Race of the Carthagranian Empire?

[Eran of Arcadia]

As there is not currently a locale commonly called "Hispania", common sense as you define it dictates that the term "Hispanic" be applied to no one.

 

[Mirc]

What did the Eastern Roman Empire call themselves? It is perfectly reasonable to call them that (or rather, the English translation).

They called themselves Romania. Yes, I'm serious.

So we can't use that name, because it's already used... It would make the mess connected to this name an even bigger terrible mess. I mean, we would have Rome (the city), Rome (the empire) Romania (the modern nation-state), Romania (the Eastern Roman Empire), Romani (Roma ethnicity, aka gypsies)... And each of those means something different.

The best name, IMO, is the Eastern Roman Empire.

 

[alcal]

They called themselves Romania. Yes, I'm serious.

Why did you steal their name?

 

[Mirc]

Why did you steal their name?

We didn't. Rather, both Byzantium and (modern) Romania "inherited" it from Rome.

The southern principate of Romania (which is known in English as Wallachia) was called in Romanian, in the same time as Byzantium, "Teara Romaneasca", meaning "Roman Land" (teara being derived from Latin "terra" - land, country). In fact, if you are interested, even the name "Wallachia" comes from a Slavic version of a Germanic noun meaning "Roman". Read about it here. In fact, the same word (or variations of it) are used in Slavic languages to signify not only Romanians, but also Italians (Czech "Vlach", Polish "Włoch", all mean "Italian", while in Old Russian волохъ - "voloh" used to mean any person speaking any Romance - so including also Spaniards, Frenchmen, Portuguese, etc). The name of the Italian region "Romagna" also comes from the same root word as Romania, which is, guess what - Rome.

And even more, in Romanian, the words Roman and Romanian are... one single word. Until the XIXth century there was absolutely no way to distinguish between the two words, and then the word "roman" got imported from Italian in order to make the distinction, so now in our language "român" - Romanian and "roman" - Roman, but until the (re)introduction of the term "roman", they were both "român".

Actually, the Byzantine historian I. Kynnamos writes that Leon Vatatzes, in preparing for an attack on the Magyars, mobilized many Romanians from the coastline of the Pontus Euxinus. He then also writes of Romanians from the north of Danube taking part, alongside the Imperial commander Leon Vatatzes, in the campaign, in the year of 1167, adding his remark about the the Romanians: "it is said they are colonists arrived a long time ago from Italy". And the Armenian cartographer Chorenatsi writes in the 9th century of a "the country which is called Balak” (in reference to Blachs/Vlachs) North of the Danube. Likewise, Filippo Buonaccorsi Callimaco calls Romanians with the same word as Italians.


Thus, we can conclude that none of those two "stole" the name from another, but rather the name was assigned to them both during the time of the Empire they are called after, the surviving name simply giving us an idea about the might of an earlier empire which, even after having most of its territory lost, divided and conquered, and all its western cities pillaged and at least partially destroyed, still managed to pass along its heritage to people in the most distant corners of its territory.

And I don't mean heritage from a purely genetical point of view, not at all, especially since the Roman Empire had quite a heterogenous population. I don't support bullcrap like "the Balkanic peoples today are the descendants of [insert ethnic group], thus are superior and thus deserve to treat anyone like crap", but rather, I'm just trying to give credit where it is due - in this case, to the Roman Empire.

 

[Traitorfish]

It is the matter of common sense. Hispanic = a person from Hispania.

Only in archaic geographical usage, not in the cultural or linguistic senses. "Hispanic" is a term indicating language or ethnicity, just as "Germanic" or "Celtic" are. Those terms do not necessarily indicate someone from Germania or Celticia (equally archaic terms roughly equivalent to Germany and France*), merely someone who's ethnic or linguistic origins can be tace to those regions.

 

[scy12]

We didn't. Rather, both Byzantium and (modern) Romania "inherited" it from Rome.

The southern principate of Romania (which is known in English as Wallachia) was called in Romanian, in the same time as Byzantium, "Teara Romaneasca", meaning "Roman Land" (teara being derived from Latin "terra" - land, country). In fact, if you are interested, even the name "Wallachia" comes from a Slavic version of a Germanic noun meaning "Roman". Read about it here. In fact, the same word (or variations of it) are used in Slavic languages to signify not only Romanians, but also Italians (Czech "Vlach", Polish "Włoch", all mean "Italian", while in Old Russian волохъ - "voloh" used to mean any person speaking any Romance - so including also Spaniards, Frenchmen, Portuguese, etc). The name of the Italian region "Romagna" also comes from the same root word as Romania, which is, guess what - Rome.

And even more, in Romanian, the words Roman and Romanian are... one single word. Until the XIXth century there was absolutely no way to distinguish between the two words, and then the word "roman" got imported from Italian in order to make the distinction, so now in our language "român" - Romanian and "roman" - Roman, but until the (re)introduction of the term "roman", they were both "român".

Actually, the Byzantine historian I. Kynnamos writes that Leon Vatatzes, in preparing for an attack on the Magyars, mobilized many Romanians from the coastline of the Pontus Euxinus. He then also writes of Romanians from the north of Danube taking part, alongside the Imperial commander Leon Vatatzes, in the campaign, in the year of 1167, adding his remark about the the Romanians: "it is said they are colonists arrived a long time ago from Italy". And the Armenian cartographer Chorenatsi writes in the 9th century of a "the country which is called Balak” (in reference to Blachs/Vlachs) North of the Danube. Likewise, Filippo Buonaccorsi Callimaco calls Romanians with the same word as Italians.


Thus, we can conclude that none of those two "stole" the name from another, but rather the name was assigned to them both during the time of the Empire they are called after, the surviving name simply giving us an idea about the might of an earlier empire which, even after having most of its territory lost, divided and conquered, and all its western cities pillaged and at least partially destroyed, still managed to pass along its heritage to people in the most distant corners of its territory.

And I don't mean heritage from a purely genetical point of view, not at all, especially since the Roman Empire had quite a heterogenous population. I don't support bullcrap like "the Balkanic peoples today are the descendants of [insert ethnic group], thus are superior and thus deserve to treat anyone like crap", but rather, I'm just trying to give credit where it is due - in this case, to the Roman Empire.

I have to agree both are rightful owners of the right of being named Romaioi.

And i have to say that right continued even in the 19th century in Greece when the name Romaioi became totally replaced by the name Hellene. In some vilages they still caled themselfs such and they did not even distinquish the difference between the two , usually because they aligned it with Religion.

 

[alcal]

BTW romanians and greeks aren't ethnically romans.

 

[Mirc]

BTW romanians and greeks aren't ethnically romans.

Did you even read my post? Especially the last paragraph?

 

[alcal]

Did you even read my post? Especially the last paragraph?

Your post simply say everyone living under roman rule was roman. I agree with this but they simply took a foreign name, which doesn't make them roman ethnically.

 

[Mirc]

Your post simply say everyone living under roman rule was roman. I agree with this but they simply took a foreign name, which doesn't make them roman ethnically.

Well, sorry, but in case you didn't understand the post right above yours, read it again.

I clearly said the last paragraph of my post. Did you read that?

The only people that were Roman ethnically were a small group of people which lived in the Latium region thousands of years ago. There's no such thing as a pure roman ethnicity, and it wouldn't matter even if it was. As I said in that paragraph, I obviously didn't mean the great-great-[great*100] grandson of Romulus and Remus, which we might all - or nobody alive today be.

And let's stop derailing this thread, shall we?

 

[Dachs]

I'm just trying to give credit where it is due - in this case, to the Roman Empire.

Everybody needs to give credit to the Roman Empire. Except for my avatar.

 

[alcal]

The only people that were Roman ethnically were a small group of people which lived in the Latium region thousands of years ago. There's no such thing as a pure roman ethnicity, and it wouldn't matter even if it was. As I said in that paragraph, I obviously didn't mean the great-great-[great*100] grandson of Romulus and Remus, which we might all - or nobody alive today be.

Please can you tell me where i disagree with what you are saying? Both i and you are saying the same thing, but you still tell me i don't understand
what?

 

[scy12]

BTW romanians and greeks aren't ethnically romans.

Well after the Eastern Roman empire fell ,to the Ottoman empire what nationality did the citizens of that empire , now Ottoman empire believe themselfs to be ? (Answer Roman first , but the Greek national term was also used.)

Greeks of the 19th century considered themselves Romans as a national characterization. One could argue that they where more Romans than Greeks but either way at the time both terms where used but the one which in the end eventually won in characterization was the Greek one. Today you can't name any Greek as Roman as none accepts it. So today Greeks are not romans but 200 years ago they considered themselfs So.
As the modern Greek state was not the Eastern roman empire naturally the Roman name as a characterization died.

But at several vilages even in mid20th century the name was still used.

Take from what i said any conclusions you wish.

 

[alcal]

Well after the Eastern Roman empire fell ,to the Ottoman empire what nationality did the citizens of that empire , now Ottoman empire believe themselfs to be ? (Answer Roman first , but the Greek national term was also used.)

Greeks of the 19th century considered themselves Romans as a national characterization. One could argue that they where more Romans than Greeks but either way at the time both terms where used but the one which in the end eventually won in characterization was the Greek one. Today you can't name any Greek as Roman as none accepts it. So today Greeks are not romans but 200 years ago they considered themselfs So.
As the modern Greek state was not the Eastern roman empire naturally the Roman name as a characterization died.

But at several vilages even in mid20th century the name was still used.

Take from what i said any conclusions you wish.

Considering to be someone =/= being someone

I consider myself a cat, but i am not a cat

 

[scy12]

Considering to be someone =/= being someone

I consider myself a cat, but i am not a cat

Quite an arguement. In this case we have the people who where part of the Eastern Roman empire , calling themselfs Romans after being conquered by a foreign power. Unless you consider the Eastern Romans as not Eastern Romans , in which case i would like to see why you do so , i am wondering WTH are you talking about.

Moderator Action: Pls mind language. Thanks. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Though i have said that in time Greeks had stopped to consider themselves Romans after they where liberated from a foreign power and their state was no longer a Roman one. Both where a necessity to happen as when one is conquered by a foreign power he will align himself with the past states he was part of , but when he creates one , on himself he has no choice but to allign himself with that one.

Please update your arguement to a superior level.

 

[alcal]

Quite an arguement. In this case we have the people who where part of the Eastern Roman empire , calling themselfs Romans after being conquered by a foreign power. Unless you consider the Eastern Romans as not Eastern Romans , in which case i would like to see why you do so , i am wondering WTH are you talking about.

Though i have said that in time Greeks had stopped to consider themselves Romans after they where liberated from a foreign power and their state was no longer a Roman one. Both where a necessity to happen as when one is conquered by a foreign power he will align himself with the past states he was part of , but when he creates one , on himself he has no choice but to allign himself with that one.

Do you know what ethnically means?
Greeks and romanians (as MIRC said before) are not the direct genetic descendants of ancient romans, indefferently on what they think or consider themself. Period. End of discussion.

Please update your arguement to a superior level.

Was it a menace?

 

[scy12]

Do you know what ethnically means?
Greeks and romanians (as MIRC said before) are not the direct genetic descendants of ancient romans, indefferently on what they think or consider themself. Period. End of discussion.



Was it a menace?

They are the direct descendants of Eastern Romans not matter what you think. Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise. They calling themselves Romans is not in relation to the western Roman empire but to the eastern Roman empire. Is it clear ? If you are totally ignorant on the subject you better not discuss it.

Although they are also descendants of more ancient Romans before the Eastern Roman empire since they had the Roman identity even before the Roman empire was divided and they had Roman citizenship. Which i must remind you was given to almost all parts of the Roman empire.
It seems you are totally clueless on the subject matter.

Moderator Action: Pls refrain from personal comments. Thx. - KD

How could you call the descendants of legally Romans who keep calling themselves Romans as did their Roman fathers , but at some point at the 19th century for some reasons they start a trend of distancing themselves from it (Although many still keep using it and it is often synonynous with Greek to them after a point in history but not previously )?

 

[Mirc]

Greeks and romanians (as MIRC said before) are not the direct genetic descendants of ancient romans, indefferently on what they think or consider themself.

No. You misunderstood. I said that they are not descendants of the ancient Romans because the ancient Romans were quite heterogenous themselves, just like the ancient Slavs, Germanics, etc, perhaps even more thanks to the huge level of communication they achieved..

BUT my MAIN point was whether they are or not is completely irrelevant, since we have no way to know if anyone is the direct genetic descendant of the ancient Romans. I don't have to be genetically something to be something. Because if that was true, very few people today would have the right to call themselves "Americans", for example. Maybe a couple of millions in total, in both continents. And if that was true, it would suddenly become pointless - since a human needs two parents to reproduce, he would soon be a true descendant of too many ethnicities to keep track of.

My point was also that if we apply your logic, neither the citizens of the Roman Empire were Romans, since they had parents from all over the Empire and beyond, where nobody was Roman at all.

 

[scy12]

BUT my MAIN point was whether they are or not is completely irrelevant, since we have no way to know if anyone is the direct genetic descendant of the ancient Romans. I don't have to be genetically something to be something. Because if that was true, very few people today would have the right to call themselves "Americans", for example. Maybe a couple of millions in total, in both continents. And if that was true, it would suddenly become pointless - since a human needs two parents to reproduce, he would soon be a true descendant of too many ethnicities to keep track of.

My point was also that if we apply your logic, neither the citizens of the Roman Empire were Romans, since they had parents from all over the Empire and beyond, where nobody was Roman at all.

True but he even ignores that , a part of the group i am talking about was actually genetically descendant those who where called Romans by law.

But i do have to say that genetics play a far less important role than all other parameters when we need to reach a conclusion over anything.

 

[Mirc]

True but he even ignores that , a part of the group i am talking about was actually genetically descendant those who where called Romans by law.

But i do have to say that genetics play a far less important role than all other parameters when we need to reach a conclusion over anything.

I agree.

Can we get back on topic?