Were the Byzantines actually Roman? If the religion, location, culture, military and government were different than are they any different than the other empires who claimed to be the heir to the Roman Empire?
Yes of course. When the empire split in 395 the Bynatines were the eastern half. Bynatium was a name created after the fall for historcal records to tell the difrance after the fact.
One could aruge after the adoption of greek in the 600s that they were no longer roman though.
As the first anon who replied said, of course they were Roman. However, the Greek cultural influence slowly won out over the centuries.
>>472956
Technically, yes, even though there wasn't really anything recognizably Roman about them the Byzantine state was a direct continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire.
>>472956
yes
when the roman empire split it was because the empire was so gigantic the transporation technology wasn't advanced enough for the empire to administrate in one location. From Rome, the happenings in the middle-east were so far away that it took far too long for the senate/emperor to react and thus made things incredibly inefficient.
the eastern roman empire/byzantines weren't really a separate empire, they were just the second administrative group in charge of the eastern side of the empire, the other administrative group ruled the western side in Rome/Mediolanum/Ravenna until their collapse
any person living in the Byzantine empire considered themselves Roman, there was no difference in lifestyle for the average Byzantine citizen.
>>472956
Late Rome wasn't all that different from Byzantium. But if you mean toga-wearing boyfuckers, then sure.
>was the unbroken continuation of the roman state roman?
yes, although it stopped being latin after Justinian
>>472956
Kind of. They were Greeks but they adopted elements of Roman culture, and their right to rule was based on that of Rome. It'd be kinda like if the British royal family was exiled to Canada after Great Britain gets conquered or something.
>>472992
it was no longer Latin, it was still the Roman state
>>472956
400's Eastern Rome and Constantinople was pretty much the same as the Western half when people usually say Rome fell or was sacked. The same arguments could be made about the Western half pre-sacking being drastically different from the beginnings of the Roman Empire.
Byzantines were more like the spiritual descandands of Mytridates empire.
>>472956
Why did Justinian try to take Italy back through violence, when the Ostrogoths were very willing to become Romanized? Couldn't he have offered to confederate with them?
>>475415
Because Italy is rightful Roman clay and he wouldn't settle for holding it as a vassal kingdom, plus, they were filthy Arian heretics, which made things 10 times worse.
>>473046
Except the law?
The culture?
The form of government?
The continuity of said government?
Describing themselves as Romans?
This debate is bullshit. Roman state lasted almost 2000 years. During that time it evolved. But continuity was never broken.
Anyone who steps into an Orthodox church in a sense enters Byzantium.
ERE was much closer to the contemporary WRE in terms of politics, culture, laws, military and religion than WRE was to the early Empire.
>>472956
>Were the Byzantines actually Roman?
Founded by a Roman Emperor Constantine, Constantinople was a Roman city, after the fall of the Western Roman part, the ruling dynasty which by blood was still of roman aristocracy moved to Constantinople and ruled from there.
Arguing if the Eastern Roman Empire was Roman is the same as arguing is anything outside of Rome actually Roman?
>>472956
>Were the Byzantines actually Roman?
Of course, what else would they be?
>religion
I'm not sure what you're implying WRE and the ERE were both christian even before they even split
>location
The RE was split in half, you can't both have Rome, besides that's not even a defining trait
>culture
The "Roman culture" (besides the native local ones) was pretty much the same
>military and government
Neither of those changed when they split
>than are they any different than the other empires who claimed to be the heir to the Roman Empire?
It's simply the fact that they were the actual Roman Empire
Was the Eastern Roman Empire ever big on speak latin?
Thanks to Hellenism, Greek was the Lingua Franca of that region. Even Parthians spoke Greek to cunts in the Levant or Anatolia when they want to be understood.
>>472956
The Eastern Roman Empire (ERE) was the natural evolution of Roman culture and its traditions. The Greeks themselves were the basis for most of the Roman culture in the first place, hellenic influence was not new, and certainly not foreign since the founding times of the early Roman Empire.
>Greeks had settled in Southern Italy and Sicily since the eighth century BC. In this way, Italian tribes came into contact with Greek culture very early on and were influenced by it. The alphabet, weights and measures, coinage, many gods and cults (see interpretatio Romana) as well as the building of temples were derived from the Greeks.
One could most surely say without the Greeks they would be no Roman culture as we know it today.
Holy Roman Empire (HRE) on the other hand, started with sacking and pillaging of the Roman institutions destroying any continuity. The culture of HRE was a barbarian foreign culture that used some aspects of the Roman culture to enrich their own.
>>475461
Latin was administrative language early on, but Greek was widely spoken.
>>But on the fifteenth day before the Calends of October (Sept. 17), as much dead as alive, I was summoned to the palace. And when I came into the presence of the patrician Christophorus-the eunuch, receiving me kindly, rose to meet me with three others. Their- discourse began as follows The pallor in your face, the emaciation of - your whole body, your long hair, and your beard-flowing, contrary to your custom-show that there is immense grief in your heart because the date of your return to your master has been delayed. But, we pray you, be not angry with the holy emperor nor with us. For we will tell you the cause of the delay. The Roman pope-if indeed he is to be called pope who has held communion and worked together with the son of Alberic the apostate, with an adulterer and unhallowed person-has sent letters to our most holy emperor, worthy of himself, unworthy of Nicephorus, calling him the emperor "of the Greeks," and not "of the Romans." Which thing beyond a doubt has been done by the advice of your master."
>>"What do I hear?" I said to myself. ,I am lost; there is no doubt but what I shall go by the shortest way to the judgment-seat."
>>" Now listen," they continued, " we know you will say that the pope is the simplest of men; you will say it, and we acknowledge it." "But," I answered, "I do not say it."
>>Hear then! The stupid silly pope does not know that the holy Constantine transferred hither the imperial scepter, the senate, and all the Roman knighthood, and left in Rome nothing but vile minions- fishers, namely, peddlers, bird catchers, bastards, plebeians, slaves.
>>475463
Romans were to the Greeks, what the Germans were to the Romans. Culturally only the Greeks have the prestige, everything else were just additions to the main hellenic culture.
>>475463
>Holy Roman Empire (HRE) on the other hand, started with sacking and pillaging of the Roman institutions destroying any continuity
There's literally no relation between the two, in fact there's even a 350 years gap between those two events
>>472956
They were Romans, it was the same state as had existed for centuries.
