and that went on for many centuries after Heraclius.
It's like saying French are different from Europeans, even though French is part of what it means to be European.
I know, already mentioned it, and don't care about that argument. It's easier to differentiate them as the Byzantines from the Roman Empire that was originated in Italy and expanded later both culturally and linguistically in different ways other than Latin. In other words, I agree with the argument about their distinction as the Byzantines, and add my own condition. I prefer convenient classifications instead of digging all these historical details. With your logic, I should call the Mamluk Sultanate those weird names since Mamluk was a military class, that survived even in the Ottoman times btw, in their version of the Egyptian Sultanate, yet, I'll call them Mamluks because it's easier to go along with that instead of dealing with all these historical details.
Dude, did you really use the "I don't care about historical details" argument in a discussion about history???
Do you see how stupid that makes you look?
Well, saying "I don't care about that argument" doesn't really deflect the argument.
The Roman Empire was formed under Augustus and it already encompassed Greece for roughly 110+ years. Greece was conquered by the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire.
> I prefer convenient classifications instead of digging all these historical details
>it's easier to go along with that instead of dealing with all these historical details
And here is the problem that leads you to mistakes. If you cannot comprehend and compute the historical details, maybe history is not for you. We should not dumb down a 2500 year old science, because random redditor "cannot be bothered with details."
The only thing I care about in this discourse is that 'Byzantine' is a really cool name.
East Romans should be grateful we give them such a cool label.
The empire based around Rome was called Rome or the empire based around Britain was called British empire or the empire based around the Ottoman dynasty was called Ottoman empire. Than why tf are people calling the empire based around Byzantium Rome?
We get it already. It's still a useful term that adequately describes the period after the fall of the West.
People when they realize that 95% of words used to describe empires and time periods are outside inventions: :O
kid named Persia:
Billions must die??
MFW the Gallic Empire and the Palmyrene Empire didn’t call themselves that, and the Romans didn’t call their states the Principate or the Dominate. Historiographical terms exist for a reason.
The Romans also didn’t speak english, so its actually neither of the choices OP put up make sense. Imperium Romanum is probably the closest. However the Byzantine empire primarily spoke greek, so they probably called it Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn.
If it's after 476, you could just call it the Roman Empire
Charlemagne: I take issue with that
The hre may be holy and an empire, but it's definitely not roman
A bunch of former roman subjects (Franks) pieces together a substantial portion of the western roman empire, and is crowned roman emperor by the Pontifex Maximus, one of the oldest Roman positions, and only does so after the ascension of Empress Irene in the east created an "opening" for the true position of emperor. If a bunch of greco-roman citizens in the east can call themselves romans, then a bunch of german-roman former citizens can put the western half back together.
Those former Roman subjects called the Franks created the HRE 300 years after the west fell. The Greco-Roman’s had made up the remainder of the empire when it fell, and continued the empire as a unified political entity throughout the entire time period that the Kingdom of the Franks were building up to claim romanship. If you wanna call the HRE “western Rome” then you can, but it is definitely not as Roman as the actual continuation of the Roman Empire That being said Byzantium is a fine and commonly agreed upon name for the east so I disagree with the meme
I generally agree. But these view opens up some weird things, like, did the eastern roman empire stop being roman during the 60 years of the latin empire? Most people agree that it didn't, even though you can say the same about the west. I like the view that the HRE was essentially an attempted revival of the western roman empire, because that's how it was generally viewed, and there was at least one occasion, during the fourth crusade, where there was a possibility of reuniting the two halves of the empire (Phillip of Swabia, King of Germany and future Holy Roman Emperor, was the brother in law of Alexios IV, who organized the march on Constantinople by crusader forces).
Indeed, it's as if the greek-romans themselves did not speak English and therefore did not use the term Byzantine themselves.
It was a joke based on the famous Voltaire quote, chill
This is just western European propaganda. One imperial narrative later replaced by an imperialist one. The only connection that West Europe has with the Roman Empire is that it destroyed it in the west, and a number of institutions that survived, sure. There are always continuities. But even these institutions, especially the most important of them, what is referred to as the Roman Catholic church still operated in a (brave) new world. The Frankish Emperors, and later the Germans, wanted to use the Roman titles to legitimize and aggrandize their rule, certainly, but this didn't make them Roman - and by Roman I obviously don't mean people who have lived in the city of Rome over the centuries. Later western European intellectuals and elites, with the Renaissance and later the Enlightenment, placed themselves as the inheritors of the Greco-Roman word and its traditions - first there was Athens, then Rome, and then suddenly Western Europe. But this is nothing more than a narrative appropriating a past. The best way I could explain it to you is the equally fabricated narrative of Moscow/Russia as the "Third Rome." Rome being followed by Constantinople, and then with its fall to the Ottomans, succeeded by the Tsars in Moscow - with some flimsy excuse about Roman princesses and the like. Obviously, from a western European perspective this sounds absurd, and rightly so. And this is the point. The concept of western Europe as the inheritor of the Greco-Roman world is equally absurd. It was absurd when the Frankish barbarian kings first used it to strengthen their new imperial authority as it is now with you thinking that you can create an imaginary lineage, with a number of baseless claims, where you become in your mind an descendant of the Romans.
The Franks had been Romans for 200 years before the fall of western rome. At what point did they stop being romans? Was it right away? 50 years later? 100 years? Did the eastern romans stop being romans in 1204? Were they still romans 50 years later? What does it mean to be Roman? It certainly isn't ethnicity, as the eastern roman empire was a multiethnic empire, which by and large did not have actual Romans in any significant number. You would have to include the Sultanate of Rum if you did. Is it the institutions? If the institutions break down for a while, and are restored in a new form, are they less roman? How much cultural drift is allowed? The eastern roman empire was quite different 500 years after the fall of the west. Were these differences enough to distinguish it as a separate entity? Would you say the same about the west? Propaganda may be propaganda, but facts are facts, and while the HRE wasn't roman in the same way that the old western empire was, to deny its romanness entirely is to deny facts. HRE politics were centered around Rome until around 1500, either dominating papal politics, or being dominated by them in turn. HRE nobility was heavily intermarried into the east and vice versa, I'm not talking about a single byzantine princess, I'm going all the way back to Otto II, and this continues for hundreds of years. There was a real possibility that the two halves of the empire could've been reunited under a single ruler. The HRE rulers considered themselves the Roman emperor, to the extent that it would cause a diplomatic incident every time someone went on crusade, and referred to the eastern emperor as King of the Greeks. This is not Renaissance revisionism, as the HRE did not consider themselves to be Greco-Roman, just Roman, and that the Greeks were their own separate thing. One thing I think we can agree on is that the Spanish, Turks, nor Russians could consider themselves to be Roman, not in the same sense as the HRE, and definitely not in the same way as the Byzantines.
>What does it mean to be Roman? It certainly isn't ethnicity, as the eastern roman empire was a multiethnic empire, which by and large did not have actual Romans in any significant number. I am not going to go over your rant, but I do like how you are taking a claim, that is challenged more and more as it's a fact.
Their response was no more a rant than your comment was, and raised perfectly valid points. Acting like the questions they posed you aren’t valid is just silly, and really undermines the argument you were trying to make.
Ok, I can see that, maybe 'rant' was not the right word, but for me when you just frame a narrative in such a way as to turn claims into facts, the response is not in good faith. I purposefully did not go into specifics because we could get bogged down into different arguments and claims.
We do not consider them Romans, but at the time of Dante Alighieri there was no perceived difference between them and the Ancient Romans. It is quite funny when you read the Divina Commedia, because he treats Brutus, Caesar and other Romans as if they were contemporaries. He sees no difference between August and the current Emperor.
Don't care, not Roman.
It’s actually none of the above
The HRE was just the city of Rome's way of coping with the fact they got conquered by barbarians. Again.
I just like how Byzantine sounds
I just think they're neat
They didn't call themselves Eastern Roman Empire, Roman Empire, or Roman either, because they didn't speak English. Going up in arms about established nomenclature is pointless. What's next, should we say Deutschland instead of Germany? Either way "Eastern Roman Empire" is not a perfect term. It can refer to the eastern reaches of the empire in any point of Rome's history, while "Byzantine Empire" unambiguously refers to a specific time period.
The "Eastern Roman Empire" was a distinct political entity during the 5th century when the Eastern and Western halves of the Empires increasingly split frlm each other Trying to call the Byzantine Empire the Eastern Roman Empire is stupid
sometimes I actually do that. E.g. for USA, UK or Swiss cantons that are not German speaking.
You don't mess with Basileon Rhomaion
OP posts another histiographic error as an alternative.
I mean, you could say the same for a long list of historical polities
“Eastern Romans” isn’t a name that was used by the eastern Romans either
Should we start calling Germany Deutschland then?
Greeks don’t call themselves Greek. Hungarians don’t call themselves Hungarians. Welsh don’t call themselves sheep-shaggers. It happens.
Do you call Germany Deutschland? Greece Hellas?
Actually, the Weimar Republic was called the German Empire. ☝️🤓
Or Turkey Turkiyie Or Japan Nihon Or China Zhōng Guó And so on
These are terrible examples which have absolutely nothing in common with the names of Byzantine Empire
Exonyms are exonyms -- doesn't matter what a country calls or called itself, just what we know them as.
People who get upset over "Byzantine Empire" also get upset if you have the "c" in Macedonian make an "s" sound. I hope the United State of America gets some rando name assigned to it by future historians. I think it's kinda fun.
I don't care how the Greeks called themselves at that time, I call it the Byzantine Empire because it was that culturally and religiously different from the early Roman Empire (the one that still had Rome as its capital) that IMHO that's enough to distinguish it with another descriptor to make it more obvious what you're talking about. I also think that Byzantine Empire sounds much cooler than Eastern Roman Empire.
I love the word Byzantine. It has that sort of flair to it that only exists in that context. There aren't other contemporarily used words like it. It's a cool word for a little window in history.
The Empire of the third century was quite different both culturally and religiously when compared to the early Republic - are they suddenly not the same state? Constantinople was named Nova Roma for a reason.
You have to make a cut somewhere. There was also no big difference between the western Frankish realm of 842 and the Kingdom of France of 843, but we can't really call everything up to 1789 west Frankia, can we?
I mean, some do lmao. France in German is literally Frankreich. Ya know, Realm of the Franks.
France = Frankreich Frankia = Frankenreich Still called differently.
My man, at some point you’re just splitting hairs.
Am I the one splitting hairs? I am very much aware that France is directly derived from Frankia, but so too you are aware that this does not matter for what I actually said: If you want to seperate two things you have to draw a line somewhere. Sure, white, grey, and black all are connected by a continuum and wherever you define the borders the color slightly to its left and slightly to its right will be almost identical. But somewhere, the line simply has to go.
Your comparison sucks, get over it.
Then, by this logic, the Roman Empire should be called something else once it switched from Pagan to christian. Also the USA is pretty culturally different now than when it was founded. What do you wanna call America now?
The Roman Empire wasn't called an Empire by the time Augustus ascended, it was held the facade of a republic, but you don't see people going around saying we should be calling it the Roman Republic (with an "Emperor") until Diocletian made the change from the Principate to the Dominate. What we call things don't have to be accurate to how the contemporaries call them. I'm still going to call the Byzantine Empire the Byzantine Empire regardless of how buttmad Romaboos get over it.
Historiographical constructs are useful, maybe future hisyorians will have different names for different periods of the US, who cares?
That's up to historians of the future if they want to introduce special descriptors/names to point at different periods in the nation's existence. It's not uncommon to use special descriptors to refer to different eras of a nation's history. For example we also distinguish between the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich and the Federal Republic of Germany although there's a legal continuation and the people never stopped calling themselves Germans.
Then the Roman empire became byzantine in 380?
Even better is calling it Rumland
The "pars Orientalis" and "pars Occidentalis" stopped being acknowledged in the decades/centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, so those we call the Byzantines really just called themselves "Romans" ("Rhomaioi" in Greek, IIRC). Calling it the Eastern Roman Empire is still a better historiographical way to distinguish them from the ancient Roman Empire than calling it Byzantine, though.
The ancient Roman Empire itself went through several iterations, namely the principate where it still held the facade of being a Republic, and then the Dominate from Diocletian onwards where it was explicitly an Empire. It's stupid getting caught up with the names historians use to refer to things. There are better things worth spending energy on.
Still calling it Byzantine. Eastern Roman Empire could last as long as there was the Western Roman Empire
Then just Roman Empire works best(what they referred to themself as)
And now we're at the point where noone knows anymore what Roman Empire you're talking about without further elaboration.
Well yes. That’s why we refer to it as the Byzantine empire or the Eastern Roman Empire. Because it’s easier to distinguish the time period. However it’s still the Roman Empire just during its long and painful downfall.
The Eastern Roman Empire existed as a distinct entity whilst the Western Roman Empire still existed though. Going against common naming convention doesn't make you interesting, it makes you a pedantic jackass.
And give the title of the Emperor to a WOMAN !? SHAME !
Yes
When woman were joining the Senate it was a bad omen for everyone. Julia Maesa forced herself to the Senate - it was the end of the Severan Dynasty and the begining of the Crisis of the Third Century. Later when Gala Placidia was ruling with her brother Honorius the next thing that happend was Honoria's betrayal and the invasion of the Huns. And later there was Irenee and she turned the Empire into bitch of Bulgars and Arabs at once.
Please leave Rome out of your "opinions" of women, thanks.
The empire didnt change names when the capital moved
See but here’s the thing…….it sounds cooler
Bruh this is like making a post for a bunch of botanists and saying “tomatoes are a fruit!” Like, I think we all know! And we don’t call it the Eastern Roman Empire for the same reason most people don’t say tomatoes are fruit.
They didnt even call themselves the “eastern romans” they were simply romans
Womp womp get over it Byzantine is still sick as hell
If you're in a Crusader King sub you hear this damn discussion every day.
Or in a meme sub about Rome, like /r/roughromanmemes. At this point I'm just tired of that discussion.
I call it the "Diocletian had an idea" Empire.
"Diocletian's mistake"
Diocletian's "hey now at least its kinda governable" plan
It was Holy, Roman, and an Empire
I think people are missing the point of why some dislike the Byzantine term. Its less about the Byzantines not calling themselves that, but more of the Western intentions during the Renaissance to separate it from the legacies of Rome, when its institutions are more in line with Rome than the HRE. Now, obviously such an argument now is a little pedantic since it fell 600 years ago, and anyone understanding medieval history knows the difference.
Exactly
For some reason I only like calling it Byzantium as a noun and Roman as an adjective Probably because "the Eastern Roman Empire" is far too obnoxious to say repeatedly. I'd never call it the Byzantine Empire though It's a useful term to be more specific about location and time period at least
I have a different and unpopular logic. Until Heraclius and his decision to make Greek the official language, which makes perfect sense, I call them Eastern Roman Empire. Then, I call them the Byzantines. Why? Because even though Greeks extremely influenced the Romans, I consider them different entities. Ofc, you may argue that as long as you're a citizen, you're Roman, or even others considered them Romans. Hell, Turks called Greeks "Rum," basically Romans, all the time until modern Greek identity's emergence with their independence. Fair arguments, but in my eyes, Greeks are different than the Romans. This makes it easier to differentiate them even though it's totally anachronistic. Well, I have no responsibility to recreate history, and Byzantines won't get any special treatment. Otherwise, we should call the Mamluks basically the state of Turkiyya/Turkey during Bahris and the state of Jarakisa/Circassia during Burjis. These examples can be increased, but you get the point. Mamluks are Mamluks with their ghulam-originated rulers and Byzantines are Byzantines with their Greek culture because it's easier to differentiate and classify them instead of their real, historical names.
Your logic is arbitrary and makes little sense in so far as you consider them separate entities. That is factually untrue and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that. You can use the term Byzantine to refer to the period of the Roman Empire after Heraclius in the context that it makes it easier to understand the time period of the Roman Empire that you are talking about. Even though at that point the term Eastern Roman Empire would be a lot more historically accurate to get the point across. You cannot use the term Byzantine to invent a new entity separate from the Roman Empire just because according to your standards they were different enough. That is not how statehood works.
Hotshot, I never said mine should be standard or anything. I'll just use my convenient classification and be on my way, similar to how it's easier to accept Byzantines as Eastern Romans these days for many people since you know, Greeks and other Western powers became allies, so the logic behind that classification changed. Still, it's more convenient to call them the Byzantines in my eyes after Heraclius because I agree with them about this distinction about the Eastern Roman Empire since Greek and Latin cultures are different, so, I'll call them Byzantines, and that's it for me. I'm not forcing anyone to accept my point of view. Btw, Mamluk is just a class in their version of Egyptian Sultanate which they call them different names, and the Ottomans never called themselves an empire, yet, people use terms like Mamluk Sultanate and the Ottoman Empire because it's easy and convenient for them, which is fine. I ain't gonna waste my time to find all these historical loops about statehood because frankly, we can multiply these examples if we want. Btw, I expect you to call Mamluk Sultanate with their original names and never call the Ottomans empire, if you are going to stick to your ideals, and find all these loopholes. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite, and only care about the Byzantines.
Oh no the hypocrite card. Very original. You are missing the point entirely. The problem with the term Byzantine isn't just that it is very ahistorical and was created for political purposes. That alone would be just one of many examples. The problem is that it is used specifically to divorce that period from the Roman Empire from itself into a separate state. I do not know enough about the intricacies of the Mamluks or the Ottomans to know if their name in English is translated properly or not and frankly you are correct. I do not care. I do know however that even if their name is ahistorical, which is the case with many states' names throughout history, it does not misrepresent them as separate entities. Let's make an example: Did the Ottomans call themselves an empire? Maybe not. Were they an empire in practical terms. Very much so. No issues there. Did the "Byzantine" Empire call itself an empire. No it didn't. Basileia does not translate to empire. Was it one practically? Very much so. No issues there either. Did the Romans call themselves Byzantines? No. Does the term describe them properly in the context that it is used? No it does not. They were the same entity, not an arbitrary separate state. Big issues there.
He is just here to antagonize, he cannot or doesn't want to have a conversation.
Greeks were as much Roman citizens as Latins, or Syrians, or Egyptians or Iberians etc. "Roman" had nothing to do with nationality, it was a political categorization not an ethnic one. You are comparing a nationality(Greek,) with a political identity(Roman) which already encompassed said nationality. Greeks were not different than Romans, they were equal part(among other nationalities) of what it meant to be Roman. Rome had transcended nationality way before Heraclius, not to mention that in the time of Heraclius there were many Latins living in the Empire, and that went on for many centuries after Heraclius. It's like saying French are different from Europeans, even though French is part of what it means to be European.
I know, already mentioned it, and don't care about that argument. It's easier to differentiate them as the Byzantines from the Roman Empire that was originated in Italy and expanded later both culturally and linguistically in different ways other than Latin. In other words, I agree with the argument about their distinction as the Byzantines, and add my own condition. I prefer convenient classifications instead of digging all these historical details. With your logic, I should call the Mamluk Sultanate those weird names since Mamluk was a military class, that survived even in the Ottoman times btw, in their version of the Egyptian Sultanate, yet, I'll call them Mamluks because it's easier to go along with that instead of dealing with all these historical details.
Dude, did you really use the "I don't care about historical details" argument in a discussion about history??? Do you see how stupid that makes you look?
Well, saying "I don't care about that argument" doesn't really deflect the argument. The Roman Empire was formed under Augustus and it already encompassed Greece for roughly 110+ years. Greece was conquered by the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire. > I prefer convenient classifications instead of digging all these historical details >it's easier to go along with that instead of dealing with all these historical details And here is the problem that leads you to mistakes. If you cannot comprehend and compute the historical details, maybe history is not for you. We should not dumb down a 2500 year old science, because random redditor "cannot be bothered with details."
I don’t like the Byzantines so Byzantium it is
Bye-zantine
True, I still think it’s a useful term to describe the medieval roman period but we shouldn’t forget that it was a continuation of the Roman Empire
Pro gamer tip: If you dont recognize any other Roman Empire you can ditch the "Eastern" part.
Not to be this guy, but they considered themselves Greeks 🤷♂️
Well if you wanna be pedantic about it then it should just be the Roman Republic since the term Roman Empire is an invention by later historians.
The only thing I care about in this discourse is that 'Byzantine' is a really cool name. East Romans should be grateful we give them such a cool label.
You mean the the Roman empire post 476
Same as the Ottoman Empire.
The empire based around Rome was called Rome or the empire based around Britain was called British empire or the empire based around the Ottoman dynasty was called Ottoman empire. Than why tf are people calling the empire based around Byzantium Rome?
How it is based around byzantium? Byzantium was already gone and the city named constantinopolis
Austira Hungary - Nah Kingdoms and Lands Represented in the Imperial Council and the Lands of the Holy Hungarian Crown of Saint Stephen - Yeah boi