ImperialxWarlord t1_j4uhf4d wrote

Hard disagree. They were Roman. They called themselves as such. Were called Romans even by their enemies. The term Byzantine empire or calling then Greeks was done due to doctrinal and political disputes and wanting to delegitimize the eastern empire. What right does some historian or people 500 years after the empires death have to say someone wasn’t Roman when they called themselves Roman and even their enemies did too? All this stuff about them not being laying speakers or being Greek is nonsense. The eastern empire was Greek speaking since the time of Alexander and even before him. And your whole thing about them being in disputes with the west is nonsensical and invalid. That doesn’t effect their Romanness. When the empire split for the final time with the death of theodosius I the two empires had the same government and army and bureaucracy and laws and it’s people were Roman citizens and everything. The eastern empire changed in many ways but Rome had a long long history and changed in many ways during that time. They never stopped being Roman and to call them anything else is ridiculous.


ImperialxWarlord t1_j4ug3c2 wrote

And the “proper” Rome of old changed government multiple times. The kingdom of Rome became the republic which backed the principate form of the empire followed by the dominate. If a change in government and culture means they’re not Roman then Rome stopped being Roman a hell of a long time before the eastern empire was formed.


ImperialxWarlord t1_j15xu8t wrote

No. In the Bible Jesus tells a story about a Jew that was mugged, beat up, and left for dead. A hewing priest walks by and does not help, so too does a Levite. Finally a Samaritan, who are rivals of the Jews, walks by and despite their differences and not having to do help he does the right thing and helps. Hence the term being used to those who step in to help those in need.