71–80 of 213 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They actually called themselves Ῥωμαῖοι, not Romani, and not every description needs to be emic. There's nothing wrong with the label "Byzantine" except to Byzaboos.
But Wikipedia[0] says Ῥωμαῖοι transliterates to Romaioi, i.e. "Romans". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#Nomenclature
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many Western polities have sought the title of the Roman Empire and the legitimacy it endows. Constantine split the empire, and Constantius II did not rule over Rome (or many other parts of the empire). Is it even reasonable to assert it was still the Roman Empire after the fracture? Is it legitimate for the Eastern Roman Empire to claim the legacy? I think so, and I think they have among the best arguments for it. C…
"Constantine split the empire" is just incorrect. There were co-emperors with regional responsibilities both before and after him. They were co-emperors of one empire. If you want a firm split, 395 (death of Theodosius) is the more common date AFAIK. I'm not denying that gradually, over well more than a thousand years, the empire (only surviving in the East) changed character in many ways. I am denying that a unique…
I do agree with you that there was no instantaneous Eastern character that sprang up out of nowhere.
A Byzantine lost city around the year 400 CE.
Not singling you out, all the articles do it, but: Strange to call this Byzantine. The coins found are from the reign of Constantius II, who at times ruled the whole empire alone (as did his successor Julian). The idea that the East, even when administered separately, was some foreign/"Byzantine"/not- really -Roman "other" was invented much later.
I get that there is controversy about if Byzantium was Roman. But the person you’re replying to doesn’t seem to be making any claims about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, invented much later, but the expression of a different power structure that those types of Romans felt was not present. But to our modern eyes it was. Hell, the mere fact the centre of power was in Constantinople and not Rome is proof enough that they were distinct.
Is the United States become a different entity when it moved its capital between Philadelphia and Washington DC?
Its more complicated than you are making it seem. I dont even have a strong opinion on the conclusion but it’s certainly not how you’ve framed it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any well-travelled guy is familiar with women who ask them to pretend to be married to allow them to escape constant, occasionally dangerous male pestering. In Turkey, I even met a woman who carried fake wedding bands for this purpose. We hung out for a few days as a “married” couple so she could get relief from the constant harassment.
I've learnt to be paranoid: marriage can be a scam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the United States become a different entity when it moved its capital between Philadelphia and Washington DC?
It would be like if the US moved the capital to DC, replaced Christianity with Islam, switched English to French, no longer contained NY, Boston, Pennsylvania, and foreign powers stopped calling it the United States. Its more complicated than you are making it seem. I dont even have a strong opinion on the conclusion but it’s certainly not how you’ve framed it.
First, The Roman Empire was always bilingual. Greek always held sway over the eastern half and Latin over the western half. Once the west is gone, of course you'll switch to primarily using the language that most use. The Irish didn't stop being Irish because they primarily speak English now, for example.
Second, the only states that refused to recognize the Eastern Roman Empire as the Roman Empire were the states that were descended from the German invaders and that was because they wanted to claim the Roman mantle for themselves. All of Islam called the East Romans, Rum. As did all of the rest of the world when they had contact with them.
Third, the switch to Christianity had already happened by the time of the split in 395.
Fourth, Rome hadn't been the seat of power for many Emperors since before the Third Century Crisis.
Fifth, states lose and gain territory all the time.
Read The New Roman Empire by Anthony Kaldellis. If you want to read more about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be like if the US moved the capital to DC, replaced Christianity with Islam, switched English to French, no longer contained NY, Boston, Pennsylvania, and foreign powers stopped calling it the United States. Its more complicated than you are making it seem. I dont even have a strong opinion on the conclusion but it’s certainly not how you’ve framed it.
It really isn't more complicated. These are mostly the excuses that 19th century Western European scholars used to deny the Eastern Romans their Romanness, because they wanted to place themselves as the inheritors of Rome. First, The Roman Empire was always bilingual. Greek always held sway over the eastern half and Latin over the western half. Once the west is gone, of course you'll switch to primarily using the lan…
Ironically these guys called themselves Holy Roman Empire, it's neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire. They're hallucinating hundred of years before AI/LLM.
> All of Islam called the East Romans, Rum
Fun fact there's entire Chapter on Rome in the Quran namely Surah Ar-Rum [1]. In the New Testament Bible there's a section or book called Epistle to the Romans, or the letter of Paul to Roman originally written in Koine Greek [2]. But there's letter of Paul not the word of God or Jesus hence called espistle.
There's also an authentic direct letter from the Prophet Muhammad to the Roman Emperor at the time of Hercules inviting him and his subjects to Islam [3]. Please note that Muhammad cannot read or write hence the letter was written for him as dictated by him [4].
[1] Ar-Rum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar-Rum
[2] Epistle to the Romans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans
[3] The Holy Prophet’s letter to Heraclius:
https://www.alhakam.org/holy-prophets-letter-to-heraclius
[4] Diplomatic career of Muhammad:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just Islamic conquest but Arab conquest. Up to this point Arabs lived mainly in, well, Arabia. The indigenous peoples of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc..., were all non-Arab. Nowadays those indigenous groups are known as Copts, Syriacs, Chaldeans, etc...
Legitimate question, in the early days was this a large distinction? Specifically, my understanding was that the earliest raids where this distinction is most accurate, they didn't actually change the local societies much. Mostly were raids for resources and did not stay. That is, until the Islamic raids started, the indigenous groups took losses, but were not nearly as transformed. Is that not accurate?
this is amazing. I am ancient egypt nerd but sucks that egypt is in egypt. I got scammed last time i went there and ppl were rude and agrresive.