The Roman Empire reminds me of Voltron. I say this because when people talk about Voltron,they think of the lions and not the cars. So the ancient Roman Empire were the voltron lions because that Roman Empire was more recognized than the Byzantine Empire which was the voltron cars.
It was all Macedonian Kingdom for ages and ages.The world wants us to forget the name Macedonia.Until 1450 was this part still under control of Macedonia. Kingdom.
I hope soon the World will get to know the real history.
Scholars refer to it as Soviet Union. In reality of course, it is just the continuation of the Byzantine Empire.
:-D I am kidding. Yes, part of what you say is true - the Russian empire had much less in common with the Byzantine empire than the Byzantine empire had in common with the Roman empire.
But on the other hand, nobody else claimed the legacy of the Byzantine empire as strongly as the Russian empire. Its foreign policy was oriented towards Konstantinople until its fall.
@LodovicoAriosto1 indeed... but the only bound between the Basileia tov Romainoi (or Roman Empire-"Byzantine") and tha Tzarist Russia was the marriage between their Tzar with one daughter of the Paleologist dynasty... and of course their culture and language created by the "byzantines"
@LScipio The Byzantine roots of culture and language are important for Slavic nations. For example, my country (Czech republic, former Czechoslovakia, former Kingdom of Bohemia) has been christianized by Byzantine scholars (Cyril and Methodius) in the 9th century who also made a new alphabet for Slavic nations. Although Bohemia was latinized later, this legacy remains until present day. The Byzantine empire also played an important role in panslavic idea and movement.
@LodovicoAriosto1 Bull, the russins are userpers to the title of ceasar, and proved it by ousting the userper himself in preference to the self destructive communist regime of stalin. Russians are not worthy
the "byzantine empire" and the "roman empire" are definately two different empires with significant cultural differences such as religeon, language, etc.
@Thoukudides - Not really. It _became_ different from what the united empire had been like. But that happens when you stick around for 1000 years. Things change. I think Brownworth suggests that if the Roman Empire after the fall of the west, would have still controlled the city of Rome, it wouldn't been renamed. It is rather silly that people doesn't think of it as a continuation of the Roman Empire.
@Pinxixus yes really, the western roman empire was latin-speaking and based on the ideals of rome, but the byzantine empire was greek-speaking and based on the ideals of byzantium, which were more hellenic in ideological nature. it's silly to disregard the hellenic nature of the byzantine empire and just say it's a "continuation of the roman empire".
@Thoukudides - I am not disregarding the differences. But it was a continuation of the Roman Empire. When the west fell 476 it was the only half left of the Roman Empire. That half being different, or evolving into something different over time, is besides the point. By your logic the Roman Empire fell several times through history, since change apparently isn't allowed for an empire to be a continuation of itself.
@Pinxixus When the west fell 476 Latin Romans continued to exist, but under the rule of their invaders...Rome carried on etc. The "other half", being different or evolving into something more Hellenic, is entirely my point. The western Roman civilization continued to exist even after Rome fell, but in a more Latin direction.
this guy knows what he is talking about... yes its just a continuation of the roman empire... not Greeks.
OG96932 3 weeks ago
people didnt know this ??
kyuubikoko 5 months ago
The Roman Empire reminds me of Voltron. I say this because when people talk about Voltron,they think of the lions and not the cars. So the ancient Roman Empire were the voltron lions because that Roman Empire was more recognized than the Byzantine Empire which was the voltron cars.
98bigbutt 6 months ago
Comment removed
mpsOhrid 8 months ago
Byzantine empire???
Never exist.!!!!
It was all Macedonian Kingdom for ages and ages.The world wants us to forget the name Macedonia.Until 1450 was this part still under control of Macedonia. Kingdom.
I hope soon the World will get to know the real history.
mpsOhrid 8 months ago
@mpsOhrid That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
StrokaTurbo 8 months ago 6
@mpsOhrid macedonia fell to rome in 146 BC. you need to learn some history.
PresidentDRCI 7 months ago 2
Scholars refer to it as Soviet Union. In reality of course, it is just the continuation of the Byzantine Empire.
:-D I am kidding. Yes, part of what you say is true - the Russian empire had much less in common with the Byzantine empire than the Byzantine empire had in common with the Roman empire.
But on the other hand, nobody else claimed the legacy of the Byzantine empire as strongly as the Russian empire. Its foreign policy was oriented towards Konstantinople until its fall.
LodovicoAriosto1 11 months ago
@LodovicoAriosto1 indeed... but the only bound between the Basileia tov Romainoi (or Roman Empire-"Byzantine") and tha Tzarist Russia was the marriage between their Tzar with one daughter of the Paleologist dynasty... and of course their culture and language created by the "byzantines"
LScipio 10 months ago
@LScipio The Byzantine roots of culture and language are important for Slavic nations. For example, my country (Czech republic, former Czechoslovakia, former Kingdom of Bohemia) has been christianized by Byzantine scholars (Cyril and Methodius) in the 9th century who also made a new alphabet for Slavic nations. Although Bohemia was latinized later, this legacy remains until present day. The Byzantine empire also played an important role in panslavic idea and movement.
LodovicoAriosto1 10 months ago 3
There have been 3 Romes in total. 2 of them fell - Rome and Constantinople. The third one - Moscow - will never fall.
Ivan III.
LodovicoAriosto1 1 year ago
@LodovicoAriosto1 Bull, the russins are userpers to the title of ceasar, and proved it by ousting the userper himself in preference to the self destructive communist regime of stalin. Russians are not worthy
RPGfanatic100 11 months ago
the "byzantine empire" and the "roman empire" are definately two different empires with significant cultural differences such as religeon, language, etc.
Thoukudides 2 years ago
@Thoukudides - Not really. It _became_ different from what the united empire had been like. But that happens when you stick around for 1000 years. Things change. I think Brownworth suggests that if the Roman Empire after the fall of the west, would have still controlled the city of Rome, it wouldn't been renamed. It is rather silly that people doesn't think of it as a continuation of the Roman Empire.
Pinxixus 1 year ago
@Pinxixus yes really, the western roman empire was latin-speaking and based on the ideals of rome, but the byzantine empire was greek-speaking and based on the ideals of byzantium, which were more hellenic in ideological nature. it's silly to disregard the hellenic nature of the byzantine empire and just say it's a "continuation of the roman empire".
Thoukudides 1 year ago
@Thoukudides - I am not disregarding the differences. But it was a continuation of the Roman Empire. When the west fell 476 it was the only half left of the Roman Empire. That half being different, or evolving into something different over time, is besides the point. By your logic the Roman Empire fell several times through history, since change apparently isn't allowed for an empire to be a continuation of itself.
Pinxixus 1 year ago
@Pinxixus When the west fell 476 Latin Romans continued to exist, but under the rule of their invaders...Rome carried on etc. The "other half", being different or evolving into something more Hellenic, is entirely my point. The western Roman civilization continued to exist even after Rome fell, but in a more Latin direction.
Thoukudides 1 year ago