Byzantine Empire Imperium Graecorum or Imperium Romanum??

[keravnos]

I consider them Romans and later on the Greek succssors of the Romans more than anything else, I consider the Franks to be something of the Germanic successors of the Western Romans.

Exactly. I consider them as east romani speaking greek. It was only after us Greeks were under Turkish occupation that we considered ourselves as Greeks. Prior to that we thought ourselves as Romans, and so did the Turks. "Rumi" they called us then, aka Romani.

[Morte66]

I thought they were Roman, until I read a book about them. Now I think that after the first few generations they were "medieval Greek with a strong Roman streak" (law, economics, roads).

But hey, even their contemporaries called them "Romanoi" (in Greek).

p.s. I thoroughly recommend John Julius Norwich's three volume history of Byzantium as a fascinating read.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I consider Byznatium to be the decendant of Rome, but also the remainder. It depends of whether you consider the ERE as a true part of Rome or a spilt-off.

I consider it the continuation of the Roman Empire, with no break.

[keravnos]

Roma as a state begins 753 BCE and ends in another land with a people speaking a different language in 1453 CE. This is my take on it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Roma as a state begins 753 BCE and ends in another land with a people speaking a different language in 1453 CE. This is my take on it.

Ditto, but I'm more inclined to count from 510, that's still 2,000 years.

[Conqueror]

I remember seeing it described as a "Roman body with Greek mind and Eastern soul", or something to that effect. Not too far from how I view the empire - as a romanized, christianized Greek state with Middle-Eastern influences.

[Kugutsu]

It was a direct continuation of the roman empire wasnt it. The empire disintegrated in the west, but the part that was in the east survived - with its capital in Constantinople. There was no break, and the greeks didnt go and conquer the eastern roman empire to make it their own. The culture simply morphed over time. But then the culture of Rome at the end was nothing like the culture of the city state that fought the carthaginians and then started dreaming of empire. Cultures constantly evolve. Britain now is nothing like the island conquered by the romans, but its still Britain. England now isnt even the same as the country ruled by Victoria, and that was only 100 years ago!

[Intranetusa]

Roma as a state begins 753 BCE and ends in another land with a people speaking a different language in 1453 CE. This is my take on it.

Actually, the Roman state began in 509 BCE with the founding of the Republic.


My take on it is:
Roman Empire 509 BCE - 476 CE
Byzantine Successor Empire - 1458 CE

I don't consider the Byzantines a continuation of the Roman empire because it's not exactly Roman if it doesn't even control the city of Rome, nor have Latin/Italian culture as the core.

There was no break, and the greeks didnt go and conquer the eastern roman empire to make it their own.

That's because the Greeks were conquered by the Romans. IMO, I don't consider the conquered peoples as a continuation of the empire of the conquerors, especially if they change their language, culture, customs, etc

Greek v Latin, etc

[the_handsome_viking]

Exactly. I consider them as east romani speaking greek. It was only after us Greeks were under Turkish occupation that we considered ourselves as Greeks. Prior to that we thought ourselves as Romans, and so did the Turks. "Rumi" they called us then, aka Romani.

Yeah, it's quite an interesting subject really, Roman identity politics that is, not even most people of the Italian peninsula could really consider themselves to be Roman latins, and even the Turks having conquered the Eastern Roman Empire considered themselves to be Eastern Romans.

[Intranetusa]

Yeah, it's quite an interesting subject really, Roman identity politics that is, not even most people of the Italian peninsula could really consider themselves to be Roman latins, and even the Turks having conquered the Eastern Roman Empire considered themselves to be Eastern Romans.

They were conquered by the Romans, after all. I'm sure even the people in Gaul, Spain, North Africa, etc all considered themselves Roman or at least Roman-esque

[Magister Militum Titus Pullo]

The Byzantine Empire was just the surviving eastern half of the old Roman Empire. It was the 16th century German historian Hieronymus Wolf whom coined the phrase "Byzantine." They never declared independence, they just split the empire between two emperors. Its like if Britain was conquered by Nazi Germany, and the British Government and Royal Family relocated to Canada or Australia, and remained the case for more than sixty years.

[Enguerrand de Sarnéac]

Its like if Britain was conquered by Nazi Germany, and the British Government and Royal Family relocated to Canada or Australia, and remained the case for more than sixty years.

No, because the split occured before the foreign invasions. There is no one fleeing, or relocating for that matter

[Magister Militum Titus Pullo]

All I'm saying is that if the original homeland of an empire was overrun by the forces a foreign nation, then a new seat of government would be chosen if enough of its territories remained under its authority. I know that the Imperium Romanorum was continually divided and reunited before the reigns of Honorius and Arcadius. And even King Theodoric of the Ostrogoths rule of Italy on behalf of Emperor Zeno was a pretense of legality.

[Wolfman]

To me Byzantium as we now call it had the most legitimate claim of being roman so I consider them to be a second roman empire. The Venetians in my book come second place since they were decended from roman refugees.