Why the Byzantine Empire Never Existed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- We frequently talk about the Eastern Roman Empire as if it were some separate empire from the Roman Empire, when in fact, in a lot of ways, the Roman and Byzantine Empires were really the same empire.
MUSIC:
"The Wild West" by Ross Bugden
VIDEOS DOWNLOADED FROM:
www.videvo.net
www.pixabay.com
videos.pexels.com
Did you enjoy this video? Be sure to like it, share it with your friends and family, and subscribe for more videos every Sunday and Wednesday!
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER:
@KhAnubis
LIKE US ON FACEBOOK:
/ khanubisproductionsoff...
VISIT OUR WEBSITE:
khanubisproduct...
FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM:
@khanubisofficial
#history
ALL KhAnubis Productions videos are free for public use, as long as a link to the original content and credit are both clearly provided.
The European powers were squabbling as to which of them was the most Roman while Eastern Rome was sitting in the corner saying “but guys I AM Rome”.
Everyone just looked at East Rome and just said Byzantine
Yeah, basically
They tought it wasn't really rome because they were ruled BY A WOMEN (for some time ) irene of athen
they didnt say Byzantine until this term was made by some german historian some one hundred years after the fall of Constantinople in 1453
@peter schwarz ......did you even watch the video.
@peter schwarz Historically speaking, it was never really the Roman Empire either. That's a shorter version of Empire of the Romans. The name of their country reflects this, Romania (Land of the Romans). It is because their culture and people went well beyond the city that spawned them. The name of the Empire, Romania, was Hellenized into Rhomania, following the governments gradual abandonment of Latin as the motherland of Latin was overrun by people the Empire of the Romans deemed as 'barbarians' (a term that was still in use to describe the crusader movement trekking through their lands). Throughout the Pax Romana, though there still continued to be language differences, the Romans had adopted Greek customs into theirs so by the time the Autocracy had largely abandoned Latin the two became fused into one as a Greco-Roman culture infused with Romanized Christian practices (itself a hybrid of Roman pagan rites and true Christianity).
The usage of Roman in the Medieval West referred more to Romanized Christianity and the authority held by the Papacy based in Rome under the forged documents named the Donations of Constantine.
Ataturk renamed Constantinople, not the Ottomans.
The Ottomans renamed it to Konstantinyye. Which is the Turkish way of saying it.
Byzantion was a city the first Emperor was born there (Constantine) and thats why it was renamed it to Constantinople
@@powerchord8859 Didnt Constantin(the roman emperor accepting christanity) found the city himself?
Edit: I know that he actually just expanded Byzantion, but I didnt feel the need to bring up details.
Bill Vikias Constantine wasn’t born there, and he wasn’t Byzantine emperor. It was all still part of Rome then. He moved his capital to the city (called byzantium at the time) and after he died the people named it Constantinople or konstantinoupolis in greek.
@Kevin M watch out its the spell police douche.
@@powerchord8859 Thanks for the unneeded historical fact.
Greeks from Constantinople are calling themselves "Ρωμιοί", which means "Romans" even to this day.
Yes and roman is a Greek word that means brave one so when you say I'm Roman in Greek means the brave one and that since BC
@@asigritosgr5038 No it means citizenship and it have being like that thanks to Caralla law.
Because they we're Romans (mostly)
@@naummihajlovski4450 They were cristhian hellene's from the roman empire that's what the word "Romioi" means
doesn’t mean there romans tho lmao
Bottom line is, "Rome" isn't an ethnicity, there were millions of non-Latin, non-Italian Romans.
Yes, but never without Rome.
Joey Suggs by that definition China was never China because they switched capitals and got conquered everyone 200 years
@@Newidhan Roman is where Rome is. Not complicated.
Then what do you say to a Roman citizen born in Gaul? You're not Roman? He has all the same rights and there were later emperor's who were not born in Rome (see Constantine the great). Just because a state derives it's name from it's original point of origin, doesn't mean it's a different state if said point is lost to them. What makes a country what it is is the culture, common history and the system, not a highly arbitrary and made up concept like "ethnicity" and land ownership
@@Newidhan As long as a Gaul is under Rome, he is a Roman. After the empire collapsed in Gaul he is a Gallican. Not complicated.
3:12 It wasn't the Ottomans who renamed it to Istanbul. It was Turkey.
Yeah but the common folk called it istanbul. Like how you call the big Apple NYC or the city that never sleep, LA.
Yep, Konstantiyye
It wasn't turkeys, it was people!
Yes. Fun fact:Istanbul comes likely from a turkisized form of I stan Polis. Greek for 'Go into the city!'
isntabul isnt Turkish its Greek (i mean the word) its a missunderstanding of the phrase "η στήν πόλιν" which means "to the city".Because when the ottomans asked the grreks were they were going they said "η στήν πόλιν" because for greeks we didnt have to specify that we were going to constantinopolis because its the city of cities,the king of kings (much how we say bible ,wich again in greek means book, and you dont say wich book cause everybody knows that you are reffering to the book of books...).So essentially the word istabull is just bad greek.
The official name of the state we now call Byzantine Empire, was Rhomani'a. This is how it was called by its residents and in the official documents and international treaties.
It was a multi ethnic empire. Its residents spoke Greek (however, the majority was not ethnic Greeks. Though, in those years ethnicity did not mean much. Religion and language were shaping politics and identities).
The Greeks, up until their independence used to call themselves as 'Rhomios' which means 'Roman'. The term was used interchangeably with the term 'Greek', as they were considered equivalent.
The empire was not the successor state of the Roman Empire. It was the Roman Empire itself.
It was the part that survived up until the 15th century.
The empire kept on using the Latin language as its official language until the 8th-9th century. Then, it was replaced by Greek, as fewer and fewer spoke Latin, while the majority of the population spoke Greek.
so technically romania is roman?
@@ImperialCataphract the modern state of Romania uses the official name of the Byzantine Empire (which was Rhomania).
The flag of the modern state of Albania, is the military flag of Rhomania. Greece also claims the legacy of Rhomania, since it was a Greek speaking state and by its end in the 14th-15th centuries it covered mostly areas inhabited by ethnic greeks. Those years, the last emperors started identifying themselves interchangeably as both romans and greeks.
Always thought it was Herakleios I who adopted greek as the official, administrative language.
@@grigorevornicureche2535 you are right. Emperor Herakleios. 7th century AD. The one who introduced the greek as the official language of the administration.
The first Roman Empire: The parent figure
The Byzantines: The eldest child
HRE: The adopted child that nobody takes seriously
The Russian Empire: The youngest adopted child that is somehow bigger than everyone else
The Ottomans: The homeless guy that forced himself to live in Byzantium's room, and has never truly left ever since
Greece: the family fish
Turkey: the family bird
actually russia could be represented as a child of byznatium because they were under their influence when it comes to religion and culture, while HRE representation is correct because they were catholic and not orthodox which was official religion of western rome before it collapsed and some time later while rome and the pope were under byzantine influence
U mean the guy that beat the crap out of Byzantine Empire, threw him out and took his apartment for himself and got rich before going broke and returning to middle-class?
The Western Roman Empire: The dead child.
@@HBKnowItAll Hahaha, good one!
It's probably worth noting that the term "Byzantine empire" came into popularity not long after the last remnants of the Roman Empire were conquered by the Ottomans. I wonder if that was a contributing factor in said remnants not being rebranded until then...
We greeks were calling our self Romans and the country ROMANIA OR EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE OR EVEN GREEK EMPIRE BUT ALL THESE FROM 900 TO 1453
The fact of the matter is that the Europeans found it distasteful to admit that the Turks had seized the throne of the Caesars, so found it convenient to pretend that Eastern Rome wasn't... um, well, Eastern Rome.
The reason why the original name "Basilae Romanum" disappeared from use, is that the Turks removed the state itself, but calling it "Byzantine Empire" was a European invention. Turks themselves kept calling the country and the empire "Rum" (Roman) for a long time. The reason why it is called Byzantine is the historians of Holy Roman Empire (which itself was later called "Roman-German Empire"), and not the Turks. As the Holy Roman Emperors, with title of "King of Romans" considered themselves real contiunation of Roman Empire, and the emperor in Constantinople was considered a weak claimant for the title, many German historians starting from 16'th century called it "Byantine Empire" and later the use of that false name spreaded. Ottoman Turks also started to call it "Byzantine" following European tradition much later. In fact, all Muslim World remembered the emperor as "Roman Kaiser", even after the Turks conquered the empire, the area was called "Sultanate of Rum" (Roman Sultanate) and in eastern tradition Seljuk Sultan and Ottoman Padishah were also called "Kaiser of Rum" (Roman Empire) as one of their titles.
What part of the empire covered Rome?
Oh none.
That's why
Timothy McLean
None of the rulers of the eastern Roman Empire were Greek, so it wouldnt make sense to give credit to the Greeks for the Byzantine/eastern Roman Empire
They may have spoken some sort of Greek language, but that’s about as Greek as it gets.
Macedonians were actually big players in not only the history of Alexanders Macedonian empire (which Greeks continuously fought against and even joined the Romans to fight against that empire).... Macedonians were also big players in the eastern Roman / Byzantine Empire
And also Macedonia is where Christianity began in Europe, as it says about the apostle Pauls journeys through Macedonia and Greece (as separate lands in the Roman Empire)
Justinian the first was from a place near todays Skopje, and was the son of Macedonian peasants. He was adopted by his uncle and later became a ruler.
The famous Macedonian dynasty in the Byzantine empire, was was referred to as the “Golden age of the Byzantine empire.
(867 - 1081).
With the Macedonians on the throne, their dynasty was undoubtedly the most powerful of all in the history of Eastern Roman Empire, producing two centuries of expansion and progress commonly known as The Golden Age of Byzantine empire. Whatever people want to say.. it was Armenian, or something else... it WAS called the Macedonian dynasty founded by basil I the Macedonian, and it definitely wasn’t Greek.
Also the famous Macedonian kingdom of tsar Samuel, who ruled from Skopje, Ohrid and Prespa, names of cities we still have today, during a time when Bulgarians were under Byzantine rule, so Samuels kingdom wasn’t Bulgarian, it was Macedonian.
And it was during these times that the Macedonian/slavic alphabet was created in Macedonia by Macedonians and then used to spread the slavic orthodox religion throughout Europe, and the proof is 400 million people in Europe today are slavic orthodox, speak a language similar to the Macedonian and use an alphabet created in Macedonia. That is why President Putin congratulated the Macedonian President and payed homage to Macedonia as the cradle of slavic literature. He knows that Russia got its alphabet and religion from the Macedonians.
So Macedonians were also one of the major players of the history of Europe and its empires.
I usually refer to Byzantium now as "Medieval Rome" and "Greco-Rome" while the old Western pagan influenced empire of antiquity I'll usually refer to as "Classical Rome" and "Old Rome."
Really and usa terrotis used term? Exit Síria ?
@Ercan Banks "There was no Greece Greek language in medieval times?" Could a more wrong and asinine thing be said? I can't think so. There most certainly was a conception of Greece and people speaking Greek. What about European imperialism or opposed religion? I'm sorry but I find your comment baffling and nonsensical.
@Ercan Banks ...Dude, how is denying the guys you guys (I assume you're turkish) conquered existed serve your interests? the Turks conquered one of the greatest civilizations, and yet you'll deny your own achievement.
Bruh.
@Ercan Banks Hahaha....the educational system of your country failed in every possible way!
Words are insufficient to describe the level of ignorance of yours.
@Ercan Banks so you are saying that in the med. times the people in today Greece which belonged once to the Bysantine empire never talked greek and spoke something alse maybe an alien laungitch ?
They didn't just start speaking Greek out of nowhere, they already spoke Greek since most inhabitants of the eastern Mediterranean were Greeks. It's just that they translated the laws and other scripts and documents, since most people spoke Greek it was pointless to have those in Latin. Also the Byzantines never experienced the dark ages. They had universities, education and knowledge, which spread around Europe from Byzantine Greek scholars who migrated there after the fall of Constantinople, triggering the Renaissance.
The dark ages arent called dark because all civilization and scientific knowledge had suddenly DISAPEARED, as many people wrongly assume, it is called dark cuz not as many books and documents are left from that era, not because no one knew how to write but probably due to bad luck or maybe the material they used to write on was not durable enough due to economical problems which were anavoidable after the HUGE void left by the fall of the WRE or maybe any other reason, but again unlike what most people think we know a lot about that age but still know much less than we know about the later medieval age.
It is called dark because the state and civilized record keeping tradition was lost for a period of time, hence we know little about what happened there, which IN FACT means that, "scintific knowledge" and "civilization" suddenly disappeared, because the political system that supports it, was suddenly removed. When the lights were on again, what we have found was certainly much different than what was lost, so we assume a lot of things went on "deep in the dark" when we are not looking at, but we can't figure out the details of the process. The new civilization, was quite different than the one before. Cities (the real sign of any civilization) were either no more there, or they were a mere shadow of what they were before, with population and infrastructure mostly gone, many artistic and technic traditions were removed, a certain inability in all areas was present (compared to past) and I dont know which part of it you call a "wrong assumption".
True with language and all, but keep in mind the state tradition itself was still Roman, not Greek (not even in "Greek" sense and form that was valid in classical Roman era, neither classical Greek era, nor the much later developed Greek national identity in modern times), and the state considered itself Roman state, and signed documents with title of "Basilae Romanom" even if written in contemporary Greek alphabet (Koine). Byzantine (as we call it today "thanks" to misleading German Historians) had its own cultural decline in Medieval. It was no more a developing civilization at least. There was only one imperial "university" (Magnaura Palace Hall) in Constantinople, but certainly it was not producing anything new, except housing old texts and books and copying them, being nothing more than a typical scholastic galery. And you are probably wrong when saying "Byzantine Greek scholars who migrated there after the fall of Constantinople, triggering the Renaissance." have been real source of artistic/scientific developments in Europe. The entire concept of Renaissance may be misleading. In 15'th century, Europe was already witnessing a growth in knowledge, especially in construction, infrasturcture, medical and natural sciences. That "Early Renaissance" starts from 13'th century, from Southern Europe, by the translation of antic texts, from Arabic into contemparory European Languages, almost 2 centuries before the fall of Constantinople. Almost all antic texts (in Greek, Latin and Aramic) that Byzantine scholars carried in Europe later, were ALREADY known when they arrived, and they were even outdated, due to studies and experimential practice by both Muslim Arabs and Europeans. There is no ground to believe that much "new" was learned from them, except finding the authentic sources that Arabs translated into their own language 3 centuries ago (in 9'th to 11'th) and later, from these copies, Europeans translated into European languages in 12'th and 13'th centruies, already, first arriving to Europe from Andulusia mostly. Thus they triggered almost no technical development, but something else. The real spirit of Renaissance was rather the change of mind in Catholic Church and its official view. Concerned that the development in knowledge was running somehow outside of their control since some time, with most hated cultural interaction with "infidels", Catholic Church used the migrating scholars to restored back its role in control of already spreading knowledge. Possessing the "original texts and books", helped them to maintain their reputation as "authority of ancient lost art and sciences", that truly belongs to children of Jesus, that was "forgotten" in "East". Thus, probably this internal effort to adopt itself into on going changes, may have triggered the changes in religional doctrines, which may have prepared the incoming religional reforms of 16'th century.
@@Nabukadnezar100 do you know whats your problem? that eastern roman empire was more greek than italian according to today's standards. for example i dont see any western catholic claiming as his. Only greeks do it cause they know it. So today you spit these horseshit as if it matters. You look in the mirror and the only thing you see is that you are a turkified yenitsar who can not stand to see its neighbours knowing that the byzantine empire was theirs and you have stole it as everything you have step foot so finally you realise that you are a lowlife who doesn't have a history only a subhuman civilisation.
It was not a problem of mine, I was pointing out your problem in fact. Right, Greeks do it because it is nearest thing that they can connect themselves to history in order to claim that Greece mainland is rightfully theirsi for they obtained it from Ottomans, and Ottomans obtained it from Byzantine, thus the claim would not be so strong if it jumps over Medieval Byzantine and goes directly to ancient Greece. Many modern Italians today however, unless you specifically refer to "ancient Rome" would get AS ROMA football club instead. We both know, that ancient Greeks had more in common with any farmer in Aleppo, compared to any modern European. Ancient Rome is the real connection for Europe, not Greeks, and this includes even the Greeks themselves, as you are clearly putting it. About other blah blah, what a waste of your time and mine. I am very happy about being Turkish with or without your approval and I am sure you are also happy for being a Greek. I respect that, if you care to hear. However, all these dont have anything to do with historical presence of antic entities we call Greek or Turkish. Any idiot of a 10.000 population ethnicity can also be proud with his ancestors. It's easy. You don't need to achieve or prove anything to do that.
The Byzantine Empire in proper Middle Greek was called the Basileia tôn Rhōmaion, the Empire of Rome.
*Kingdom of the Romans
In Greece, we formally call it the Roman Empire but we recognise it as Greek. If you ever been to Athens then not only would you see the Greek flag on known landmarks but also the Byzantine Flag. So yeah, it depends who you ask
It's still called like that in modern Greek.
@peter schwarz Yet the yet older Rome, namely Troy, was right next to Constantinople.
@peter schwarz Rome was a Trojan colony originally....kinda
Greece was actually called "Romania", well into the modern times - this was reflected in the Ottoman name "Rumelia". The then very important Greek city Nafplio is named "Napoli in Romania" in old maps.
Napoli derives from Greek. Nea=New and Poli=City.
Napoli means New City. In Greek its Neapoli.
The right pronunciation for English speakers of Neapoli is Nea-apo-lee.
Actually Rhomania includes large chunk of Balkan to Anatolia, the people all were considered Romans. Regardless of their origin.
not rumelia but Rumeli.
Rum + el = Rum + strangers.
Rum + eli = the land ''place'' of Rum
We call european trakya ''Rumelihisar'' or ''rumeli'' 'place where Rums lives
It was the Roman Empire. The Romans technically never split, so when the west fell, the east stayed rome.
The title is misleading
I can tell you really like the Byzantine empire/East Rome.
The Holy Roman Empire was called so, because it wasn't holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an empire.
@Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE WAS NOT ROMAN WAS NOT HOLY AND IT WAS NOT EMPIRE
BYZANTIUM WAS ROMAN, AND IT WAS EN EMPIRE!
@Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin your holy roman empire was not centralized but a collection of german kindoms dukats and some territory in italy thats it the empire had a hard time gattering an imperial army do to internal division just ask Chales v the spanish army was the back bone of the empire in the 1500s not the german solders.
Συμφωνώ= I agree
The reneissance and especially Englightment went out of their way to prove how bad the Middle Ages were, simply because people were staunch belivers back then and they wanted to separate themselves from that.
While in reality, most themes we assiociate with the Medieval era were a Renaissance thing. Torture, Inquisition, Witch trials weren't a thing (maybe torture was, somewhat) until the Reneissance. Hell, medieval people had bathouses in every cities, but after the Black Plague, there was a stigma against washing yourself. During the Enlightment the perfumes were used precisely because people often shat themselves and didn't wash at all.
Have to agree mostly however torture was used a on a wide scale. Everything else is correct, like from me
@@idk1848 I clearly said "maybe except torture". Yes, while torture was practicised, the many tools we assiociate with it were only invented in Reinessaince.
@@Vitalis94 where did I say you didn't say that? I simply meant that it was used on a wider scale, I read your comment and beloved you meant it was used on a small scale which is why I replied. If you did not mean that then it was my fault.
Nice. You could make RUclips videos too man !
Of course the Byzantine Empire always called itself the Roman Empire, a historian coined the term Byzantine, after the fall of Constantinople sometime in the 16th century.
The fact that the ottomans called themself the third rome is extremely insulting.
It's not but Russia and Germans calling themselves the 3rd Rome is the real insult.Ottomans hold Roman Terratorries and translated Roman writings.
What makes it "extremely insulting"?I can't know why do you think like that but if the reason is rulers of Ottoman Empire being muslim or something like that the way you think is kinda nonsensical. Ottomans had a culture which was a synthesis of turkic,greco-romanic and muslim culture. As the "bilimin sırlar"ı said they held roman territories and translated roman writings. Mehmet II the conquer actually wanted to conquer the city of Rome itself to be even more worthy to be third rome but the events didn't go in favor of him.
@@kaan_sardogann Ottoman Sultans even called themselves Kayser which meant Caesar,the Roman Emperor.
@@biliminsrlar5752 nobody cares what they call themselves they dont have anything to do with Rome
@care stereo they have more than idiot Germans and Pope with Rome.They owned Roman lands,they translated Roman texts,they stuided Roman and Ancient Greek philsophy,they protected the old Roman buildings to this day.
The thing is we might as Greeks gave the Romans our culture and civilization but what they gave us in exchange is also very important. That's unity, because they ancient Greeks technically never united and kept fighting and killing each other like they were different countries, which they were in a sense, that's why it was difficult for them to unite under one kingdom or empire
In Greece we call it "Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων" which translates to Imperium Romanum, my father calls it "Ρωμανία" , Romania in english (nothing to do with modern Romania, as the spelling differs in Greece), but our history books writes it as Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire.
Yes, and the Greeks have always been wrong about it.
Yes, "Romania" was pretty popular name to that country/region before "Byzantium" was popularized. I mean even when westeners took control in the Basileon they call country "Empire of Romania".
@Deadly_Connor91 He is most probably reffering to "Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitio_terrarum_imperii_Romaniae
Greece is the one and only sucessor of the Byzantine empire.
"The Byzantine Empire never existed"
*my Greek heart stops
"Okay, it existed"
*Greek heart begins to pump blood again
To understand the bottom-line of this video, ask yourself this question:
"If some foreign army invaded the U.S.A tommorrow and conquer the state of Washington, D.C, should the rest of the country still be considered the United States of America?"
Of course it would.
Konstantinople was long before Romes fall the Imperial City. So when invaders conquered Rome they didn't conquered the capital of the Roman empire.
Theres a slight mistake regarding the use of language. The common language in Eastern Rome was always Greek, this is due to Alexander the Greats spread of Hellenism. The shift you talk about in the video is regarding the administrative language, not the common language of the people.
I'am Greek and my surname is Byzantine my ancestors came from Konstantinople and Smyrna our language compared with the Byzantine is the same and we also use the same hymns songs flags and names that makes us not two different people but the same one but with a different name the people back then thought that they are Romans cuz they thought that the Hellenic name was paganist and they didn't use it :)
A while back I heard that Greeks in the Ottoman Empire continued to call themselves 'Romans' until a revolt in the 19th century.
Roman is Greek word that means the brave ones
Stelyo it doesn't mean that your greek Istanbul and Izmir had have original inhabitants do after romanization came hellenization megarites will be ofended to hear that having such last name will be misleading 'cause ı have Turkish armenian friend who is originally from Diyarbakir whois last name Istanbulluyan after thr research that he made he assume that he has Turkish originis which were became first Cristians of the Anatolia most of the greeks which they do not have dark body hair Also hellenized Hazar Turks as you can not understand Turks does not have homogeneous religion like greek Ortodoks church or armenian gregoryen church they studied almost every religion like Budisim nestorian judaism Christianity and Islam most of them just melt in the religions you do not know nothing about true history but claim to know
Arch Stanton actually I am not greek because in fact There was no greek in my region. İn fact you know nothing Eastern Roman Empire citizens didnotcall themselves greek, but Rum so Rumi means From Eastern Roman Empire habitans and then so called mongols and My anchestors is not same Thé History you belive is full of lie . As a greek you should be thank full that Turks save yr sorry asses. You should read Latin invaders in Istanbul. My anchestors are very Turk Pecheneks and kumans were living in Anatolia longbefore they were Turkish speaking Orthodox. You need to read by the way my region was genovais colony not greek
@Arch Stanton *Islamified and *Turkified, since Ottoman dialect originated from Turkic tribes, which is the reason why Turkish sounds similar to Khazakh, and not Greek.
We should start refering to " the Eastern Roman Empire in Greek speaking Constantinople, labelled as the Byzantine Empire by the west in order to distort history"
yes that'll catch on
There's a reason why Byzantium was labelled as the Empire of the Greeks by Western Europeans. They perceived these peoples calling themselves Romans in Greek as something non-Roman; not altogether unfairly.
The East had always spoke Greek, and after the during the reign of Heraclius Latin was officially supplanted by Greek in elite circles, whereas the populace of the East spoke Greek long before the Romans were even on the scene. The liturgy was in Greek too, which is important when you consider the Orthodox Church, post-schism of course, began to despise the use of Latin as a liturgical language. Roman titles too dropped off in favor of Greek ones. So in time, emperors were more commonly called Basileos which is clearly Greek.
This doesn't mean there was never an Eastern Roman Empire, far from it. But there's a good reason to call the Eastern Roman Empire the Byzantine Empire as it grew to be something markedly different historiographically to both the united Roman Empire and its eastern half.
pisciarihead yeah but it was renamed after it was conquered not because it was Greek European nations didn't want to admit the romans were destroyed the ottomans
In the same context, England should not be called England today, as it also grew to be something markedly different historiographically to the pagan Anglo-saxon England (from which it got its name), or the Norman England, or even the early British Empire, culturally, linguistically and politically. However, during all this period, its inhabitants have always identified themseves as English, not as Danes or Normans for example, and they have a sense of historical continuity starting from the anglosaxon times up to this day.
It is only normal that over 1000 years there will be changes, it is called evolution, it is the process of getting from anglo-saxon england to David Beckham. :)
Same thing applies to the Roman Empire, that over 2 millenia evolved in a similar way. However, its inhabitants have always identified themselves as Romans and had always known that they are the direct descendants of Achilles, Leonidas, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Constantine the Great and modern Greeks, as the direct descendants of medieval Greeks=medieval Romans="Byzantines" have a strong sense of their own historical continuity, exactly like the English. :)
Romanos Diogenes the problem with that is you’re presupposing the Anglo-Saxons thought of themselves as English from the start. There’s not enough evidence to support that. Anglo-Saxon and English are not necessarily the same thing. You’re retroactively implying nationality before it really applied to the Anglo-Saxons.
@@AngSco30 The Angles (Ængle) thought of themselves as "Ænglisc" from the start, back in 500 AD, there is no question about it. It probably took some time for the Saxons to identify themselves as English as well, however, by the time of Æthelstan, who united the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in 927, giving birth to the Kingdom of England, Anglo-Saxon and English meant pretty much the same thing. After all, there is a reason the Anglo-Saxon language is called "Old English", while the Norman Conquest approximately marks the end of Old English and the advent of Middle English. We wouldn't be talking about Old-Middle English, we would be talking about Anglo-Saxon and English (or Anglo-Norman) as too completely distinct things, while the latter is the evolution of the former, after the Norman conquest.
The Ottomans didn’t rename the city, it was official renamed by Turkey when the Ottoman Empire ended after WW1. The city had many non official names from Late Antiquity until the 20th century.
Charlemagne referred to the Byzantine Empire as ,,,,..."The Empire of the Greeks"...
because he tried to usurp the title Roman Emperor
Okay he is now a traitor to Roma
The Eastern Roman Empire did exist until 1453. The term Byzantine wasn't used until the 16th Century nor Byzantium. Good video.
As a Greek I've always been told that the Byzantine Empire was different from the Roman Empire. I later discovered that the statement was half-right and half-wrong. The official language of the Byzantine Empire was Greek, it always was. However, Latin was widely spoken and was known as the official language for the Roman Empire even though you could argue that they're one and the same. I recently visited an archaeological site in Greece and the people there told us that Byzantine and Roman architecture was different. Byzantine had more Grecian elements and they also said that before the siege of Constantinople the empire claimed to be Greek. Plus, most of the emperor's were Greek. Overall, i believe it was both Greek and Roman.
You just triggered the whole Paradox Interactive Fanbase
no he didnt
? No? I play Byzantium BECAUSE it's Rome.
How? If anything we're more likely to agree than someone who isn't into history.
The medieval Roman Empire was different from the Roman Empire of antiquity in much the same way 19th century America is different from 21 century America. But they were still the true Romans. You did not really explain why the medieval Roman Empire was renamed to the Byzantine Empire after it was destroyed. I mean you hinted at the revisionist history of the renaissance but more specifically it has to do with the Catholic church and the Holy "Roman" Empire. The Germans who formed the Holy "Roman" Empire, claimed to be the true heirs of the Roman Empire through the catholic church. Therefore, German historians tried to separate the idea of a continuing Roman Empire existing in the dark and middle ages, because it conflicted with their fabricated claim to Rome's legacy as a catholic empire. The fact that we continue teaching this biased view of Roman history is an egregious mistake. But the Romans are no longer here to protest against this bastardization of their history, so no one but scholars would point it out.
The Eastern half of Rome was mostly Greek-speaking even in the days of the Republic, and didn’t fall when the West did because of having better infrastructure. Thank Alexander the Great’s conquests for both of those things.
The Enlightenment happened after the Renaissance, so you couldn't wait until the renaissance to give something a new name because of something that had yet to happen. Other than that, awesome video!
The greek minority in ottoman empire called themselves roman
There's an anecdote from when the kingdom of greece occupied the aegean islands after ww1
As the soldiers were arriving in a settlement, the children were crowded in streets to watch them
A soldier asked, hey kid what are you looking at. The (greek speaking) child said, we are gathered here to see the Hellenes. The soldier said, lo, aren't you a Hellene yourself?
The kid said, no , I am a Roman
Its not Byzantine its EASTERN ROMAN
It's not eastern roman
It's Late Roman Empire
What if the reqonquista spread to north africa and the levant similar to the crusades (but actually successful)
Mexican Mapper yes that would be a great video
Interesting question, MM!
Its quite possible, that contact with Americas would come MUCH later since initial euro exploration was driven be need to find alternate route to India and China (muslims forbid nonmuslims from trading).
However, there is one key conditional. NO Turks. The moment big turkic tribes got into motion, Greeks were destined to bleed out in the mountains and valleys of anatolian peninsula.
Byzantine Empire:
*I don't feel so well*
SPQR SOUNDS APPEAR
*NEVERMIND. I FEEL EVEN BETTER!*
4:47 to say that Byzantine Empire = New Roman Empire. Thanks Captain Obvious.
For the first few seconds thought you was gonna suggest the ERE never existed and was just an anarchist state.
Sometimes clickbait-y titles are like that.
funny enough, an important role in "igniting" the Renaissance was played by Byzantine refugees who fled in Italy from Ottomans (see how accepting refugees was never a bad idea?). Because in the eastern Roman Empire the so called Dark Ages were no way near as dark as in the catholic world
i like the tiny greek touch one your video man αχαχαχχαχα μαγκα μου
They spoke Greek, perhaps because most of the people of Byzantine Empire were Greek speakers (regardless from their mother tongue as a part of thier Hellenic civilization and Greek trade monopoly + being in Greek influence area), and it became even more so after they shrinked more and more to ethnic Greece in their last 300 years (remember the Byzantine history is 1100 years), and these ethnicities made their way to ruling class in time, OR because all Roman elites since they occupied and easily integraded Greek mainland to Roman Empire, back in 146 B.C. and imported skilled slave labour from Greece, were not only familiar to Greek language, but most of the times they were Greek speakers themselves. OR as it often turns out, the truth is somewhere in between. But the fact is, they never presented their state as a Greek state. A few documents would not be enough to suggest a political Greek heritage for Byzantine, but much to our surprize there is NO document (I know) that officially refers to Greek heritage of the Byzantine state, but tons of documents I can link to their claim of being a Roman State. Emperors, members of state bureaucracy, nobles, neighbour states, all regarded the Byzantine as Rome, officially. Not even one single reference to Greekness of the state. Yes, it was using Greek language, yes it was mostly Greek populated, yes even ruling ranks were ethnically Greek (most probably) or Helenized...But the state itself and it's political tradition remained as ROMAN, and called as ROMAN. It was a medieval Roman state, politically structured like any medieval Roman state (like others in West Roman Empire), and DID certainly NOT include any characteristic we observed in "ancient Greece" even in the late ancient Greece of Macedon dinasties. Roman invasion and Roman rule of such long time (including early Byzantine rule itself) appearantly erased all poltical tradition and culture of ancient Greece, and Christianity also digested all cultural fragments remained. Only the language survived. Oh, plus the cuisine, and some folkloric fragments (some songs, dances etc.)
very true
Wasn't the main reason the fact that the pope declared Charlemagne Emperor of the Romans and thereby effectively denouncing the "Roman" part of the Eastern Roman Empire?
the main reason was the byzantines themselves. after the 9th century the empire lost all provinces with non greek speaking population to the arabs or westerners or slavic and bulgarian nations. So it eventually lost its multiethnic character and all ties with the latin past was lost. Latin was replaced with greek and was soon forgotten , and also the religious schism and the birth of the orthodox church played a major part.
@@vonzuchter "birth of the orthodox church"
both churches claimed direct descent from one original church.
@@ppaaccoojrf yes but originally rome was the center and the leader was the pope
@@vonzuchter That is just not true. The Church started in the East and spread from there.
@@ppaaccoojrf christianity became the dominant religion only when it became the official religion of the roman empire. The center of faith was rome. You speak before it became an organized religion with priests etc. Before yes it started in the east but it was a totally diffrent religion. Just read the bible.... no churches , no priesthood , no ceremonies and mysteries, no intervention with politics etc. Christianity as we know it today with leadership and priesthood and politics originated in the western part. Had the religion stayed unofficial things would have been much diffrent
similar things happened in Asian history.
Han dynasty of China is separated into two periods-the Western Han(Former Han) (202 BC - 9 AD) and the Eastern Han(Later Han) (25-220 AD) even though both of them called themselves just Han. And also Han during three kingdoms period is called Shu Han to disambiguate from the preceding Han dynasty.
Also, in Korean history, Joseon (2333 BC?)-108 BC is called Gojoseon, meaning ancient Joseon, to distinguish the kingdom from the Joseon dynasty that emerged later in 1392 CE.
Didn’t the Kingdom of Italy, Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Serbia, Tsardom of Bulgaria, Kingdom of Romania, and even Austrian empire and later Austro-Hungarian empire call themselves third Rome too?
Well that's first..
Everyone wants to be Rome
You forgot to mention the Russian Tsars who called their empire the third Rome after the fall of Constantinopole to the Seljuks and called themselves the defenders of the Orthodox christianity they used "restoring the orthodox church of constantiopole" as a propaganda to mitivate their ppl to fight in the numorous wars they had against the Ottomans.
but, who is fourth rome?
@@sinoroman EU
2:00 Did you just Google-translate "Elon Musk"? XD
Nice vid, subscribed.
The east Roman empire was famous as Greek empire to the Latins of the time (because they want keep Rome titles for them)
The idea about making a video of countries that called themselves the third Rome is pretty interesting, I would recommend also to look at the Spanish empire, since it also called itself "the successor of the Roman empire" especially under the rule of Charles V and Philip II in fact the Spanish army, the Tercios talked of themselves as the descendants of the Roman legions
I've thought a ton about this, and I've studied for decades, for what it's worth...and I kinda think that were the Roman Empire as we know and love it to have survived passed the mid-fifteenth century, the legions would most DEFINITELY resemble tercios in most ways. Good catch, dude. I actually didn't even know the Spanish, themselves, had referenced the legions. That's awesome!
Roman is a very ambiguous word. You can be referring to classical Romans or the Greco-Romans who were the Byzantines. Although the name stayed as Rome in the byzantine empire everything else was hellenised and therefore Roman actually meant Greek in the middle ages. If it was still Rome then why was it the Greek Revolution in 1821 and not the Roman revolution? Words such as Rum and Romani and Roumeli all come from the word Rome but really have nothing to do with the Western Roman empire. It was renamed Byzantine because it was a clear transition from Latin to Greek in every way. It wouldnt be completely wrong for a greek to call themselves Ρομαίου, that doesnt mean they are calling themselves Latin Roman, they are calling themselves Byzantine.
Η Κωνσταντινούπολη είναι ελληνική. The Eastern Roman Byzantine Empire IS apart of Greek History.
To 2021
george your a fat peice if egg carton
greco0roman doesnt mean what you think it means.
except everything but the commonly used language was roman.
correction. king of the franks. huge difference. part of frankia still is a municipality in southern germany, charlemagne is resting in aachen, former east frankia.
Mr.Rome, I don’t feel so good...
This is like companies today who make stuff that are identical but give it a different name just to make it sound like there's choice and variety.
There wasn't Eastern Roman Empire either. There was eastern part of Roman Empire.
The western Roman realm didn't really "fall". It wasn't wholly invaded either but most parts of it had their defense "sourced out" to Germanic tribes that were Roman "foederati" - allies that provided military assitance. These tribes had no intention to destroy the Roman state but to become an integral part of it. It wasn't a big step, the army and aristocracy in the area was already becoming Germanized. But the Foederati and their leaders lacked the legitamcy and strenght of the Roman state (even though they tried to crown themselves Kings) so they had problems collecting taxes - this became such a problem that the state in effect erroded away and western Europe went into a decline.
The western Part of the Roman Empire was in fact sort of disregarded and abandoned by the Emperors and the ruling classesin favor of the eastern. Whole provinces such as Britain was literally abandoned. Rome itself was regarded as overpopulated (and ridden with disease) and hence Constantinople was built, and the western Emperors mostly hung out in Ravenna. The western part was not as profitable and too far away from the Eastern battle front against the feared Persians. The East was the place to be!
The so-called "Byzantine Empire" was Roman NOT Greek. The capital was just in Greece, but most "Byzantine subjects" called themselves Romans and never Greeks. The term Hellene was even used as an insult.
In any case, they were essentially Greeks even though under a different name. Also, the term Hellene, even though tied to pagans from early on (and was usually avoided), it began reemerging after 1200 AD.
@@Agras14 How were they essentially Greeks? Byzantium has many non-Greek kings.
@@sarban1653 The question is what's not Greek about them? The Eastern Roman Empire, namely Romania/Byzantion, was an Empire, and like all Empires, it consisted of a number of nations throughout its history, just like in the older Roman era. But the nucleus of the Empire, and especially what made the Empire, which was the city of Constantinople, was fully Greek. The language was Greek, then called Romeika. The religion/liturgy was Greek, so were all the ancient Christian Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and still are to this day. The great scientists (like the ones who made Hagia Sophia) and numerous authors were Greek. And many many of the Emperors belonged to Greek dynasties, like the Doukas, the Komnenoi, the Palaiologoi, the Phokas, the Heracleans, the Laskaris etc.. Furthermore through the centuries, once the Empire began to fade, especially after the Sack of Constantinople (1204) by Latins and other Westerners, the Empire almost exclusively consisted of Greeks, as they were the nucleus of the Empire from the very beginning of the transition. Even the successor states that emerged after the Sack of Constantinople (1204), to fight the Latins and reestablish the Empire, were all Greek, namely the Despotate of Epirus, the Empire of Trebizond, and the Empire of Nicaea which was also the one to actually do the job.
@@Agras14 Good response, thanks for correcting my ignorance.
Roman empire: the father
Eastern & western roman empire : two sons of father.(one got dead in childhood)
HRE: adopted son who believes he is the only biological son.
Russian empire: great great grand son of roman empire who only has 5% DNA matching with their blood.
Ottoman empire: an ex homeless person who found their house and forcefully living there till it became normal.
Actually, Charlemagne was declared the successor to Constantine IV after his mother blinded and killed him. Or at least that's what I heard.
the Germans made that up as a pretext to steal the title Roman Emperor
They did something different to get legitimacy for origin Roman succession. Western "Emperor of Holy Roman Nation" Otto I asked for a princess from Konstantinople that was "born in purple" for his son and later Emperor Otto II and got Theophanu (later Empress of Holy Roman Empire herself). So through marriage.
The Ottomans did NOT rename the city’s name to Istanbul. It was not until the year 1930 that the city was beginning to be called Istanbul officially. Ottomans used lots of names when referring to the city, while Kostantiniyye, the Arabicized name of Contantinople, being used as the official name of the city.
So the ""dark ages"" misnomer and stereotypes date back to the Renaissance, huh.
Absolutely, there were no dark ages, even in the west, Oxford, one of the most oldest universities in the world, was founded in the so called Dark Ages, and we have extensive histories from monasteries in Anglo-Saxon Britain. And that's only Britain, without mentioning the rest of Europe and the World at the time. Most historians don't even call it the Dark Ages anymore, they call it the Early Medieval Period.
@@mrroberts7828 They call it the dark ages when they explicitly mention the lack of written sources between the fall of the Roman Empire in the West and the emergence of kingdoms centralised enough to start writing history again (Alfred the Great, Charlemagne).
and who the hell is _Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus_ ?!
byzantium is eastern roman empire
Nobody:
RUclips: wanna watch a video debunking the byzantine empires existence
Pope Leo didn't crown the "First emperor in 300 years." More like "20 years."
Charlemagne wasn't declared the successor of Romulus Augustus, he was declared the successor of Constantine VI, the 8th century Byzantine emperor.
THANK YOU!! FINALLY SOMEONE ELSE SAYS THIS! THE ROMAN EMPIRE FELL IN 1453 yeet!
Crusader Kings 2 has too much incest also. Like I can have a horse for a ruler.
+DiamondTurtle
Actually, that's a lie too, because, as we all well know, the Eastern Roman Empire split up after the 4th Crusade. 3 of the states were Roman, and definitely NOT Latin Crusader: Empire of Nicaea, Empire of Trebizond and Despotate of Epirus. Nicaea would come to restore Constantinople to the Empire, while Epirus just kinda fell before the Serbs and Neapolitans and Nicaean Romans. Later, however, Morea would change between being a part of the Roman Empire and being an independent Roman despotate several times over. They fell several years after the Empire itself. The Empire of Trebizond only fell in 1471 (which would later trigger the Ottoman - Aq Qoyunlu war). So, really, the Roman Empire fell in 1471.
@@bvthebalkananarchistmapper5642 buddy you said it yourself TREBIZOND fell at 1471
+Νικος Βαρυμποπιωτης
Yes, but the Empire of Trebizond is another one of the Roman states.
@@bvthebalkananarchistmapper5642 yes and no.. I mean it was call trebizond for a reason...the ruler was komnenos and the komnenoi were at some point rulers of the Byzantine empire (komnenian restoration or something like that, I'm not sure in English) now what I'm saying is that they were not Romans they were Greeks and even if they were considering themselves Romans you can't say that the Eastern Roman empire fell back at 1471 because of the obvious reason that they ruled the kingdom of trebizond
2:08 Actually the term did come from a Greek-Speaking Christian Byzantine historian, Priscus, who wrote his Ἱστορία Βυζαντιακή or history of Byzantium in the 5th century. Hieronymus Wolf just popularised the use of the term in the west, it was already a semi-commonly used term in the East and the Empire's currency was often called the Byzant or Bezant by common people.
eh, it was moreso a term used to describe people from Nova Roma itself. never the empire.
Man, I love how much attention the Medieval Roman Empire is getting as of late. Hopefully we can get rid of the misconceptions surrounding it.
Heraclius was the turning point
It was basicaly a Hellinised Roman empire
I never understood why the greek didn't declared themselves as the Roman empire when they got independent in the 1800's, instead they started larping as clasical greeks
Because they were(and many still are)very conflicted about that long part of their history under the Roman empire.Fathers of the modern greek state actually thought of this much in 19th century and eventually that party which wanted to stress pre-Roman classical greek past prevailed over those who didnt wanted to refuse it.In the same way victourious party started to interpret "Byzantine" part of Roman history in very nationalistic terms as "purely greek state that have nothing to do with the Romans"...which was absolute opposite how those "Byzantines" themselves would saw it.Most modern greeks are heavilly influenced by this heavilly nationalistic interpretation of "Byzantine" era although there are very many other greeks perfectly able to look on this part of their history without nationalistic bias.
it was because the western powers didn't really want to support a claimant to Rome, so, the greeks dropped "Romaioi", for "Hellenes" to gain Western support. and it worked.
One of the most disgusting acts of historians is to use Byzantine to describe the later Roman Empire. It’s so lazy it’s a lie and distorts real history. It matters
Well said, you have just hit the nail on the head, my friend. History, should never be distorted for political purposes, and when it is, it should be the historians duty to rectify it!
Ivanna Nukya what matters how we call them? China doesn’t call it self China, Germany doesn’t call it self Germany, Croatia doesn’t call it self croatia.
@@francogiobbimontesanti3826 You obviously missunderstood the point, it's not about name translation, it's about DISTORTION!!! That WAS the Roman Empire! (actual continuation). Therefore, the Roman Empire(Eastern) actually fell in 1453!!! not just when the city Rome fell ( western )
@@chm5750 you know things arent that clear cut at all. What most people consider to be the end of western empire is odoacer dethroning romulus augustus partially because odoacer didnt declare himself to be a roman emperor but king of italy and partially because we like to say that roman empire ended with somebody called romulus. But arguments can be made for both western roman empire falling before that date or western roman empire falling after that date. In some ways ostrogothic italy was more roman than late western roman empire.
@@sakunaritv3433 Yes I understand, but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about!
My point specifically was to the distortion of the Hellenistic, or Greek speaking Eastern portion of the Roman Empire, which very clearly continued untill 1453, and was rebranded as the Byzantium Empire, by the West, as being a "different" (not Roman ) Empire.
The name doesn't matter! even the Greeks call it Byzantium, it's the deception of the western propaganda from back then, to distort history, and that my friend is pretty CLEAR CUT!!!
I agree with what you said, but it's just a talking point that you through, it has NOTHING TO DO WItH WHAT I'M SAYING!!!
For those interested, some epic works of one (among many) prestigious and credible Historian regarding the Greek Byzantine Empire, Warren Treadgold, include;
“A Concise History of Byzantium”,
“A History of the Byzantine State and Society”,
“Byzantium and Its Army, 284-1081”,
“The Byzantine Revival, 780-842”.
Truly masterpieces.
Οι Έλληνες ήταν Ρωμαίοι ❤💙❤💙
I personaly feel that calling the E. Roman Empire, the byzantine empire is perfectly fine solong it is acknowledged that they are the same state, and that byzantine instead of beeing used to refer to a completely seperate state is used to seperate the time pereiods and acknowledge the changes that happened in the roman empire from late classical antiquity to the early middle ages.
First of all Byzantine empire is totally wrong name, its Romean Empire!
Analogy how wrong byzantine name is if in far future some civilisation found ruins near Washington and call entire USa Potomac empire!
the Byzantine empire never existed because it was the Roman Empire
Eine frage: Wie lernst du Deutsch? Mein Deutsch ist nicht so gut, aber in ganze dein Videos dass hast du Deutsch sprechen, das ist bessere als meinen.
Ist das weil reist du zu Deutschland? Ich denke nicht dass Deutsch ist dein Muttersprache denn, bist du einen Amerikanner. Ich will mein Deutsch improveirt, aber ich weiss nicht!
Glaub mir, mein Deutsch ist immer nicht perfekt! Ich lerne Deutsch darum könnte ich in Berlin wohnen, aber ich bin jetzt immer nur A2/B1. Und auch, Übung macht der Meister!
Ach so, ich hatte das gedacht.
@@KhAnubis I find your german to be a bit amusing. If I translated back what you said it would be:
"Believe me, my german is never perfect! I learn german which is why I might live in Berlin, but now I am only an A2/B2 forever. And also the master does the training!"
@@KhAnubis gut zu wissen, Grüße aus NRW
To put it simple: "byzantine empire/byzantium" was just a derogatory term to delegitimize the roman empire
In other words it was the Roman empire. Even if some don't like this fact
this video doesnt have any point. the byzantine culture was miles away from the ancient roman culture and the renaissance tried to bring things back like arts, architecture and sciences.
yes the byzantine empire was technically rome but it wasnt the same thing because of the huge cultural difference. the same way ptolemaic egypt is not the same as bronze age egypt
Don't forget the Byzantium empire never really held the actual city of Rome for long.
hhh Bn, they held it for over 200 years, longer then most countries on today’s map have existed.
COD Boss, of course their culture was different. Cultures evolve and change over time, not to mention adapting to meet the economic and military challenges of their Islamic rivals in the East. To say they aren't Roman because they didn't wear the togas or speak the Latin of first century Rome is absurd.
Manny Akintunde i absolutely agree, you cant expect cultures to hold on to a single stage of their history forever. Romans used to wear togas but at some point during the empire, figured that pants were more practical. Where they any less roman because of it? Are the mongolian people any less mongolian because they are largely settled and dropped mounted archery?
We should just consider the Byzantines a Neo Greek Empire, cuz its territory was mainly greek from before the Roman time, and it was greek culturally and linguistically.
Your right and wrong , the separation of the Roman Empire separated into the Eastern Roman Empire and the western Roman Empire . But the Western Roman Empire was also known as the Byzantine Empire
The main issue with the term "Byzantine" is that it rests at the centre of a controversy that we in the modern age have only just missed out on. The legacy of Rome. Today, the legacy of the Romans is a quaint at worst, interesting at best, academical topic for study. Two centuries ago however, it was something that people had been arguing over constantly for centuries. The Turks, the Russians, the Germans, the Italians, the French, and a myriad of others laid claim to be the true successors of the Roman legacy.
The problem is that the "byzantines" were Roman, with some people from those regions still calling themselves Romans. They were the same empire that was forged in the first and second centuries BCE, just chopped down a little. But since the Europeans couldn't agree with that premise, and insisted that they were the real Roman successors, Eastern Rome became increasingly ostracised, a process not at all helped by the fact that the two principle sects of christianity at the time were having a pissing contest over who was true and who was universal. So when the Turks conquered the last remnants of Rome, the Europeans certainly couldn't admit that the Turks had some claim to the throne of the Caesars, and since the Byzantines were no longer around to contest the point, everyone in the western world comfortably sat back and declared that Rome died in the 5th century.
Much easier than admitting the awful truth, but then these were people who believed that a Syrian carpenter was actually a god poncing about on earth acting as a sacrifice to himself to make a loophole for rules he laid down in the first place, so maybe we shouldn't expect too much from them on accepting reality.
@Anglomachian Italians don't claim to be Romans, they are.
@@NinjoTerror Not politically. The "byzantines" were Roman citizens, granted thus under the unified Imperium Romanum. When the west fell, those living under the new kingdoms gained different political identities, and eventually ethnic ones too as the various northern conquerors blended with the population.
@@Anglomachian No one knows how the people of Italy after the fall of the western part identified themselfs. For sure they never identified as "germanics", so they probably still identified themselfs either as: "romans" or "italics". In fact, Augustus, created for the first time an administrative region called Italia with inhabitants called "Italicus populus", stretching from the Alps to Sicily (the italian unification was inspired by this).
Of course when italian republics gained indipendence they started to call themselfs in their "republics names", for example: "florentine"; "venetian"; "genoese" etc.
But you can see for yourself who we are. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians
About the "population blending", the invaders just got assimilated by the already existing and already heavily populated Italia. The ancestors of most Italians are identified as Italic peoplesi (of which the most notable are the Latins/Romans but also Umbrians, Sabines and others) and it is generally agreed that the invasions that followed for centuries the Fall of the Roman Empire did not significantly alter their gene pool because of the relatively small number of Germanic or other migrants compared to the large population of what constituted Roman Italy.
By the way, prior to the edict of caracalla, the "original" romans were the: Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. Later, with the italian wars, these romans conquered Italy and gave the citizenship to all the other italics.
@@NinjoTerror Yes, but as I said, I'm not talking about ethnicities or self-identified labels. I'm talking about the cultural and governmental systems they were under. Eastern Rome was still under a Roman Emperor, adhering to Roman law, with Roman cultural values. I don't think that it can be fairly argued that those in Italy following the overthrow of byzantine power could argue any of those things for long.
@@Anglomachian Well, the government system changed, of course. But that changed in pretty much all the nations in the world. If now, A stop to be a democracy and start to be a dictatorship (or the other way around), A stops to be A?
I mean, the culture slightly changed, that's true. But mostly on religion. For example: in Italy we have customs, hand gestures, food/dishes that goes back to ancient Rome.
Go to Greek regions like the Mani peninsula and tell them they are not descendants of Byzantion. I am curious to see the mob reaction.
Did you really make a pedantic video about the semantics of the Byzantine empire?
I wasted 4:47 of my time because of clickbate and semantics
i scrolled down before watching the video so i was saved most of those 4:47 seconds lol
Love your videos man, but one criticism I have. A lot of the images are pretty blurry and it doesn't look very well. Maybe try to find to high quality ones.
Yeah, it's all the .jpg files, plus the fact that I export in 720p to save on space. Appreciate the feedback, though!
Charlemange the King of France ?! Are u on drugs ?!
It was technically France
artillery only
Oh boy it was totally Not
roshiro karolus lootbrok
Nope he wasnt
He was King of the Franks ( Franks are not French ) and later also King of Italy after defeating the langobardians
France (the "c" pronounced as an "s") didn't exist back then. It was Francia (the "c" pronounced as an "k"), which can be easily viewed as the predecessor of France, Germany, Italy, Burgundy and Provence (the latter two are today parts of France).
Frankia/Francia/France same thing really.
The italians & the spanish still say Francia, the Germans, Dutch & Scandinavian still say Frankreich, Frankrijk & Frankrike meaning Kingdom of the Franks...
The language through time evolved and so the nation's name varied slightly but from Clovis to this day : the state continuously existed without interruption making it the oldest nation of the modern world.
It’s a common misconception that the name Istanbul was derived from “Is tin poli” (Greek for “to the city”). This just happens to be a theory of some historians that can’t be really proved. It doesn’t make any sense to call a city like that.
It makes much more sense to see the name Istanbul as just a simplification/derivative of the name Konstantinopolis.
First great job
There was never such a thing as the Byzantine Empire. This name was put forward by a German historian named Hieronymus Wolf in 1557, and according to this, the Roman Empire actually ended in 476, 1081 years before his claim. The funny part is that the Roman Empire never knew about this. Wolf's complex was that Rome was ended by the Ottoman Empire, and he wanted to change this with this fake name he made up.
I remember when I made the map you used as a thumbnail! Thanks for using it! And very informative video too!
Ok, so when are you making that 3rd Rome video?
It was pretty much the Greek Medieval Empire especially after Justinian’s reign ...Greeks were called Romans(Romioi) until the Greek Independence in 1821...Rome’s heir was indeed a huge thing back then that is why Westerners called it the Byzantine Empire but truly the official name was the Eastern Roman Empire up until Constantine XI Paleologos died defending Constantinople from the Ottomans in 1453 and even then the enslaved Greeks called themselves Romans/Romeoi/Romioi...The term Greek was a roman term because the first contact Rome did with the Ancient Greek World was with a region in Epirus called Graecia/Grekia
The Eastern Roman Empire never call themselves Byzantine, they call themselves Romaean Empire. you gave a nice info telling Greek was the language of the Roman Empire Patrician elite.
Thumbnail: Holy Roman Empire, I don’t feel so good
it is more insulting to not aknowledge someones existence rather than destroy them, poor Byzantines, or should i say romans.
Those maps are very difficult to understand. If you have some time, 3blue1brown videos show how to highlight things you are trying to convey... would you be able to do something like highlight, grow and shake the areas you are discussing? So hard to process otherwise. Thanks for the video though.
I do kinda agree with you it's just the fact that the byzentines were ethnicly Greek and the Romans were ethnicly Roman it's not that the byzentines are direct decendents of the romans
1:09 that fucking killed me 😂😂😂
Emperor Constantine moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople, making it new the center of the Roman Empire.
Romans spoke Greek, were Orthodox Christians, and even to this day in Turkey, descendants of the Roman Empire are referred to as Rûm.
The Patriarch of Constantinople is often referred to as the Patriarch of the New Rome.
...and then we have Moscow, which has been called the Third Rome after 1453...
Hello nice video looking for the next. You the first I notice teaching reality. We need more like you. SALUDOS
Also worth to note, that the entity we call Roman Empire, has not always been one single united realm, and being divided in two pieces (East/West) was neither the first nor the most dramatic divide of it. In fact there have been times that the Empire was divided in 2, 3, and even 4, and stayed divided for a considerable long time. The last one was most remembered because, unlike previous divides, the empire declined and disappeared in a long perilious process before someone could actually restore it, under that particular division. It is characteristic that during every divide, the rival emperors always used the full title of Roman Emperor and did not call themselves "East/West/Nord/South Roman Emperors", thus there is no authenticity in calling the eastern part "East Roman" either. We already know that "Byzantine Empire" was not authentic name but a term invented by HRE historians, who wanted somehow overshadow the claim of the emperor in Constantinople for being "Ceasar". I suggest, if you want to use the authentic name, call them as they have called themselves officially: "Basilae Romanum" and the emperor "Basileus Romanum" which makes sense. But, of course, the widely known names "East Roman" or "Byzantine" both are okay for me, as long as we know what we are talking about.
By the title of the video I thought Alex Jones was subbing for you
It’s also a really handy name for east Rome after its almost hellenisation to mark the distinction between the late roman east Rome and the late very much Greek east Rome