Can we talk about Constantine the Great?

[Badtz Maru]

Arguably China and India could be on that list, though arguably not either; I suppose it depends on what you consider a continuous nation.

However Japan certainly has existed as an independent continuous nation for over 1000 years, hell the current Dynasty is even that old.

By that argument, Germany has been in continuous existence since the Holy Roman Empire. Most of the time it was a bunch of mostly independent states under the Holy Roman Emperor, who had no real power over them, but if you can say Japan during it's feudal period was a nation, you can say the same thing about the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[phungus420]

Badtz Maru I am unable to determine whether you're trying to be downright deceitful, or are just being ridiculously stupid. Actually suppose you're just ignoring what I posted and arguing for the sake of arguing.

Show me the continuous dynasty in Germany. Show me the singular nation of Germany that has lasted for more then 200 years. Your counterexample is absurd. For the record this was my response to the last idiotic rebuttal to my statement, though it applies equally well to yours:

yes but Japan underwent many many changes in the last thousand years so that it cant be the same state. it went from a medieval shogunate, to an empire, to an occupied nation and finally a Republic. the first two are quite a bit different.

And all this time maintained a contiguous dynasty and national identity. Japan has been the same nation in every rational sense for the last 1000 years. I really don't understand what your point is, or how and when you think the nation of Japan wasn't Japan in the last 1000 years. Did Emperor Meiji's reformation somehow destroy the nation of Japan? Did the American occupation destroy it? If that's your argument, how so?

Edit:
Why you make no sense:

By that argument, Germany has been in continuous existence since the Holy Roman Empire. Most of the time it was a bunch of mostly independent states under the Holy Roman Emperor, who had no real power over them, but if you can say Japan during it's feudal period was a nation, you can say the same thing about the Holy Roman Empire.

Durring Japan's feudal period they were under the EMPEROR of JAPAN. Japan has always been Japan within the last thousand year, Germany was almost never Germany in this period; it was a bunch of independent states, Austria, Prussia, loosely controlled by the HRE, being pillaged by the Goths, etc, etc.

Seriously what the man, what the ? If you want to argue with my thesis, at least present something rational. But Germany, Germany is younger then the friggin United States man, seriously this is ludicrous.

 

[Artful]

I've read Norwich's history, and I don't recall statements to the effect that Constantine was a Byzantine, I think Norwich simply wouldn't say something like that - Constantine was a Roman, plain and simple. He couldn't be anything else, as the Byzantine empure just didn't exist - it doesn't matter if he took the first steps that led to it's foundtation. I don't think you can really say definitively that Constantine founded it - Theodosius perhaps has a better claim to this, since at his death in he divided the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western halves between his sons Arcadius and Honorius. Or you could argue the founder was Leo III who took the throne in 716, and brought in a change in thinking ending the end of the concept of the Eastern Roman Empire. If you can provide a page reference in Norwich where he says Constantine is a Byzantine, please do so - but this is different from calling him founder of the Byzantine empire (which he isn't directly anyway).

 

[kochman]

Norwich didn't say he was a byzantine. He founded the empire, he was a roman, this is not in contention. G Washington was a British Colonist who helped found the USA. I don't have a page number for Norwich saying Constantine was a Byzantine, because I am not even saying that.

As for the empire... How about the title of Vasiliev's book? Right there in the title?

I hear what you are saying...
I maintain the first, clearest break, in the history, is Constantine moving the capital. I mean, I can't force people to agree, but I will not change this opinion. He founded it, arguments that it didn't exist yet are fallacies, because he founded it.

 

[Icaria909]

you got to love it when someone pulls the "I'm right because I said so" argument.

 

[kochman]

you got to love it when someone pulls the "I'm right because I said so" argument.

I didn't pull that argument. I said, I'm right because Vasiliev, the foremost authority on the subject, says so.

Arguing against that, well... I can lead a horse to water.. but I can't make it drink.

 

[ac106]

Norwich didn't say he was a byzantine. He founded the empire, he was a roman, this is not in contention. G Washington was a British Colonist who helped found the USA. I don't have a page number for Norwich saying Constantine was a Byzantine, because I am not even saying that.

As for the empire... How about the title of Vasiliev's book? Right there in the title?

I hear what you are saying...
I maintain the first, clearest break, in the history, is Constantine moving the capital. I mean, I can't force people to agree, but I will not change this opinion. He founded it, arguments that it didn't exist yet are fallacies, because he founded it.

The title of Vasiliev's book does not mean he thinks the Byzantine Empire was founded by Constantine! Ex:

The History of the United States from 1492 to 1910, Volume 1 From Discovery of America October 12, 1492 to Battle of Lexington April 19, 1775 by Julian Hawthorne

A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present (P.S.) by Howard Zinn

From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 (Oxford History of the United States) by George C. Herring


A short history of the United States. 1492-1920. by John Spencer by Bassett. John Spencer. 1867-1928.


Do you think any of those authors think America was founded in 1492 or 1776?

 

[kochman]

A.A.Vasiliev - History of the Byzantine Empire
p.43 the Title of Chapter 2:
Chapter II: The Empire from the time of Constantine the Great to Justinian
Further down the page

Christianity and Hellenism did intermix gradually to form a Christian-Greco-Eastern Culture subsequently known as Byzantine... The person who was chiefly responsible for the many changes in the empire was Constantine the Great.

I will not go any further into this point. If this isn't enough for the minority opinion here to at least let the majority hold onto our opinion on history, backed by A.A.Vasiliev, well, too bad for those in the minority opinion.

 

[naterator]

Constantine was roman. Justinian was roman. Theodosius was roman. The citizens of constantinople until at least the year 1204 were roman. If there were really an afterlife you could ask them yourselves.
Imagine if Obama moves the capital to Chicago, then 100 years later america loses everything east of the ohio river but what remains keeps the name america until it too falls several hundred years later.
1000 years later, they might refer to the american and chicagoan empires to make differentiation easier, but Obama is still an american, as are all the subsequent leaders.

 

[phungus420]

And Dido would refer to herself as Pheonecian, doesn't change the fact she makes a sensible leader for Carthage.

 

[kochman]

Constantine was roman. Justinian was roman. Theodosius was roman. The citizens of constantinople until at least the year 1204 were roman. If there were really an afterlife you could ask them yourselves.
Imagine if Obama moves the capital to Chicago, then 100 years later america loses everything east of the ohio river but what remains keeps the name america until it too falls several hundred years later.
1000 years later, they might refer to the american and chicagoan empires to make differentiation easier, but Obama is still an american, as are all the subsequent leaders.

By this logic, there is no Byzantine Empire. I think before we can discuss the Byzantine Empire we should at least come to the agreement that there was one. If you don't agree, that is a different thread entirely, which you should feel to start. On this thread, its taken as a given.

 

[Icaria909]

The Byzantine Empire isn't different from rome until after justinian, when they change the state language from latin to Koine Greek, when the empire makes Christianity the state religion (not even the romans made one state religion), when the empire introduced the Theme system to keep up the army instead of conscripting citizens and barbarians like Rome, when the hippodrome became more important than the coloseum, etc. The Byzantines didn't become a seperate entity until well into the sixth century, not at the construction of Constantinople

 

[kochman]

That's your opinion at least.

 

[kochman]

Something interesting we haven't addressed are the 3 votes (currently) for not even putting Constantine in the game...
Any of those 3 care to elaborate?