Is "Byzantium" Roman? 

I never thought about it from the Eastern Roman perspective, but having the former heartland of the Roman Empire controlled by Germans who not only destroyed the Western Empire but now also claim to be the true successor must have been horrifying lmao

A point as well to how the "Byzantines" saw themselves comes from the historian Prof. Peter Charanis, who was born on the island of Lemnos in the early 20th century, then still part of the Ottoman Empire, and recalls a story from when the Greeks occupied the island in 1912, several children stood and looked at the soldiers. The soldiers asked what they were looking at and the children replied "At Hellenes", at which the soldiers asked if they were not Hellens as well, but the children said "No, we are Romans.". That the inhabitants of an island in the Aegean Sea would still consider themselves to be Romans, in opposition to being mere "Hellenes", several hundred years after the fall of Constantinople and more than a century since the birth of the Greek state says at least something about how ingrained "Romanity" was in the culture of the Byzantine Empire.

Cesar and all the "classic" romans also spoke Greek, the whole upper class learn Greek as kids and probably spoke it amongst themselves so the populorum won't understand them either.

About the conclusion, in portuguese we call it "Sacro Império Romano-Germânico" (translates to Holy Roman-Germanic Empire). Just thought it was funny lol

I for one try to refer to the "Byzantine Empire" as the "Roman Empire", especially after reading "Warum es kein islamisches Mittelalter gab" (Why there were no "islamic middle ages") by Thomas Bauer, a short book that anyone capable of reading german with an interest in history should honestly read. It mainly deals with continuities in the islamicate world contrasted with greater discontinuities in western europe compared to antiquity. In regards to the "Byzantine Empire" it mentions the shift of recent deceades in cultural and historical studies of referring to cultures/societies/states/etc. by their own, self-identifying names. Contrast that with us still referring to the "Byzantine Empire" as such. Even regarding cultural/linguistic shifts, the "Byzantine Empire" still continued the "Roman legacy" truer than the Catholic world ever could. The ownership of Rome proper is at that a bit of a mute point since for most of the middle ages it was a decently sized city (by medieval standards, not ancient ones) of only regional importance aside from the papacy. Constantinople on the other hand remained a metropolis for long after Rome "fell" until the fourth crusade from which the city and the empire never managed to truly recover. To come back to the text by Bauer, he argues that the pervasiveness of referring to the "Byzantine Empire" as such comes down to making Western Europe out to be the only true heir to Ancient Rome & Greece. First and foremost, the islamicate world has to be denied this legacy, but also the genuine continuation of the Roman Empire cannot be allowed to stand besides "Western civilization". This may be more pragmatically phrased than by Bauer (if only very slightly), but genuinely reflects what 19th/early 20th (Western) historian were doing. tl;dr the Roman Empire ended in 1453 CE, don't let anyone tell you otherwise

The Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire and the Ottoman Empire are kind of the coolest eastern Mediterranean civilizations that exist in that time frame. It’s always cool to learn about these sort of black sheep of Medieval and Early Modern European History. They were nothing like the rest of Europe in the times they exist and kind of have cool histories and cultures. It’s also pretty cool to learn about nations and cultures that all claimed to be the true successors of Rome proper. Be it the Eastern Roman Empire, the Carolingian/the Holy Roman Empire, the Latin Empire, the Ottomans, or even Imperial Russia.

Each video essay you make is enjoyable. Thanks for making these explainers

Dan Olson is awesome, so I wholeheartedly support this. Been really enjoying the recent videos, they feel a bit more focused than your first couple. Already learning and growing!

You deserve more views! This is on par or better than so many similar channels

Fun fact: in Slavic languages Rome IS actually called Reme.

Your videos are awesome, keep it up and you'll hopefully grow very fast :)

Been waiting for this! Here we go

I've been really enjoying your videos my dude, keep it up

I’m happy I found your channel :)

Cool video,i really hope you get big one day

Damn good video!!!

Huh pretty underrated channel

Thank you for considering my topic idea. I do have one suggestion to maybe talk just a little bit faster

The music makes me want to play Civ again

Rema, now that one made me laugh

Hold on, what do you mean "The Romans were never Catholic"?

Love the vid, but I'm going to suggest you to speak a little faster. RU-vid is an attention economy and being able to convey what you want quickly is a virtue. In short: content is great, cadence of speech is kinda slow (I just changed to 1.25 and it was almost perfect, though it looses speech slowdown enphasis.)

After the Arab conquests, there's no Roman Empire as people commonly think of Rome

Yes

4:12 I hear this point a lot. That the East ceased to be Roman when they stopped speaking Latin. I don’t see why a polity can’t have its language change and still be continuous. It feels like an anachronistic view informed by modern nationalism’s extreme emphasis on linking of a people group with language rather than thinking of how people back then perceived themselves If the United States became a majority Spanish or German or whatever speaking country that wouldn’t necessarily mean it would be a new entity completely divorced from the past.

imagine having to question whether literally rome is roman by people who sacked rome and then pretended to be rome themselves

So they spoke Greek, wrote Greek, the church was called Greek Orthodox, all the writing on all the buildings was Greek...Greeks lived in that region for thousands of years, so how is it "Roman"?

Speaking as a Greek, many Greeks are fine with the term "Byzantinum" but I despise it. The term has a long history of being used as a form of ethnic harassment towards Greeks. No one has a problem called the western Roman empire Roman so why should anyone have a problem also calling the eastern one Roman it's actual name? (qualifying with eastern would be fine to distinguish it from the western one) Then throw in how the term "Byzantine" is literally an insult in English. These are my ancestors. Imagine the term "Jew" or "Celt" being used as insult to better understand why it's offensive to me. Then of course there is how middle age Greek Roman history is being manipulated to justify ethnic engineering our Slavic neighbours into "macedonians" . The rationale many used to ridiculously recognize them as "Macedonians" was that Greeks were too "Byzantines" back then... a non-existent ethnic group... to be "real" Greeks. Yet back then we were told we were too Greek to be real Romans! This sort of revisionist history to harass Greeks is currently going on as well. The former Yugoslavians have turned into ancient Macedonians right before everyone's eyes yet nearly everyone pretends not to notice or unethically downplays it. Many that claim to speak for the past, effectively lie in the present through evasion.

IF you believe you are yourself, then Byzantine is Rome itself. No debate.

ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS THAT THE OG ROMANS WERE NEVER CATHOLIC . THEY BELIEVED IN GRECO-ROMAN POLYTHESIM AND AFTER CONSTANTINE DEATH THEY BELIEVED IN ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY . THATS THE REAL HISTORY OF ROMAN EMPIRE

Hello, interesting video. People living in the Roman Empire's territories always self-identified as Romans, up to our times, centuries after the empire's fall in 1453, like my grandmother using the name "Roman" instead of Greek, when referring to us, me, family, and Greek people, to our traditions and customs. And we are Greeks.

5:03 no matter which way I turn it, the text always looks upside down. I think this script gives me dyslexia.

No.

For the Last Time. "Byzantium" is the Eastern Roman Empire. The Germanic Barbarians aka Larpers were Not Roman. And the Latin traitors of course Not either. And Turks or Russians are also not Roman. Rome died 29.5.1453.

I want to go back to Constantinople

In Swedish, the Holy Roman Empire is normally referred to as "Tysk-romerska riket", or the German-Roman Empire*. If you ever refer to it as the Holy Roman Empire you mostly do so to mock it, and use the ridiculously long full name to signify that. *Rike doesn't map perfectly onto English, being used for countries of any size above city-state, but it's what we use for the actual Roman Empire of Antiquity. It just doesn't sound as grand as empire. Yes, rike is cognate with Reich.

In my opinion, the thing about the Byzatine/Roman Empire boils down to three situations, each having happened several times, but barely not the three at the same time. 1) A "country" (I'll use a modern term just for simplicity) being named after their capital. 2) A country moving its capital to another city. 3) A country losing territory. So, to understand the Byzantine/Roman issue, I like to imagine a similar situation about another country. So, let's say that Mexico moves its capital to Guadalajara, and then they lose a war against a country that invades from Yucatán to Mexico City. It's possible that, in the future, historians started to informally call the new country "Guadalajaran Republic", but officially they would probably keep the name of United Mexican States, even if the place they're named after is not longer controlled by them. Because the concept of "United Mexican States" is way bigger than Mexico City, similarly to the concept of the USA being bigger than "a government from Washington DC".

In this essay, I will explain why Rome fell in 1542 when the Principality of Wales was formally absorbed into the Kingdom of England...

If you asked Constantine, he would give you a definitive, 'Yes.'

Actually 🧐 Classical Roma as what most people think about Roman Empire, ended in the 3'th century, with Edict of Caracalla. When every person in Rome become a citizen. This break importance of the capital and people from outside the Rome become Emperors. And shortly after Constantine The Great, who was from Dacia and was Cezar (Elect) of Galia. Reconquered the Rome and move capital to Constantinople. Idea of Western and Eastern empire is actually a modern invention. Until 5'th century, Constantinople hold control directly over half of the country. With various self proclaimed Cezar's and Roman Generals (who at the time commonly were German) fight over control of the region. With various provinces going semi-independent. Formal destruction of city of Rome was only nail to the coffin, what give Byzantine excuse to negate citizenship of the provinces. Even if most recognize Byzantine rule until 8'th century and Roman senate operated under Ostrogoth, who were Roman province (what ended after Longobard conquest). Worth to mention that Frankish King Clovis 1 was Roman Consul. So what fall we actually talking about? Anyway. When Byzantium (what was calling itself Rome to be clear) changed official language on the Greek, it deepened division with rest of the Empire. As Franks, Italians, Hyspanians or Dacians (Romanians) speaking vulgar-latin, become pushed even more. It is also the reason why many not see them as true Rome anymore. Anyway, after inheritance crisis in Byzantium, with help of Papal State, what was Byzantine Patriarchy. Charlemagne usurp title of the Emperor gaining support of the Papal State. So that is when actual split of the Rome did happen. Anyway. Charlemagne empire split on predecessors of modern France, Germany and Italy (while Spain was conquered by Muslims), but Emperor of Holly Roman Empire was at least formally recognized as ruler of entire Christaindom. At least until it was dissolved nu Napoleon, who declared himself a Emperor. What was fallowed by similar declarations by King of Austria and Germany. Calling themselves by term Kaiser. Despite fiasco of World Wars, Europe reunited diplomatically again. After that Byzantium was gradually diminishing in power, while actin like they are still ruling the world. Only to be conquered by Ottoman Turks. Who in fact did consider themselves as Sultans of Rum, but title was not recognized by anyone. Russians have nothing to do with them. Ivan the terrible was literal madman! While Peter the Great was German, what was most legitimate part in they claims to being Roman. So not much.

didn't all roman emporers speak greek?

Rome rose and fell yet endured Roman culture endured the only constant in an ever changing world often imitated never duplicated similar to the cultural han bureaucracy yet unique not like the han bureaucracy yet related by Judean christian and even older ur of the caledean and therefore possible indus cultural influence which would have send Abraham west and budda east and have Roman adopt Judean Christianity China buddists Confucius yet all linked possibly by the indus cradle of civilization

0:30 You would be shocked to find out that in Serbo-Croatian we call the city of Rome - Rim/Рим Which sounds exactly the way you pronounced it

Historians: Wait, it's all Roman Empire? Ottomans: Always has been.

The Ottomans were as Roman as the Byzantines. The rejection of this is for the same reason people reject Byzantium being rome I can't see any coherent argument for saying "the Christian empire ruled from Constantinople IS Rome" that wouldn't also apply to the Ottoman empire

Important to note, the Ottomans also claimed to be the Roman successors, which has more legitimacy than what some may think.

honestly I will continue to call it byzantine for eternity because it is hands down the cooler name

᾽Ρωμανία 🇬🇷☦

The root for Byzantion is entirely forgotten? A quick wiki search would show otherwise: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzas. The name Byzas probably derives from the Proto Indo-European (not Ilyrian) bʰuǵ which indeed means goat. If you don't even put effort to relay accurate information, then better leave it to professionals who take pride in their craft.

YES

Nice video. Just one thing, there is no need for so much talk to reconcile opinions. First and foremost, Byzantion was never an Empire. It was a Greek colony. New Rome/Constantinople was built in the ruins of Byzantion and eventually became the sole capital city of the Roman Empire. Period. The Bishop of Rome Leo III had neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to crown the King of Franks as Roman Emperor. The Empire had already an Emperor. The crowning of the Roman Emperor had been happening by the Bishop of Constantinople since the coronation of Leo I by Bishop Anatolius. Besides, this is where the Emperor was ruling from, full-stop Last but not least, the Empire did not fall in 476. This is a convenient myth. It was recovered by Justinian I and any claims on an actual fall can be attributed only in 1071 when the last Roman soldier had to abandon Bari after the pressure of the Normans, although Manuel I sought to invade Italy again and restore Imperial control.

@6:00 In the year 380 A.D. emperor, Theodosius made Catholicism, the official religion of the empire, so Rome was Catholic

Funnily enough in Germany and it's neighbours (like the Netherlands where I'm from) the HRE IS just called "The German Empire" (i.e. Deutsches Reich, Duitse Rijk). I'd never heard the proper Holy Roman Empire terminology until university (and Medieval Total War 2 hah). Even then in Dutch we distinguish between "Romaans" and "Romeins" (lit. "Rome-ish" and properly Roman resp.), to indicate whether we're talking Medieval (Romaans) or "real" Romans (Romeinen)

Love the content! But please, call it how it is, Anno Domini

I’m a part of the Byzantium Discussion and Study Meetings Club. Or BDSM Club for short

Interesting look at the Christian Greek Empire

I sometimes say something like "The byzantine Eastern Romans". I only use the term byzantine empire to help delineate a time frame, tho i always preface it with the fact they themselves never used this term. I draw a line personally at the islamic conquest of Egypt and the Levant as this was a truly game changing event for the state in question. This whole thing tho makes me think of some of the rump dynasties in china where they would just add a modifier like the Southern Song.

Roman empire SPQR the OG Byzantium (which was not called that) Eastern roman empire

In Europe, I think the Roman imperium was also tied with being the rightful secular leader of Christendom. Many scholars today refer to the Byzantines as the Eastern Roman Empire. The continuity between the Roman Empire and the ERE is even more pronounced when you take into account that the center of power had moved east even before the fall of Rome in the West. Going along with the political argument, sometimes enemies of the Holy Roman Emperor would call him stuff like king of the Germans as a slight while the emperors were adamant that they were "imperator romanorum."

That name of Rome in alternative history is a bit funny because it exactly how it sounds in my slavic-speaking head in real history

nice video tho everyone in the east of the empire called them Romans only the west didn't

great video going through your whole backlog just now only thing I wanted to mention is around 5:51 you said that the byzantines knew they were a hellenic people, they knew what language they were speaking. but the problem with that is that they called that language roman your average roman citizen had very little knowledge of their own history should we judge their romanness based on what their most educated scholars knew about their past descent or judge the average roman, who was the child of a roman, who spoke roman, and lived in romania, which as an aside was what the romans called the empire since around the 3rd century. the latins didn't come up with it they just used the name of the country they conquered

Are you aware of the short - lived Bulgarian "Roman Empire" (925 - 68) founded by Tzar Simeon I? Pope John X was happy to recognise Simeon as Roman Emperor because there was no Western Emperor at that moment, following the death of Berengar of Friuli in 924.

voltaires quote is also weird because at that point it was called HRE of the German Nation as they lost Italy they added the German nation part

The Byzantines had many Latin Romans as well.The switch in language was formal after the laws were published in Greek.The empire had no official language,and so having language as an excuse to deromanise the Roman state is laughable.

"Vindonian Empire" sound cool as hell.

It's funny to me how there could only be Empire, but everyone was fine with there being two Sicilies.

I thought Emperor Maurice, died in 602 CE was the last to speak Latin and use it in court?

After listening to The History of the Byzantine Empire I have started to refer to them as the Eastern Roman Empire or even occasionally Romania since it's become rather obvious that they have a perfectly legitimate claim to the title of Roman Empire since Roman doesn't just refer to the inhabitants of the city and the Romans never thought that, they thought a Roman was anyone who followed Roman culture and the people of the Eastern Roman Empire certainly did.

10:50 Actually on the point of the HRE in Danish it's called “The German-Roman Empire” so this is the case sometimes. Though I get that your video is primarily about English language discussion but I figure extending it more broadly to the west makes sense. English probably didn't put German in the name because it had more direct influence from the Frankish realm and therefore followed it's propaganda more and it also didn't really have much of a concept of Germany until the modern state. Meanwhile in countries that directly bordered it there was more competition with it so an imperative to deemphasize it's Romanness and the concept of German developed a lot earlier, in Danish the word is Tysk and it dates far back into middle ages.

How do countries get their names? I mean, many countries' names are merely based off the local, ancient word for "the people" (DEUTSCHland for example, which stems from "thiutisk" in old high german and meant something along the lines of "part of the people") or merely referencing a clan/state that may have resided in the area (Switzerland -> Schweiz which most likely comes from one of our cantons, Schwyz, but we also call ourselves the Confoederatio Helvetica, named after the tribe of the Helvetii, one of the few celtic tribes present in the area of northern and central Switzerland). Some may also refer to themselves as "the people", intending more than just the people of their own country, like the Slavic peoples did (as apparently "slawa" meant "people", but I may be wrong here. Interestingly this word to the people further west, the germanic peoples, that word was reappropriated to think of them as slaves, because of course other peoples would find ways to use someone's word to identify themself as a derogatory term. Again, this may not be based on facts as I must research it once more after work). It's funny either way, and makes perfect sense that you'd merely use whatever word you have to describe your people.

The Great Schism between Eastern and Western churches was not “bloodless”. Perhaps it wasn’t as bad as the 30 years war, but the Fourth Crusade and Northern Crusades were Catholic military ventures against Orthodox Christians.