Ahh, the Old "Bash Byzantium" arguments. May I say; and many fo the older members will agree with me on this point, you are very lucky I am not as... "passionate"... over the issue as I was when the conquests pack came out
However, I still think that people claimign Byzantium to be nothing more then what can be covered by either Greece and Rome are walking around with thier eyes closed to the world around them, and think more of thier own opinions then the genuine facts.
First off, ancient Greece and Modern Greece share nothign except they land they were based on; not even the spoken language is the same, modern greek being heavilly influence by slavic languages, the same as German was overlayed by latin to make English n(the comparison for latinate languages beign different isnt apt in this case; they are regional dialects, and soem argument could be had for saying they are all merelly dialects of a Latin that never actually died away, merelly decentrilized)
The cultures are vastlly different, and it takes only a causal glance over modern Greece, and ancient Greece to see a difference; if you need proof, look at the religion; the Orthodox xhristian religion is a highlly centrilized, monotheistic religion that has served as a cultural distinguisher for the past 1500 years; the old Hellenic religion was more of a bridge then hindrence to other religions, and was insanelly decentrilized, as most polytheistic religions are prone to be. Thiers also the fact that the ancient Greeks woudl have never concented to join the "EU" becausein the ancient Greek mind thire wasnt enough reason for all the different city states to bond together, let alone intermingle with "barbarians"; "let merhcants and armies deal with them they might say, and if neccessity brings it, a diplomat, but they are they and we are we" would likelly be the frame of mind.
No moder Greece is represented by
the Byzantine empire and you can see this respresented in modern greece's history, with thier fervent drive int he you of the history to recapture both constantinople, and significant amounts of anatolia (the country fo Turkey, is more or less the whole of anatolia) True, these are lands that had historically Greek colonizers, but aide from the very coast of turkey, noen fo the land ever held a significant greek settlement until the Roman empire came, and eleminated all the borders in the region, allowign people to settle freelly; this meant many a community of Greek merchants, thier familles, and thier extended familles came into being, communites whom woudl for the back bone of the "Byzantine Greeks" in future ages.
Of course, thats merelly Byzantiums importance to the modern world, which admitantlly, most of you will rub off, and not care about, soem because you wish to ignore, other because you dant care, as long as thier somthign called ;greece" in the game, and otherwise coudl car eles about anything; still others only care about the "stats" of a cvi, and otherwise couldnt care (and for those people I have no patience for anyway)
of course, now we have estbalished that Modern greece and ancient Greece are not one in the same, and not even all that related to each other, aisde from a moder greek fondness for thier ancitn ancestors, and a claim that they share the same culture (when its blatantlly not true; modern Greece is an extension of Byzantium; not Athens, Sparta, Thebes or Corinth) but what of Byzantine culture itself? Its true, Byzantium is the
legal heir to the Roman empire, and its a badge it shoudl wear proudlly; but cultureally? No. The empire of of Caesar, of Cluadious, of Vespasian, Trajan, and Hadrian is a far cry from the Byzantine empire, even if we go later in Romes history, we see little resemblence between the Rome of Aurelian, or Diocletian's day and the entity of the Byzantine empire; even constantine, the fool that he was, had a substantially different nation on his hands then what made the empire that Byzantium had.
No, they are indeed different; but first, people actually have to know where the Bzantien empire actually began!
The emperor Justinian, the Empress Theodora, and the great generals Belisarius, and Narses were not Byzantines! they coem when the entity known as the Byzantine empire was still the eastern Roman empire, and as such all thos elisted can, and more over, shoudl be be counted as late Romans; not Byzantines. So many fools think of these people as beignt he definition of "Byzantine" it enough to make one sick; the onlt thign relating to it that makes one sicker are the fools who belive Justianian and Theodora were actually in anyway good rulers.They were both horrible; though Justianian is sowhat redeemed for he had the righ tmind about the eastern Roman nobility; that they shoudl be crushed, otherwise they woudl be then end of the empire (which, the Byzantien nobles woudl proove to be, and the overlly rish in all societies work; too much power and they will ruin everything)
No, the Byzantien empire begins with arguabley, its greatest ruler, or at least military leader, Heraclius; a suitbley Greek influenced name for what he woudl turn the eastern Roman empire into, or atleast push it down the path to become;a unique entity in history, a combination of late Roman, and assorterd greek principles that mixed together to, as said before, create somthing, new, and somthing unique.
The empire of Herclius spoke greek; had a military based on late Roman principles and standards (which, while horrible in comparison to what they had been, were still some of the best in the world), and practivced a hellinized form of Roan christianity ("Roman catholiscm" as so many protestant preachers woudl have you belice, was not the religion of the Roman empire after christianity became the dominat religion; thier was no set form of christianity, ironically, until after the empire fell in the west, and all in all, the orhtodox religion, beign the religion sposored by the eastern emperors, would be the Roman form of christianity; but the entire situation is complex, and is distracting from the point) this empire in so many ways was different from what had coem before it it, in art, in architecture, in language, in politics, in culture, in everything; to call it either "Roman", or "Greek" when reffereign ot the civlization fo classical greece is absured to anyoen educated on the subkect in detail, which is why, even though the Byzantines themselves called the selves "Romans" (ironically, in the Greek form of the word
) when lookign over the pages of history, we see such a profound difference, that oen cant help but distiguish them through different names, because funidmentally, technally, in everyway you wan tto look at it, they were different entities; shareing the same father culture, but each rpoufoundlyl shaped indipendentlly with thier own motherlands.
ANyone whom says Byzantium was either Greek, which, in civ 3, refers ot the Greeks of classical times, or Roman, is deluded, mistaken, or simplewy not educated in the detials of Byzantine, Greek, and Roman cultures. They are also likelyl to think that the ancient religions of the Greeks and Romans were one in the same, which is equally a propsterous idea as the false hoods decribed prior about the claims over Byzantium.
. You must be real low, hope you get better my friend. 
(thank you sweet brother for restoring my national pride 
