>LOL DUDE the byzantines were, like, TOTALLY roman! they even called themselves romans so it must make it so!
>what? the holy roman empire? HAHA no fuck that they weren't le holy weren't le roman and weren't le empire! like, comon dude, they didn't even speak latin!
>one is a direct successor to that state
Only by a fluke of imperial succession laws. The Byzantine state had just as much resemblance to the old Roman one as any of the successor states in the west
Why were the Ethiopians the ONLY black civilization to ever accomplish literally anything of note?
Constantine moved the seat of the empire in 330 AD, and that seat remained the seat of the empire until 1453 AD, when the empire finally fell.
it's all the same. look into his eyes and tell me he is not caesar of all rome
...and if the Franks and Visigoths count, so do the Byzantines. And if they don't, neither do the Byzantines. All these states have as much connection to the old empire, it just so happens that the king of the Byzantines holds a bunch of old Roman titles happens to occupy an old Roman capital.
Eastern coast stretching from Somalia to Mozambique had one of the largest trading networks in the world that colonizers simply took advantage of. Not to mention these city states made Swahili a lingua franca for much of the eastern/central African continent
>All these states have as much connection to the old empire, it just so happens that the king of the Byzantines holds a bunch of old Roman titles happens to occupy an old Roman capital.
Yeah that's stupid. Eastern Roman Empire was a thing. Western was divided into lots of smaller things and we usually call those things by their barbarian occupiers.
But the Byzantines were never really "barbarians" or "outsiders", so you can't seriously say something like that.
... because of descendency from an emporer (Constantine) who moved the Roman capital.
They were the rightful continuation of the Empire you frankish fucking faggot.
ERE =/= Byzantium
No one denies Rome continued to exist in the east for a couple of centuries after the west has been overrun.
The difference is that the feudal abomination that occupied Anatolia and tiny parts of the Balkans after the 7th century was a new state, with very little systemic or even cultural connection to the ERE. It was its own thing.
>a new state, with very little systemic or even cultural connection to the ERE. It was its own thing.
Why do you claim this? It wasn't conquered, given, handed, etc to anyone else. It was a direct continuation of it.
>It wasn't conquered
It lost 70% of its territory to the arabs.
Its economy, military and society functioned entirely differently from the old Roman empire. With the theme system, the rapid de-urbanization and militarized aristocracy it resembled more the western succession kingdoms than Rome.
Read 'The Alexiad' by Anne Komnene. It will show you how the imperial politics remained unchanged from the ERE, just the scale of the empire got smaller, which compressed the power of imperial offices, etc. thus pushing the empire towards forms of (although still very autocratic in nature) feudalism. Very good book.
>on phone. sorry for grammar
>It lost 70% of its territory to the arabs.
Why the fuck does this even matter lol
The parts that were managed by the Byzantines were a direct continuation or ERE
>functioned entirely differently
Not -entirely- differently, like you claim, to be honest. And things evolve. HRE had even less in common with WRE.
And it didn't resemble western kingdoms at all, are you crazy? Byzantinism was literally a word thrown around back then.
>empires can never ever change in its policy and institutions over the course of centuries and if it does, we shouldn't call it by the same name anymore
Right, so we should also call the current USA by a completely different name now since it no longer resembles the USA of the early 19th century?
Nations and empires are constantly in flux. Stagnant empires die for a reason. Saying that change invalidates the Byzantines from being a continuation of the Roman Empire is absurd. The Byzantine Empire was just the Roman Empire adapting to the changes of society and technology.
It's like saying the United States now and the United States from 1776 are two different countries.
And btw, Greeks still call themselves Romans, but most don't realize what it is supposed to mean when the say it.
>literally born out of the Roman empire with no time separation between them
>a bunch of irrelevant germans the Pope gave the title to despite not having any of the authority
Learn the difference
John Greene is a moron, but he's not wrong. The Byzantines were the last vestige of Rome that was even partway legitimate; the HRE was not an imperial power, it was a disparate organization of petty lords under a feudal system. Byzantium retained the apostolic faith, much of the Roman law, and much of the culture. The HRE was a petty imitation.
It's called Empire because it encompassed France, Germany, Czech Republic, Yugoslavia, Itay, parts of Poland, Spain, and pretty much every modern Western European nation
It's was called Holy because the Pope crowned the emperor
It was called Roman because 1. the Pope in Rome, like I said. 2. The high clergy and some of the nobility (France) who spoke Latin 3. Geographically similar to the western Roman Empire 4. Same religion as the Roman Empire 5. Still contained some roman culture
It wasn't even called the HRE until a few centuries after its creation anyways
This is not true at all. The Holy Roman Empire basically consisted of small states ruled by princes and kings in what is not Germany. The emperor was chosen by two bishops and four monarchs (Pfalz, Brandenburg and i forgot the others), so the emperor was not crowned by the pope.
>The emperor was chosen by two bishops and four monarchs (Pfalz, Brandenburg and i forgot the others), so the emperor was not crowned by the pope.
Yes, true. But only starting in 1356 AD.
>After the Habsburgs got nothing from the decree of the Golden Bull in 1356, he gave order to draw up the "Privilegium Maius", a fake document to empower the Austrian rulers.
Which some consider to be the final turning point in the whole "We're German, but actually not" that Austria is known for.
Uhh, you don't get to bring crusaders
In truth the Roman Empire died in the 4th Crusade. By the time Constantinople was taken over again by Michael VIII there were several direct successors to the Byzantine throne each as legitimate as the next.
Gonna need a source for this one. Do you happen to mean: vandals living under roman controlled areas? Or are you insinuating that the vandalic kingdoms started calling themselves roman in places such as lawcodes and the like? I am very doubtful if you mean the latter.
The differences between the Roman Empire during the Dominate and the Roman Empire during the early Principate were just as vast as the differences between the ERE before the Islamic conquests and the ERE after. You can't point at an event and say this is when the ERE stopped being the ERE, because it was a slow and natural evolution to the changing world that the Romans lived in. They'd already adopted the Theme System in the 7th century, when they still ruled large parts of Romance speaking Italy and North Africa so you can't say that it's adoption was the end of the ERE.
Ethiopia was accomplished because it was linked with the civilizations of Eurasia for a very long time. They grew out of Yemeni civilization and adopted Roman Christianity, thus becoming a part of the wider Eurasian civilization growing out of the Fertile Crescent, just like Europeans did. The Sudanese and Swahili were the same.
The rest of Africa developed in comparative isolation. Mali had contacts with the Islamic world, but unlike Ethiopia it was never fully integrated into Eurasian civilization, though they did have a literary culture derived from them. For the most part, Africans developed in isolation. Since agriculture started in Africa thousands of years later than in Eurasia, Africans never had close to enough time to develop civilizations on par with Eurasia. In Nigeria they did achieve a high level of urbanization and artistic production after 1000 AD, but that was far too late to complete with the rest of the world.
That's because East and West Africa are heavily separated via their land.
You have a few options to get from the East to the West side.
You had options. You either had the Great Rift Valley, Nile Cataracts, the Sahara, or the Congo Jungle to get through Africa. You were probably going to die on each one.
Okay, can we all agree here once and for all that John Greene is a massive wanker? Putting all politics and biases aside, his skills as a historian are dismal. He provides the most watered-down, simplified summaries of periods of history and constantly leaves out critical details.
>mfw he has the usual "LIKE FAVORITE SUBSCRIME XD" shit at the end of his videos instead of citations or sources listed at the end of his videos
They show this hack in high school history classes for fucks sake.