Were the Byzantines Actually Romans?

[bandeirante]

Proper theory of Roman Empire:

"It was a union of non-Indo-European, Old European peoples who through series of fratricidal and civil wars united into single Empire
embalmed into single spiritual neo-syrian Hittite and Etruscan religion of worshiping Zeus, Jupiter etc.. later known as Eastern Orthodox
people who got overwhelmed by Indo-European, Turkic and Arabic peoples"

Now, the Byzantine Empire cannot be called Latin. Latin was the state language until the mid 7th century, when Heraclius started using the Greek title basileus instead of the Latin ones, but the eastern provinces used always Greek as their lingua franca. One century before Heraclius, Justinian had published his Novellae in Greek rather than Latin. Overall, Asia Minor, the Levante, Egypt, and most of the Balkan Peninsula were never under the Latin cultural influence. They were Hellenistic, or Hellenized, or semi-Hellenized (and later Slavic, Arabic, and Turkic).

The Greek or Roman dipole is far more tricky. The citizens of the Byzantine Empire considered themselves Romans until the 15th century. After all, their emperors could trace their office back to Augustus and their legal, military, and political tradition stemmed from the Roman institutions. Roman wasn’t considered necessarily Latin, though; the two words weren’t synonymous. As of Greek, Byzantines spoke Greek (as I’ve already mentioned) and valued the Greek literature (e.g. Homer) and culture.

Therefore, I’d say the Byzantine Empire was culturally Hellenistic, politically Roman, and religiously Christian. It wasn’t Latin, though.

[Heaven]

No.
If you don't have a main Latin element and a Latin state, you can't have Rome. Greeks assimilated a state founded by others.
It's like Kypchaks assimilating Mongol-Tatar Golden Horde.

Byzantium must be considered to be a separate, non-Roman state which came into existence sometime in the 6th century AD, after Justinian died.

[bandeirante]

No.
If you don't have a main Latin element and a Latin state, you can't have Rome. Greeks assimilated a state founded by others.
It's like Kypchaks assimilating Mongol-Tatar Golden Horde.

Byzantium must be considered to be a separate, non-Roman state which came into existence sometime in the 6th century AD, after Justinian died.

[Salonikios]

It is just western propaganda that said Eastern Romans were not Romans but different people. Even a western historian called Hieronymus gave them another name Byzantine does not change the fact. From Constantin the Great to last Emperor they continued to exist. They were calling theirselves Romans and they called their Empire Roman Empire. They protected Hellenism and Europe from Arabs. Thanks to them ancient scripts of Romans and Greeks survived to this day. They were real Romans.

[Salonikios]

No.
If you don't have a main Latin element and a Latin state, you can't have Rome. Greeks assimilated a state founded by others.
It's like Kypchaks assimilating Mongol-Tatar Golden Horde.

Byzantium must be considered to be a separate, non-Roman state which came into existence sometime in the 6th century AD, after Justinian died.

Just wrong. They do not need to speek Latin. Their population was Greek. So they accepted Greek language. By the way Romans were influenced by Hellens so much. Even their pagan religion was similar and again they were calling theirselves Romans. Eastern Romans had scholars that know Latin every time. Thanks to them ancient Roman and Hellenic scripts survived.


Secondly let me tell everything from start. So Bosniensis can know too. There were Arabic and Orientalist influence every time in Byzantine Empire especially in Anatolia. After Arabic conquest of some Byzantine territory religious groups called Iconodules and Iconaclasts came to existence. Iconaclasts influenced by Arabs wanted to remove all images of Christ, our mother Saint Mary and other saints. Iconaclast traitors to Rome were mostly from Anatolia. Iconodules were Hellenic group and they were against all of this. They were mostly from Western Anatolia and Balkans. In the end Iconodules won. But Iconaclasts were always thinking different in their hearts. After Turkish conquest all traitor Iconaclasts accepted Islam easily. Becauce they always wanted to be Arab-Oriental anyway. True Romans were those Hellenic Iconodules that tried to save Europe from Arabic-Orientalist Might. Now their descendants are Greeks. Those Iconaclast-Ottomans-Turks were traitors to Hellenism and Rome always.

[bandeirante]

It is just western propaganda that said Eastern Romans were not Romans but different people. Even a western historian called Hieronymus gave them another name Byzantine does not change the fact. From Constantin the Great to last Emperor they continued to exist. They were calling theirselves Romans and they called their Empire Roman Empire. They protected Hellenism and Europe from Arabs. Thanks to them ancient scripts of Romans and Greeks survived to this day. They were real Romans.

: picard2:

[wvwvw]

They were still more Roman than anyone else, under Roman authority for centuries and embraced culture. Heck, like the guy in first video said part of the Eastern Roman Christians considered themselves Romans until 20th century (some probably even today).

Actually you are referring to Greeks who even to this day use the term Romios. The term Romios is not the same as Roman.

The word Roman in the Greek language is Romaios.

The Greeks in the Byzantine Empire used both the term Romaios and Romios. They picked the term "Romios" as an ethnic identity term and the term Romaios to indicate Roman citizenship.

A Romios was an Hellene of Hellenic descent, Roman citizenship, and a follower of the Greek Orthodox Church. It was not some general term applied to all.

Sure there were people in the Eastern Roman Empire that spoke Greek and were followers of the Greek Orthodox Church. Yet, those who were not of Greek descent were regarded based on their ethnic origins. Emperor Romanos Lekapenos for ex. spoke Greek and he was an Armenian.

The Romeon (Greeks) deemed the people of Armenia as Armenians. Symeon, was deemed a Bulgarian even though his mother was Greek and he spoke perfect Greek. Greeks were cognizant of ethnic/racial origins in how they perceived the people around them. How else would Symeon end up being rejected for being half-Bulgarian? If the Greeks of the Eastern Roman Empire were truly as multiethnic or multicultural as
some state, then Symeon should have become emperor.

The Greeks believed in the Omaimon, Omoglosson, Omothriskon (same blood, same language, and same religion). These three components of the Greek character and mentality transferred into the medieval era where Greeks called themselves Romioi and not Hellenes. Granted calling a Greek from medieval times an "Hellene" had paganistic connotations, its meaning was transferred into the term "Romios" so that Greeks can preserve their identity in the medieval Christian era.

It is true that Roman citizenship was given to all peoples within the Roman Empire by Emperor Caracella in 212 A.D. Yet, Emperor Caracella deemed all peoples within the Roman Empire as "Romans" politically for
economic purposes (collect more money in taxes).

However, the term "Romios" transcended political and economic connotations. The term referred to a person of Greek ethno/racial descent, Roman citizenship, and a follower of the Greek Orthodox religion. To be a Romios required such things to be fulfilled. A Romios is simply a "medieval Hellene." Granted the term "Hellene" was not used during the time of the Eastern Roman Empire, the term's ethnic, racial, cultural, religious, and linguistic connotations were transferred into a different name (i.e. Romios). This helped Greeks adapt to the changes in the world as everything went from the ancient to the medieval while at the same time preserving their identity.

[wvwvw]

No.
If you don't have a main Latin element and a Latin state, you can't have Rome. Greeks assimilated a state founded by others.
It's like Kypchaks assimilating Mongol-Tatar Golden Horde.

Byzantium must be considered to be a separate, non-Roman state which came into existence sometime in the 6th century AD, after Justinian died.

You're a moron. Half of Italy was a Greek colony long before the Romans. The kings from that era were deified and became the Gods of Greeks and Romans.

We already know from Roman historians that Rome was founded by Romulus the son of Aeneas and that its inhabitants were Trojan Greeks. So the early Romans were Greeks who later mixed with other tribes.

Aenus traveled to Italy in 1117 BC via Carthage and founded the settlement that became Rome. By 1100 BC stone structures began to replace the ordinal wooden ones both in Carthage and in Rome.

Romulus made the laws of Rome as is stated by all Roman historians. The Roman Empire was from its inception Greco-Roman.

[bandeirante]

You're a moron. Half of Italy was a Greek colony long before the Romans. The kings from that era were deified and became the Gods of Greeks and Romans.

We already know from Roman historians that Rome was founded by Romulus the son of Aeneas and that its inhabitants were Trojan Greeks. So the early Romans were Greeks who later mixed with other tribes.

Aenus traveled to Italy in 1117 BC via Carthage and founded the settlement that became Rome. By 1100 BC stone structures began to replace the ordinal wooden ones both in Carthage and in Rome.

Romulus made the laws of Rome as is stated by all Roman historians. The Roman Empire was from its inception Greco-Roman.

:café:

[Freeroostah]

Byzantium was the eastern leftover of the Roman Empire that eventually became Greek due to the heavy Greek presence and influence.
During that period our ancestors were called "Romioi" since "Greek" was considered pagan and therefore bad
There is no other modern nation nowadays that claims Byzantine heritage more than Greece.....and its obvious why.....