undefined

points

[-]

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.

by derdi1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Proof to your modern eyes. Not to the eyes of those who also called Constantinople "New Rome", and who called themselves Romans even 1000 years later.

by euroderf11 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

"Capital of the Western World for a Cool Thousand Years" (TM)

by momoschili1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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. Conversely it is also legitimate to note the major differences between the two and the fact that discontinuities do exist.

by derdi34 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

"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 Eastern character sprang up (and immediately applied to Egypt) the moment that Constantinople was founded.

by cwnyth41 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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.

by derdi28 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

So I shouldn't call them Romans, since that is an English translation of what they called themselves, and thus foreign to them.

But you can call them Byzantines, an English term invented in the 19th century, because... you say so? Thank you, I have been enlightened.

by 1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

deleted

by fierycatnet1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Sounds like we watched the same Lex interview on Rome...

by AnimalMuppet2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Well, probably Greek-speaking rather than Latin-speaking, right? And with that, would there also be some cultural differences?

by derdi1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

One of the articles mentioned inscriptions in Coptic, Latin, and Greek. The elites would have spoken both Greek and Latin, I think? Greek was commonly known and used. Caesar, a Very Latin Roman, as he was being murdered in Rome, is conjectured to have spoken Greek to Brutus, another Very Latin Roman.

The notion that people are mostly monolingual, and that language is very closely tied to a cultural identity, is a modern projection (and far from universally true nowadays as well).