Minor nations

[DarkOpus]

But Greek is the popular name and thus it has stuck, the same is true with the Byzantines.

That's just my point, Byzantine is loaded with the connotations of a retrojected history. The sheer fact there is no such ethnonym means using the name is something of a false economy. Scholars (post '95-ish certainly) tend to go with Eastern Later Roman Empire, or just stick to calling the whole thing Later Roman Empire.

Which begs the question, when does the Roman Empire end? Many an argument can be had to that one, not least in the pub when 'ask the Pope' will usually stop it.

 

[Xenophonos]

No you missed my point.

The term Byzantine Empire is used to distinguish from other names and empires such as the Holy Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire and other such names.

The Byzantine Empire is not referred to as the Later Roman Empire because, although they might have called themselves Romaioi, they were Christian, spoke Greek, had a different culture than the Romans, inhabited another part of the Empire and were just overall very different than the original Roman Empire.

So that's why we don't use the Later Roman Empire, because there was the Holy Roman Empire and the original Roman Empire was vastly different than the "Later Roman Empire" which I and most other people call the Byzantine Empire.

 

[chef pablo]

I say tomato you say tamoto....

 

[DarkOpus]

No you missed my point.

The term Byzantine Empire is used to distinguish from other names and empires such as the Holy Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire and other such names.

The Byzantine Empire is not referred to as the Later Roman Empire because, although they might have called themselves Romaioi, they were Christian, spoke Greek, had a different culture than the Romans, inhabited another part of the Empire and were just overall very different than the original Roman Empire.

So that's why we don't use the Later Roman Empire, because there was the Holy Roman Empire and the original Roman Empire was vastly different than the "Later Roman Empire" which I and most other people call the Byzantine Empire.

On the contrary, you missed my point. ;-)

I'm not arguing that they weren't different than the Roman Empire of the past, nor am I arguing that they were the same as the Holy Roman Empire ("neither holy, Roman, or an Empire"). I understand why we have the term Byzantine, but, given that the people of Later Roman Empire saw themselves as a continuation of the Roman Empire is the application of a term, invented by us, onto them correct? I don't think so, and almost all modern historians/archaeologist referring to this period steer away from the term Byzantine as a consequence. Once again the term is a short-hand solution, most people who play the game would recognise 'Byzantine', they would not recognise Eastern Later Roman Empire as being "that place with the capital in Constantinople".

 

[Xenophonos]

Yes but Dark Opus, after the Ottoman Turks conquered the Byzantine Empire, they too considered themselves the heirs of the Roman Empire as well as the Russians, the Germans and Romanians to a degree. So just because someone is a successor doesn't mean they *must* be named a certain way.

Also keep in mind that a nation can name themselves whatever they want, doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to call them the same thing (like with Greeks vs. Hellenes).

I don't really think there's more to discuss related to this thread, but feel free to IM me if you wanna discuss this more...

 

[SmokeyD]

due to representation and millitary might athens was able to hold power over a larger region but the rest of greece was a city state troy spartan all had thier own leaders but they gave alledgance to greece and went to battle under the same banner.Yes they were an empire but not in the same since that the roman politicle machine was.

Err, yes they were. They weren't nearly as effective as the Romans at creating and especially maintaining their empires, but they certainly existed. Athens did not just control Athens, but a variety of other areas throughout the Medditerrenean, notably on Scily and the southern coast of the Italian peninsula. And Alexander went even further to defeat and absorb (or be absorbed by, depending who you ask) the Persian Empire as well as asserting control over all the Greek city-states.

Both of these examples were far more than loose national allegiences based on recognition of a Hellenistic ideal.

as for atilla he most certainly comanded the forces of the hun but the leadership was splintered and his biggest acheavment was uniting the hun to fight under one banner under one leader beyond that there was no further uniting .

Atilla the Hun's empire, at it's peak.

http://judicial-inc.biz/Romano3.gif


Also, Byzantium is a description of the Eastern Roman Empire after 476 AD is perfectly acceptable. It's very hard to compare Classical, or even late Classical Rome with the medieval kingdom that emerged in the Eastern Empire in the Middle Ages, even moreso because the inhabitants of that kingdom were neither ethnically nor linguistically linked to the Romans -- as they were Greeks, not Romans, and spoke Greek not Latin.

 

[chef pablo]

hey smoke look at post 16&20 i dont want to bicker i just trying to come up with a solution .