I think it is finally time for the Greeks to admit. They were not Byzantine and they were not Roman

1. the byzantine empire has nothing to do with the roman empire
2. the byzantine empire was inevitably a mutt empire since it included half of the middle east, this doesn't mean of course that what is now greece has been muttified.
3. modern greeks are more or less the same people as bronze and iron age greeks, which were a different people from the romans, as modern day greeks are quite different from the modern italians.
4. point one is very important to understand

You seem to not understand what it actually meant to be Roman. In the 200's ethnicity did not matter to be Roman and neither did it in the 1000's. For the Classical Empire it was to be a citizen and in the Medieval Empire it meant being an Orthodox Christian who folded to Imperial ways, any Armenian, Slav or Bulgar could be called Romans if they folded to the state.

Non si chiamerebbero romani ma romei comunque, e il loro stato Romania

This is bait or jealousy

> In the 200's ethnicity did not matter to be Roman
1. in point one of mt previous post i was not talking about ethnicity but about culture. the byzantine one has nothing to do with the romans.
2. we have plenty of latin satire against niggers and shitskins. juvenal for instance, but also many geographers.
jstor.org/stable/24591507

Byzantines call themselves Romans, name Byzantium was introduced far later.

stay mad *dabs*

Attached: F43A3D76-6BDD-4958-A6A1-BA9C88619F0E.jpg (612x1874, 590.78K)

jealousy for what? this is the article on the byzantine empire in our most important encyclopedia written by giorgio pasquali one of our foremost philologists in the 20th century, a professor in gottingen and a disciple of ulrich von wilamowitz-moellendorff.
ha calls it: "an inferior, eastern civilization".
treccani.it/enciclopedia/civilta-bizantina_(Enciclopedia-Italiana)/

and the ottoman sultan in 1453 called himself a roman emperor, so?

>jealousy
He probably means jealousy for how the western part was destroyed meanwhile the eastern “inferior” one managed to exist for centuries to come.

Whatever though I’m not a Byzabooo like my fellow Georgian user on this board. Honestly they had it coming+the west pretty much fucked them over and instead they got the Turks in their place who they had to war with for centuries which is also kind of a punishment for forsaking them and YET, they had it coming. Proof that every Empire will eventually fall

Attached: 6D9D9671-E786-4255-881A-4C158E8EF320.jpg (600x600, 20.5K)

How has the Roman state with direct continuation from Augustus to 1204 the same as a conquest of the most powerful successor state?

The Byzantine Empire was the whitest, richest and longest lasting empire of the human race

The problem with arguing that the Byzantines weren't Roman is that you'd have to pick a certain time in history where it stopped being the Roman Empire and became the Byzantine Empire and a lot historians now see why this is non-sensical; Traditionally the fall of Rome itself was seen as this transition point, but a good question is why? Constantine had moved the capital a hundred years before this and Rome had not only lost a substantial portion of its population, but most of its influence as well. People can recognize that the Byzantine Empire was different from lets say Imperial Rome, but pointing to the exact point this transition happened becomes this nebulous affair where people argue over every little event being the supposed demarcation between one empire and next. IMO even if the western portion of the Roman Empire had survived with Rome as its capital, it likely would've looked exactly like the Byzantine Empire. That's why I think it makes more sense to see the Byzantine Empire as the natural evolution of the Roman Empire, rather than being a completely separate entity as some would argue.

I can agree to that. I think if there was a cutoff it would be 1204, I believe that with the destruction of the Imperial state, senate and bureaucracy the Roman identity split off into the Hellen and the still Roman identities as there was no Imperial power to actually enforce it.

That's fair. I mean it certainly wasn't an empire after that, even despite the capital being retaken for a while.

> Constantine
Constantine was a son of a literal prostitute and a lucky soldier and saw rome 1-2 times in his whole life. constantine was not roman, and neither rome nor the roman empire can be "moved".

After the recapture of Constantinople it was just a complete nosedive. The Venetian and Genoese both feasted themselves and made the barely sustainable Empire into almost perpetual bankruptcy. The absolute obsession with Constantinople and rebuilding it as the wonder of the world made Anatolian peasants and newly created magnates prefer the Turkish Beyliks to the new Imperial authority who were too preoccupied with the West to bother defending their Anatolian border from the now weak and separated Turks..

Your argument makes no sense even during the Republican/Imperial periods. There were tons of individuals who had Roman citizenship who had never seen or even been to Rome. The only way your argument has any degree of logic is if you say that only people born in Rome and who were citizens could be "Roman." In which case I guess there was never a Roman Empire, because by that logic only an incredibly small group of people who fit that specific criteria could be considered Roman.

Cope he moved the capital to constantinople

So 95% of the Roman Empire wasn't Roman because they never saw the capital?

Reminder that the Legacy of Rome still lives with the Pope in Rome after Emperor Gratian refused the title of pontifex maximvs and gave it to the Bishop of Rome