I Need Help Responding to Someone on What to Call the Medieval Romans

[Dirk_Pitt]

Can someone help me craft a response to this guy? We were discussing a CKII game and he mentioned the Romans in my game by calling them the Byzantines. Any other decent human being wouldn't make this an issue.

I'm not a decent human being.

While I know there is some contention on this site about this issue... well, let's just look at his response:

We still call pre-colombian native Americans, Amerindians, Ancient Mesoamericans, by those names.
And what about calling China China.
Or Asia Asia?
Or Japan Japan.
should we call the French "le français", or what about the Germans "Deutsche".

Hey The "Romans" of the 1000s AD weren't truly Romans anymore, they were Anatolians or Greeks. Indeed you yourself said "embraced their Greek heritage"
Even if "Byzantine" is Archaic, its still a descriptor. What should I say, "East Roman"?, would THAT be archaic? Cause the way I see it, the original Rome was the western Roman empire, the one that fell to the goths and vandals in the fifth century. By your logic, we could technically call America "Britain".

 

[HonestAbe]

I... I'm on his side actually.

 

[rvbomally]

Tell him he's right.

 

[Legend-in-Exile]

I think it's usually best to go by what they described themselves as.

That's just me though. Otherwise you would have to call Americans English/British because that was what the original colonists were. And just because they say they are something else doesn't make it so. (Which means ethnicity becomes something defined by others rather than the group itself. Which makes it become race. Which it is not)

The 'Byzantines' considered themselves Roman. With legitimate cause. I don't see a reason to argue.

 

[Baconheimer]

It depends on the context. If you are mentioning IC, then Romans is probably a better term. OOC, Byzantines is probably better, but Romans is not wrong, just not commonly used.

 

[LSCatilina]

Retarded argumentation.

We still call pre-colombian native Americans, Amerindians, Ancient Mesoamericans, by those names.

We don't. Aztecs, Mayas, Toltecs, Pueblo, etc.
Unless "They all look the same, and are the same, so who cares"-attitude of course.

And what about calling China China.

Of course, that's ignoring that we gave a lot of names on China before actually naming it as such, according to China's usages. Cathay is just one of the exemples.

Or Asia Asia?

Asia is a cardinal direction name, from Pheonician "Assou" East. Asia being the East, not a geo-cultural entity.

Or Japan Japan.

See China exemple : Cipangu

should we call the French "le français", or what about the Germans "Deutsche".

At this point, it's just trolling. "Roman" isn't the latin or greek name that is Romani/Romanoi.
And so "French" isn't "Francais" but a translitteration. For all that matter, it is "français" just pronounced in English.

For Germans, same as Chinese. Only one varient from Alemany (coming from French) or (even if rare) Teutony (that is the translitteration of Deutsche).
Of course, the fact the region was called Germany, even by medieval Germans (that made a distinction between location and population) may have been lost on them.

Hey The "Romans" of the 1000s AD weren't truly Romans anymore, they were Anatolians or Greeks. Indeed you yourself said "embraced their Greek heritage"

Bull.
Every culture changes. Nobody argues that American of 2010's are the same than 1776's. And nobody is anal retentive enough to call them "proto-Americans" or "post-Colonials".

The same for Romans. They weren't the same than Late Empire, but Late Imperial Romans weren't the same than Republican era, that itself was clearly not the same than Royal one.

What's more important is that, and the historiographically opinionated stance there, is that Byzantines still considered themselves as Romans. Even during the classical Roman Empire, Romanity wasn't at all incompatible with Greek-ity, critically in the latter part : same political concepts, same religion, same importance of imperialiship, etc.

That Byzantines eventually went to reject in some periods hellenism should make it obvious enough. And when they didn't (for exemple in the XIth century) hellenism was seen as a cultural identity, never as a political one (you really have to wait the XVth for that)

Cause the way I see it, the original Rome was the western Roman empire, the one that fell to the goths and vandals in the fifth century.

We had a discussion on that some months ago, with the very same opinionated stances (on the same page if it interest you). While I think it would be lost on them, as at this point, we're beyond logic and historical points.

I've no problem using Byzantine at all, because it's convenient when it comes to distinguish classical to eastern medieval Romans. Calling them Romans, in context, tough is really a non-issue.

My advise : stop arguing. Giving the arguments he gives, it's a lost cause.

 

[Dirk_Pitt]

Retarded argumentation.


We don't. Aztecs, Mayas, Toltecs, Pueblo, etc.
Unless "They all look the same, and are the same, so who cares"-attitude of course.


Of course, that's ignoring that we gave a lot of names on China before actually naming it as such, according to China's usages. Cathay is just one of the exemples.


Asia is a cardinal direction name, from Pheonician "Assou" East. Asia being the East, not a geo-cultural entity.


See China exemple : Cipangu


At this point, it's just trolling. "Roman" isn't the latin or greek name that is Romani/Romanoi.
And so "French" isn't "Francais" but a translitteration. For all that matter, it is "français" just pronounced in English.

For Germans, same as Chinese. Only one varient from Alemany (coming from French) or (even if rare) Teutony (that is the translitteration of Deutsche).
Of course, the fact the region was called Germany, even by medieval Germans (that made a distinction between location and population) may have been lost on them.


Bull.
Every culture changes. Nobody argues that American of 2010's are the same than 1776's. And nobody is anal retentive enough to call them "proto-Americans" or "post-Colonials".

The same for Romans. They weren't the same than Late Empire, but Late Imperial Romans weren't the same than Republican era, that itself was clearly not the same than Royal one.

What's more important is that, and the historiographically opinionated stance there, is that Byzantines still considered themselves as Romans. Even during the classical Roman Empire, Romanity wasn't at all incompatible with Greek-ity, critically in the latter part : same political concepts, same religion, same importance of imperialiship, etc.

That Byzantines eventually went to reject in some periods hellenism should make it obvious enough. And when they didn't (for exemple in the XIth century) hellenism was seen as a cultural identity, never as a political one (you really have to wait the XVth for that)


We had a discussion on that some months ago, with the very same opinionated stances (on the same page if it interest you). While I think it would be lost on them, as at this point, we're beyond logic and historical points.

I've no problem using Byzantine at all, because it's convenient when it comes to distinguish classical to eastern medieval Romans. Calling them Romans, in context, tough is really a non-issue.

My advise : stop arguing. Giving the arguments he gives, it's a lost cause.

That's a far more eloquent and concise post than I could have come up with, despite having been on this site and know the general argument well enough. I just couldn't quite put it into words.

Also, you have him down pretty well. For instance he failed to recognize Palestine on a map.

Also, this is a bit of a back and forth we have going between us. There's no malice involved(though there is some frustration).

 

[January First-of-May]

By your logic, we could technically call America "Britain".

We do: New England. (And of course England itself doesn't have much to do with the peninsula of Angeln either.)

On the main topic, well, we have no problem calling the Holy Roman Empire the, well, Holy Roman Empire, even though they never were particularly Roman (eventually, the two other parts became obsolete as well; not sure how well they applied in the 11th century).
I do admit that "Byzantine" is a particularly obviously invented name; it doesn't really make much sense. It is the one accepted these days, however.

 

[Tim Thomason]

I do admit that "Byzantine" is a particularly obviously invented name; it doesn't really make much sense. It is the one accepted these days, however.

The reasons people use the term "Byzantine" is a bit convoluted and hard to explain.

 

[Daniwani]

Romaioi always seemed a good policy to me.

Edit: Oh, and the issue of 'not truly being roman' anymore is utter garbage, as that always changed anyways. Rome was not an Italian ethnic empire built on Italian culture. By that same logic, England is no longer truly England, nor is just about any state it's 'true' self anymore.

 

[Talmanes]

Can someone help me craft a response to this guy? We were discussing a CKII game and he mentioned the Romans in my game by calling them the Byzantines. Any other decent human being wouldn't make this an issue.

I'm not a decent human being.

While I know there is some contention on this site about this issue... well, let's just look at his response:

Oh dear. That. Well, yes, he is correct. But only partly. The Holy Roman Empire, prior to the 12th century, was not "Holy" but merely the Roman Empire. The Emperor was King of the Romans, despite most being Germans. So you could argue that the two claimant "Romans" at the time were neither of them Romans in truth. The (H)RE had command of large sections of Italy, but possession of land doesn't really live up to the heritage of the place. And the (E)RE had more political trappings inherent to their social and cultural structures. Sure it was heavy Greek, but where else would you find anything really approaching "Rome?"

That's a far more eloquent and concise post than I could have come up with, despite having been on this site and know the general argument well enough. I just couldn't quite put it into words.

Also, you have him down pretty well. For instance he failed to recognize Palestine on a map.

Also, this is a bit of a back and forth we have going between us. There's no malice involved(though there is some frustration).

Indeed, and as he's said it, I don't have to!