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.
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.
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!
The people who doubt its direct lineage are also the people who helped destroy it. It makes sense if you think of it this way. It makes more sense now that more than 500 years have passed since its demise.
You like EB? Buy CA games.
I think of Byzantines as Greeks rather the Romans.
As for Moskovy claim for "third rome", I agree with minimi. Plus don't forget that Russian grand prince married daughter of last Byzantine emperor.
If you think it will happen, it will happen?Originally Posted by keravnos
What about the quote
"the Holy Roman Empire is not holy, not Roman, and not an empire"?
Didn't Mike Myers say that on a Saturday Night Live skit...while dressed up as a Jewish woman? "Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic. The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Talk..."Originally Posted by Intranetusa
JK
Bookmarks