|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Sept 11, 2005 21:08:09 GMT -5
I'm not so sure that the East Roman Empire is really the same as the earlier Roman empire. It's true that it occupied the eastern areas of Rome, but its' cultural and demic influences were much different. It outlived the West Roman empire, becoming a stable, culturally and economically rich empire of Greeks, Syrians, Slavs and others. I don't think that we should simply say that because they used Roman titulary, that they were the same as the old Roman Empire. In fact, the Eastern Roman empire was developing its' own identity, and was virtually a Greek Christian Orthodox state before it fell to the Ottomans. When people refered to themselves as "Romiosyni", Romans in Greek, they referred to their belonging to the political and religious framework of Eastern Rome. The fact that this was said in Greek already indicates the cultural split between the West and the East, and by the tenth century, usage of the term "Hellene" had become popular among the Greeks again. The East Roman Empire absorbed a number of influences, Roman among them - but it was not solely a continuation of Rome, nor solely a continuation of Hellenistic models - it became an empire unto itself, and I believe it needs to be considered as a separate entity. I agree with this. The Byzantine (or Eastern Roman Empire, if you prefer) was very much the Hellenic half of the greater Roman Empire. And after the fall of the western half, the Eastern half really became its own entity, deserving of its own title, though the distinguished label of "Byzantine" obviously wasn't added until much later. Fitting that the great Rome that owed so much of its inspiration to the ancient Greeks would ultimately be inherited by the medieval ones.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Sept 11, 2005 21:45:43 GMT -5
The byzantines ruled over greeks in greece and asia minor, not romans.
the holy roman empire was well... german, not roman.
From the collapse of the Empire, the only one who ruled over Rome, and kept the language of the romans alive (to this day) was the Bishop of Rome, aka Pope, so, the Papal states (were) until that hellbound mason Garibaldi appeared, and now the Vatican City (is) , the successors of the Roman Empire, and the Popes the successor of the Emperors!
|
|
|
Post by Scanderbeg on Sept 11, 2005 22:07:03 GMT -5
The Alexandrian Empire was the only one that actually conquered others in wars and was led by only one man and through a very short time, so I would say that the Alex's Empire and probably the Mongolian Empire are the greatest!
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Sept 11, 2005 22:40:10 GMT -5
The byzantines ruled over greeks in greece and asia minor, not romans. Well, the Byzantines were Greeks, for the most part... Romanized Greeks, yeah, but Greeks nonetheless. and the Popes the successor of the Emperors! lol... where's the picture of Darth Benedict when you need it...
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Sept 11, 2005 22:42:03 GMT -5
No! Your believing in Charlemagne’s Lie of 794 AD...once the Franks ruled over the Western Roman Empire and it ceased to exist and it was divided into a mess of Kingdom States. Charlemagne so wanted to think of himself and his new kingdom as the heir to the name and glory to claim all the titles of Rome for himself....but he was not Roman and Eastern Rome was the true remnant of the old and righful Imperium that still existed in the East.
Thus one of the most hateful- infamous forgeries was developed called the "Donation of Constantine". Why do you think the western( Frankish and Germanic)Crusaders sacked and attacked the Eastern Empire every chance they got for? They hated Eastern Rome,as it was the righful and true "ROME"!
Like I said before..thats why it was important for them to regain Italy,they never abandoned it or forgot about..and even lots of Greek people came to settle in Italy once more after General Belisarius kicked out the Goths and other barbarian scum and Roman rule was once more placed in the western lands of the old Roman Empire.
Constantines's Capital was called Nova Roma(new Rome)not Constantinople as more commonly thought.
The Eastern Roman Empire was simply the administrative division of the Roman Empire ,it was Roman in all forms and government.Even their Military was still based on the old Roman legion/ cohort system ,which made them such a almost undefeatable superpower for so long.Justinian updated the ancient Roman legal code in the new Corpus Juris Civilis. The Language/Religion/Culture difference did not exist and came many many centuries later.Latin was also being phased out in italy and the old dialects where being reintroduced,though Greek was still largly spoken as it was the second language of Italy since acharic times and Roman times.
Greek was still and always spoken in Italy until more recently.In fact Greek was the first language of the Romans themselves.Italians have always maintanied that they where decended from the Greeks...
Greek language and culture where in no way ever alien to Ancient Italy guys. Just read their Mythology/history and search genetics.
*The Slavs where traditional enemies of Eastern Rome and once it fell , they along with the Turks thought of themselves as its successor. "The Emperor as patron of Eastern Orthodoxy had started being claimed by the Grand Dukes of Muscovy starting with Ivan III. His grandson Ivan IV would become the first Tsar of Russia (which was derived from the Latin caesar) . Their successors supported the idea that Moscow was the proper heir to Rome and Constantinople, a Third Rome. Both the Ottoman and the Russian Empires would continue to consider themselves proper heirs to the Romans/Byzantines until their own demises early in the 20th century"...Nothing but wannabe pretenders.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 11, 2005 23:19:10 GMT -5
There does not exist a Byzantine Empire except in a chronological sense according to modern divisions. There only exists a Roman Empire, the Empire founded by Augustus and destroyed by the Ottomans in 1453.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Sept 12, 2005 0:49:48 GMT -5
Crimsom, I dont believe the lies of Charlemagne, I dont think the holy roman empire was in any way the roman empire.
But how Roman can an empire who doesnt rule over the romans be?
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Sept 12, 2005 0:51:38 GMT -5
Depends on your definition of "Roman," really.
If you mean Roman as in Italian or more specifically, coming directly from Rome, then no, but before rediscovering their Hellenic heritage, the Byzantines did call themselves Romoi or whatever the blasted word is, as they were indeed the heirs of the Roman Empire.
Kind of have to distinguish between nation and ethnicity here. A person can still call himself American and not have to be an Amerind, for instance. One can still be Roman without actually being descended from Italic peoples.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Sept 12, 2005 1:05:40 GMT -5
maybe nicaragua is the real spanish empire!
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 12, 2005 1:15:39 GMT -5
Crimsom, I dont believe the lies of Charlemagne, I dont think the holy roman empire was in any way the roman empire. But how Roman can an empire who doesnt rule over the romans be? The Roman Empire was the Empire of the Romans. It is of little consequence that it did not rule over the populace of medieval Rome, especially since that city was no longer the seat of imperial govenment.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Sept 12, 2005 1:42:11 GMT -5
<<One can still be Roman without actually being descended from Italic peoples>>
No! The Franks,Germans,Turks and Russians all tried calling themselves Romans.
The Turk King Mehmed thought of himself as the heir to the throne of the Roman Empire ,and he invaded Italy in 1480 to further lay claim to the not simply just the name alone but also the people. He adopted the title "Kayser-i-Rüm" (Roman Caesar) shortly after his conquest of Eastern Rome . The Southern Italians with the help of the (very italianized) Hungarian king Mattias Corvinus destroyed the Turks.
So no..The Romans where both the Italic-Greek people and the government which they developed.
<<heirs of the Roman Empire>>
They werent heirs,that was still the Roman Empire.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Sept 12, 2005 1:48:41 GMT -5
Well, I could care less about the Germans, Gauls, Turks, and Ruskies. All I know is that the Greeks that called themselves Romoi were NOT Italic.
The Hellenes of the Byzantine period called themselves Romans because they had been assimilated into the Roman Empire many hundreds of years before, not because their ancestors came into the Balkans from Rome, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Sept 12, 2005 1:55:00 GMT -5
crimson, the romans and the greeks from magna grecia in southern italy were not the same people.
|
|
byz
Full Member
rodostamo na ginesai
Posts: 171
|
Post by byz on Sept 12, 2005 7:37:19 GMT -5
In the most literal sense, I would with Dienekes - that there was a Roman Empire lasting from the foundation of Rome to the fall of Constantinople. But I also think that, due to the shifting of the seat of power, to different demic and cultural influences and to historical developments, that Eastern Rome became a very different expression of Rome and needs to be considered on its' terms.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Sept 12, 2005 8:51:03 GMT -5
The Roman Empire was the Empire of the Romans. It is of little consequence that it did not rule over the populace of medieval Rome, especially since that city was no longer the seat of imperial govenment. In which sense was the Empire of the Romans when the Romans had for long ceased to rule it or even be part of it? We have an empire when an ethnic unity rules on one or more other ethnic unities. The Sacrum Imperium Romanum was an instrument of domination of the Germanic tribes on other peoples, not of the Romans. It was a Germanic Empire.
|
|