4 ms·

The emperor of "Byzantium" literally was the emperor of the Roman empire; it was not merely a claim like in the other cases but an administrative and historical

The emperor of "Byzantium" literally was the emperor of the Roman empire; it was not merely a claim like in the other cases but an administrative and historical fact. It is more accurate to say that "the Byzantine Empire" not being the actual Roman empire is merely a modern claim.

toyg 2y ago
Well, technically it was one of two emperors.
- epolanski 2y ago
  Yes and no as the emperor Constantine literally moved the capital from Rome to Costantinople and Constantinople was the capital of both empires for another few centuries till the death of Giustiniano. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople
thaumasiotes 2y ago
> The emperor of "Byzantium" literally was the emperor of the Roman empire; it was not merely a claim like in the other cases but an administrative and historical fact. Not in any useful sense. Cyrus the Great was literally the King of Sumer and Akkad. Did he know where Akkad was? Tsai Ing-wen is literally the President of China. You might object that China doesn't even have a president, but the administrative and historical facts are against you.
- retrac 2y ago
  If the United States were invaded on the east coast, and the invaders were stopped at the Mississippi, and the US then carried on with its capital in Sacramento for the next 1000 years, do you think the executive would no longer be called the President of the United States just because the US lost some of the states? (Credit to Dan Carlin for that little thought experiment.) The Byzantines called themselves Roman. They thought of themselves as Roman. To them, the constitution of their political order dated to 753 BC with the founding of Rome, even after they lost Rome. It wasn't just a label. For example, Latin remained is use in law in the empire, many hundreds of years after they lost the west. Emperor Heraclius around 610 AD would undertake a project to start translating all the old Latin laws into Greek (even though he may have spoke Latin himself natively). If nothing else, the Roman self-identity is important for understanding how they saw themselves in their own historiography.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    So you're fully on board with the idea that Tsai Ing-wen is the President of China, and anyone who thinks they see some important distinctions is just making a weird mistake? Neither your first paragraph nor your second one manages to distinguish modern China from ancient Rome. Calling yourself Roman won't make you Roman any more than calling yourself Australian will make you Australian.
    - foobarian 2y ago
      I am working on some messy cdk code as I read this and find myself breaking out in cold sweat :-)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - sapphicsnail 2y ago
      If the ROC still controlled half of mainland China and those regions were governed in pretty much the same way as before the civil war and the rest of China was broken up into tiny little kingdoms that didn't last very long then yeah, it would make sense to think of them as China.
    - reaperman 2y ago
      Not even Tsai Ing-wen herself would claim that. Your rhetoric is absurd, there are surely better tactics if you wish to engage in rhetorical argument. Today's ROC has a different view than their predecessors relating to claims on Chinese mainland.
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        > Not even Tsai Ing-wen herself would claim that. Are you kidding? It's her formal title right now. She can't call herself anything else! If we're going to insist on dealing with "historical and administrative facts", shouldn't we at least know the facts?
        2y ago

toyg 2y ago

Well, technically it was one of two emperors.

epolanski 2y ago
Yes and no as the emperor Constantine literally moved the capital from Rome to Costantinople and Constantinople was the capital of both empires for another few centuries till the death of Giustiniano. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> The emperor of "Byzantium" literally was the emperor of the Roman empire; it was not merely a claim like in the other cases but an administrative and historical fact. Not in any useful sense. Cyrus the Great was literally the King of Sumer and Akkad. Did he know where Akkad was? Tsai Ing-wen is literally the President of China. You might object that China doesn't even have a president, but the administrative and historical facts are against you.

retrac 2y ago
If the United States were invaded on the east coast, and the invaders were stopped at the Mississippi, and the US then carried on with its capital in Sacramento for the next 1000 years, do you think the executive would no longer be called the President of the United States just because the US lost some of the states? (Credit to Dan Carlin for that little thought experiment.) The Byzantines called themselves Roman. They thought of themselves as Roman. To them, the constitution of their political order dated to 753 BC with the founding of Rome, even after they lost Rome. It wasn't just a label. For example, Latin remained is use in law in the empire, many hundreds of years after they lost the west. Emperor Heraclius around 610 AD would undertake a project to start translating all the old Latin laws into Greek (even though he may have spoke Latin himself natively). If nothing else, the Roman self-identity is important for understanding how they saw themselves in their own historiography.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  So you're fully on board with the idea that Tsai Ing-wen is the President of China, and anyone who thinks they see some important distinctions is just making a weird mistake? Neither your first paragraph nor your second one manages to distinguish modern China from ancient Rome. Calling yourself Roman won't make you Roman any more than calling yourself Australian will make you Australian.
  - foobarian 2y ago
    I am working on some messy cdk code as I read this and find myself breaking out in cold sweat :-)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - sapphicsnail 2y ago
    If the ROC still controlled half of mainland China and those regions were governed in pretty much the same way as before the civil war and the rest of China was broken up into tiny little kingdoms that didn't last very long then yeah, it would make sense to think of them as China.
  - reaperman 2y ago
    Not even Tsai Ing-wen herself would claim that. Your rhetoric is absurd, there are surely better tactics if you wish to engage in rhetorical argument. Today's ROC has a different view than their predecessors relating to claims on Chinese mainland.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > Not even Tsai Ing-wen herself would claim that. Are you kidding? It's her formal title right now. She can't call herself anything else! If we're going to insist on dealing with "historical and administrative facts", shouldn't we at least know the facts?
      - 2y ago