New UU's

Yet Xen you cannot by any argument you can make account for one simple fact : the Byzantine themselves considered their empire to be the Roman empire.

Different language, certainly, different culture, probably - but languages and cultures change over them ; that's simply the way of things.

But if you somehow teleported a byzantine here and asked him "Are you a Byzantine or a Roman?" (in a language he understood, of course), chance are he would say "I am Roman," (especially since the name Byzantium would have little to no meaning to them - their capital city was called Constantinople, after all).

As for your argument about cultural change and how an early empire roman would hardly recognize Constantinople...that's a given. In a 500+ years period, things change massively. But it's how the people think of themselves that matter. Today's Americans are very different from the 1776 ones on any number of things - yet today's americans still consider themselves part of the same civilization that was founded in 1776. And no one would dispute that they are.

The Byzantine empire is Rome because the byzantine, no matter how much they may have changed, thought of themselves as Romans still, and they were the "heirs" to the Roman empire (and thus had a legitimate claim to calling themselves romans).
 
Okay, first off an explination why I didnt write a rubuttle as soon as I saw this- I was banned for three day, but thats behind me now, for now it is time to protect the honour of Byzatium!

-okay then, first off, the comparison of the US to that of the easter Roman empire-Byzantine empire is faulty at best, as the US hyas never gone through a drastic cultural change accompanying it being split into two distinct entities, and staying that way

-just nit picking really, but every one in the area has know that the city was originally a city nammed Byzabtium, and well into the ottoman period the founders were regarded as local heros of the city

-as for the the Byzantines regarding themselves as Roman- they had every right, the empire was the political heir (and the only legitimite one I might add), but that dosent make them true Romans dose it?-No, it dosent, it just means that they kept the name, just like ROMANIA(one of several forms of saying "Roman Empire")- it kept the name too, but that dosent make them Roman dose it?
 
The difference being that they (Byzantines) were both the legitimate heirs of the roman empire (not in the sense that they REPLACED Rome, but in the sense that they were the masters of what was left of the roman empire), and considered themselves to be the roman empire.

Romania may have been named after the romans, but they were not the direct political heirs to the roman empire.
 
the relationship of the Byzantine empire, and the Roman empire is best descried as in essence a relationship like that of a father and son, alike, but not the same, both able to claim the same last name, but if the father dies his wife dose not have the right to give it out at her descresion; it goes to the son, and should the wife re-marry(the wife would be the christian/catholic church), the last name in this case, is the true Emperer of the Romans- the title that only the Byzantine emperor could claim,and even though the son is able to claim the last last name, he is not the same as his father, but a differnt man, his own man.
 
the byzantines did not call themselves byzantines, byzantium was the city constanople was built on, so they would of called themselves constanopleiums:D
 
@ pawpaw- yup three days, well four really, but that a diiffernt story, sensless spamming you see... lemme tell ya, being banned SUCKS

yup, pulled my little piece of Xennic brilliance (I consider that little piece one of my best works on the Byzantine empire)out of retirement in the histoy forums, and worked it a little to be more practical in this thread....
 
I believe the problem lies in the definition of a civilization... What is the comon trait of a civ and its inhabitants (bad word but I'm tired). Is it people (ethnic groups), culture or geographical areas. The Roman conquered areas of asia minor where they considered part of the Roman civilization? Was Constantinople considered part of the Roman civilization when it was founded by Constantine the Great? Why? Why would it not be considered part of the Roman civilization a thousand years later? It you believe (and I know you do Xen, hehe) that Byzantium and Romania where two completely different (and separate) civs, then when did they split... or when did the Roman empire fall and the Byzantium Empire begin? I'ld say that Roman culture was way different in the year 350 than in the year 100. Not the same culture, enthic group or geographical area. But was it the same civ?

I'm not claiming anything in this post, I just want your views.

Jonte
 
well first off there is the fact the Constantine didnt found a pile of horse manure- he just renamed an existing city, there is also the fact that after the split of the Roman empire into east and west, they both had DIFFERNT cultures, which then makes the case can they still be attributed to the same culture- the best way to go about it is the easyiest- the side that owns Rome can be called Roman, while the other side, the eastwen side, is differnt (sure they "re-conqured" Rome, but by then they were already a new culture
 
a new culture, but a new civ?

although, I do want to see them as one, and play them as their own civ... I'm not sure I'ld veiw them as one (maybe with some of my wish thinking, hehe)

but your argument states that when a civ loses its capital or maybe capital region (Lazio) or Capital area? (Italy) i become a new civ... Maybe... would you consider that england in the years 800-900 where a different civ than that after 1066?

Jonte
 
not that every one would become a new civ but, the Byzantine-Roman situation is a (rather)unique one, and unique veiws should be adopted to help undestand it
 
Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
Yet Xen you cannot by any argument you can make account for one simple fact : the Byzantine themselves considered their empire to be the Roman empire.


Wasn't Charlemagne crowned emperor of Rome? Did Russia consider Moscow to be a "Third Rome"? (I think I wanted to say something about Napoleon, but I can't remember what it was).

Byzantine might have been Roman to themselves, but to everyone else, they weren't Romans. They were culturally different, much more so than the United States and England ever were.
 
By the way, the Assyrian War Machine is marching
 
The Pope didnt have the authority to crown anyone emperor of the Roman empire as the Imperial insignia had been recoverd by the Byzantine empire after Ravenna was sacked, and the wester empire officially ended, and yes after Constantinople fell the Russians proclaimed themselves the 3rd Roman empire (I think the US has made itself the 4th...) But yes it did indeed depend on who you talked to on who was the successpr to Rome- but Byzantium had the only real claim
 
go further with the Assyrian war machine...perhaps my cataphracts can lend a hand ;)
 
Originally posted by Xen
The Pope didnt have the authority to crown anyone emperor of the Roman empire as the Imperial insignia had been recoverd by the Byzantine empire after Ravenna was sacked, and the wester empire officially ended, and yes after Constantinople fell the Russians proclaimed themselves the 3rd Roman empire (I think the US has made itself the 4th...) But yes it did indeed depend on who you talked to on who was the successpr to Rome- but Byzantium had the only real claim

My point was that a lot of people called themselves Roman. Byzantine had more of a legitamate right, but weren't Roman, they were Byzantine.
 
sorry- I got ahead of myself, but now I've had a nice nap, and am much more friendlly :)
 
the dutch uu is a milklady who makes all men in the city happy and all women are going in draft or riot and raze cities
 
Originally posted by pawpaw
hay, the poles FOUGHT hard in WWII, they were just outclassed military wise


"Hey, let's turn back those Nazi scum, what with their panzers and their blitzkriegs and such.....men, get your horses!"

:D

Poor bastards......-lol-
 
Back
Top Bottom