I think dysentery functions here as an historical cheat code.

The simpsons will forever serve as a source of wisdom. :D

they crapped themselves to death bwahahahaha

Leave the Goths to the Arabs

Western Europe sucks.

or it happened at the best possible time for maximum impact

no the persians kicked ass

@@shringletringle7021 no the arabs kick ass

@@shareem1779 First the Persians and Byzantines kicked each other's asses, and Arabs invaded at the most ideal time for their advantage as each military power was already severely weakened by war, famine & plague.

Tbh Justinians restoration of rome was literally what destroyed much of what was once rome The shattering and disintegration of culturally roman buildings and lands to be better used for the war effort against the barbarians basically was what created the medieval age we know

someone listened to The Rest is History 😉

Can someone hop in a time machina and teach the Byzantine soldiers handwashing and give them face masks please i want ROME BACK

Also proper cleaning and tools necessary

Let's be clear, if Justinian ruled 50 years earlier or later, the reconquests would probably fair better

yeah

by ading islam

@@achourfreepalestine and a plague

A plague then a civil war then a 30 year war with the other superpower of their age and then finally the rise of Islam. I suppose as Rome was fated to rise as an Empire so too was it fated to fall. The Kingdom of Heaven wasn't to be.

@kuro saigatsu thats cool but what about joe

And the Roman Empire itself was heavily influenced by older cultures like Greece and Mesopotamia. History is amazing

@@cometmoon4485 the romans inspired Wonderfull empires like the (russian Empire...the holi roman Empire etc) and thity things like the shit mosoloni was diong

Yes! And mostly because of caesar. This man achieved so much and was so great that he created a whole new title that didnt exist. (Kaiser/tsar) He was not a king, he was caesar!!!

*Canada looks at his brother U.S United Kingdom*

Portuguese Empire

Theudebert the Chad invaded because he could, and he did. That's Sigma Mindset.

The defeat of the Vandals came rather very quickly and must have made Justinian overconfident in retaking the rest of the former WRE. Belisarius was really lucky in catching the Vandals off guard and capturing Carthage.

@@Theophan123 agreed, but what do you think of the "what if" part of my post?

@@joshuascafidi3851 Justinian's Wars of Reconquest didn't happen just cause he was gun-hoe to reconquer the West. He used very clever moves to begin them. For instance, the Vandals deposed Hilderic, a Pro-Roman King (who was the Grandson of Valentinian III) & once the Vandal's refused to restore him, he sent Belisarius to deal with them & many expected him & his Army to suffer the same fate as the men in the 468 expedition Italy was the same, the Goths hated the Pro-Roman Queen Amalasuntha & murdered her, prompting Justinian to attack there & in all honestly the Reconquest of Italy was going INCREDIBLY smooth until Belisarius's officers began to disobey his orders which caused the Sack of Mediolanum in 539 & for the War in Italy to slowly become a slugfest, causing Belisarius to become enraged when he heard about the treaty that Justinian & the Senate gave to the Goths, when he nearly had the Goths beaten, causing lots of effects. The attack on Spain was due to opportunity as well, a Visigothic Civil War helped the Romans regain most of the former province of Baetica The plague & the Persians breaking their peace with the Romans is what mainly caused alot of setbacks. Justinian was already 51 when the Reconquest began, he wanted to be alive to see the Reconquest of the West

@@joshuascafidi3851 I think most of Justinian's court officials would be content with keeping the territories you mentioned and not going to war any further with the other Germanic kingdoms (Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Franks), because in the context of the 6th Century they really have no good reason to go to war in the West, other than finding some excuse to restore the glory of Old Rome. The Sassanids in the east had always been the more pressing matter. Afaik the Germanic kings still recognized the Emperor as their superior

Who said he didn't do all of that? Check his spendings and reforms

Recent example being the illustrious Ukrainian counteroffensive. The inoffensive offense of Ukraine

​@@LeadLeftLeon Insane losses. And winter is coming. Great combo

@@LeadLeftLeon isn't that what Russia is doing in Ukraine? Reclaiming lost land? It's not the other way around lmao

And yet they still lasted for a thousand years more.

@@uncleflagzz decades after. 5 dead Ukrainians for every 1 dead Russian each time they launch an offense. If there's no one left, who will fight for Ukraine. Definitely not Americans

Get off your high horse, Kim.

Kim jun un= 69999999999999 morbillion is🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠

when crusaders sacked constantinople in 1204 they opened his golden coffin in the church of holy apostles. they were spooked by seeing his intact body in the coffin. still they looted everything and no one knows where the body has gone.

​​​@@saikrishnak8631 Really Damn

The g*rms be like "Plauge, eastern demons, arise my masters!"

Those freaking persians sabotaging everything.

It's interesting the franks adopted a latin culture.

Entire western Europe is Germanic, just like entire central Asia and Asia minor is Turkic.

Isnt there a difference between Germanic and Gothic

They fought each just as much as the Romans

@@trentfila6186 Money will do that

Watch the portuguese Reconquista! the spanish one doesn’t matter, they took way to long to achieve it. by this amount of time it hardly counts as a reconquest.

One of the greatest men to ever live. This is just one of dozens of once a century feats he accomplished.

Based

I have no idea why there’s so many bots posting that stuff, it’s weird

Yea, this comments section has been invaded by Turcotrolls...

@@morsecode980 Let me explain. Its pretty obvious that an army of Turcotrollls are trying their best to disassociate the modern Greeks from their ancestors mostly for geopolitical purposes. It's actually rintikulus since in their very own language the ethnonym "Rum" is a synonym of "Yunan", with both translating in English as... "Greek'(! lol), but they are aiming a wider international audience that lacks proper knowledge about this part of the world, its people and its history.

Would've caused a civil war. Justinian should have named a Caesar for the west and east to succeed him

Corpus Juris Civilis would be enough to count as great even if Persia had taken the entire lands Augustus used to have.

Even if Belisarus knew what his fate would be, he would still do the same as he did originally. That’s just the man he was.

@@The_Honcho That was the literal case for the Umayyad commander, Muhammad Ibn al-Qasim. When he was done with his conquests in India the new Caliph in Syria called him back to have him executed (he didn't state it, but he knew because it was his old enemy), and the mad lad obeyed the order.

The Goths couldn't be trusted anyways, they broke their word many times.

Belisarius Is overlooked and deserves a biographical film.

Read Prokopios translated by H. B. Dewing

Byzantium über alles. Established 667 BC, hence the name Byzantine. ✌️🇬🇷

but they were heavelly influenced by the greeks and christianity so they werent as similar as the roman empire

@@gdchannel1357 Romans already started to get influenced by Greeks when they conquered Macedonia in 2nd century BC, and Christianity had been adopted prior to the division of the empire

@@gdchannel1357 That doesn't make sense

"But the Byzantines did not understand this as a transfer of the capital; they conceived it as the transfer of the imperial rule, of basileia, to their city, to their land, thus ACTUALLY CREATING A NEW STATE. First and foremost, they considered themselves as descendants of Constantine the Great and not of Alexander the Great, David or Augustus." Malatras, C. (2009) ‘The perception of the Roman heritage in 12th century Byzantium’ Rosetta 7.5: 1-8

"With the collapse of the empire in the west, its eastern counterpart became, in reality, an entirely new and independent state, at once Greek by language and Roman in name: 'A Greek Roman empire'." Roderick Beaton, "The Greeks: a global history", New York: Basic books 2021, pp. 212

Their presented mispronounces a lot of names. It is a very common thing on this channel.

True.

probably bc he was only naming the involved parties (invaders or the invaded) not everyone

Was Justin II not a "Latin emperor"? Latin panegyrics were written for him

The Roman descended dynasties that ruled the Eastern Empire were still descendant of the Romans or so they believed, so it's plausible to believe that Justinian wasn't the last of the romans. And Justinian I was certainly not the last latin speaking Emperor or atleast familiar with Latin.

@@comraderoyalguard4699 He was the last native speaker to rule it, what followed were native Greek speakers

@@miguelpadeiro762 Correct, however the emperors or emperor that followed may have been a native Greek speaker, Justinian II was familiar with latin and used it espescially in court. You could probably make an arguement whether Justinian II was a native latin speaker since he was born in Illyria which at the time had alot of latin speaking romans living there. Plus Vigilantia, Justinian II mother, has been referred as a thraco-roman and so it's very possible for Justinian II to have learnt latin through his mother or simply taught by a teacher.

The dark ages began in 200ad and were caused by Rome. First it was caused by the tax farming, and then the judeo-christian genocide

I think it lasted nineteen years.

Ostrogoths also weren't more civilized than Lombards. They were hired by Rome to genocide lombards and were complete savages. Lombards are a people of extraordinary grace

@smokeyhoodoo Wow you clearly show no bias lmao

If you knew anything you’d knew that the so called "dark ages" weren’t dark but okay

I thought it was well-known. We don't need a random “Roderick” to tell us what was what. Greek people never left their place within Greece in the last 6000 years as far back as we know from the first-Greeks, the Mycenaean Mainlanders and Minoan Islanders which essentially the mixing of the two, gave us the Greeks. I leave aside the places we settled outside the Greek mainland, like Crimea, Bactria, Alexandria, and even Corsica after the fall of Constantinople. The fact we as Greeks kept calling ourselves “Romans” as recently as early 19th Century was simply an incorrect name only and nothing more. Once we recovered from the darkness, obscurantism the Ottomans plunged the area in, we recovered in all aspects for good. We re-adopted our rightful heritage with the help of our remarkable Scholars in 20th Century who became as big Heroes as some of our best Strategists, Hegemons, Politicians, Philosophers, Scientists, and Fighters in earlier times.

It’s actually only a couple of Turks with multiple accounts. They are psychologically traumatized that they mostly descend from Byzantine Greek ancestors so try hard to deny that byzantines were Greeks or that Greeks exist at all. Turks ideology is “Turkish Nationalism” which is heavily anti-Greek, demeans Greeks as a lower people, while subsequently romanticizing their own pure Turkish descent and bloodline which they believe originates back in Central Asia. So finding out that they are themselves mostly Greek really gives the ardent Turkish nationalists a complex.

No shit. Byzantium took some small places in the south of Spain, only to lose them shortly after by the same empire that took Syria and Lebanon from Byzantium: the Umayyads. Or are you going to deny that the Iberian peninsula was invaded by the Umayyads? No Spanish historian mentions that 4 cities in southern Spain were conquered by the Byzantine Empire, for 4 days.

Only because of his idiot brother in law who stalled on landing near Carthage

Skanderbegs success was only due to the mountainous terrain his troops were hiding in. Skanderbeg delayed ottoman expansion for several years but his troops were eventually conquered by the ottomans.

"With the collapse of the empire in the west, its eastern counterpart became, in reality, an entirely new and independent state, at once Greek by language and Roman in name: 'A Greek Roman empire'." Roderick Beaton, "The Greeks: a global history", New York: Basic books 2021, pp. 212 "The Byzantine empire was clearly, despite its multinational dimension, a GREEK empire while its neighbours considered it so, and whose unity was based on the power of authority, in the dominance of Orthodoxy and the use of Greek as the official language." Sylvain Gouguenheim, "La gloire des Grecs", 2017, pp. 73

"After the Empire lost non-Greek speaking territories IN THE 7th AND 8th CENTURIES, "Greek" (Ἕλλην), when not used to signify "pagan", became synonymous with "Roman" (Ῥωμαῖος) and "Christian" (Χριστιανός) to mean a Christian Greek citizen of the [Eastern] Roman Empire." "Roman, GREEK (if not used in its sense of 'pagan') and Christian became SYNONYMOUS terms, counter-posed to 'foreigner', 'barbarian', 'infidel'. The citizens of the Empire, now predominantly of GREEK ethnicity and language, were often called simply ό χριστώνυμος λαός 'the people who bear Christ's name'." Harrison, Thomas (2002). Greeks and Barbarians. New York: Routledge., p. 268 In the "Souda" Lexicon written (10th century) Graikos=Hellene and also Graikos=Romaios [Graikoi (plural) =Hellenes (plural) (Γραικοί : Οι Έλληνες. Εκ του Γραίξ, Γραικός.) and Raikos=Rhomaios (Ῥαικός : Ρωμαίος)] In the "Zonaras" Lexicon (12th century) Romaios=Graikos=Hellene. [Graikoi (plural) = Hellenes (plural) (Γραικοί. οἱ Ελληνες. ἀπὸ κώμης τινός. παρὰ τὸ ῥαῖσαι ῥαικὸς καὶ γραικός. καὶ γὰρ διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀνδρείαν οἱ Ελληνες ουτως ἐκαλοῦντο.) and Raikos=Rhomaios=Graikos (Ραικός. ὁ ̔Ρωμαῖος. ̓Επίχαρμος· φιλεῖ ειναι γραικὸς, ἀποβολῇ τοῦ ˉγ ῥαικός.)] "As heirs to the Greeks and Romans of old, the Byzantines thought of themselves as Rhomaioi, or Romans, though THEY KNEW FULL WELL that they were ETHNICALLY GREEKS." (see also: Savvides & Hendricks 2001).Niehoff 2012, Margalit Finkelberg, "Canonising and Decanonising Homer: Reception of the Homeric Poems in Antiquity and Modernity", p. 20 or Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum 2003, p. 482:

@@vandare6913 Identity The Byzantine ruling elite faced the outside world and its unending dangers with a strategic advantage that was neither diplomatic nor military but instead psychological: the powerful moral reassurance of a triple identity that was more intensely Christian than most modern minds can easily imagine, and specifically Chalcedonian in doctrine: Hellenic in its culture, joyously possessing pagan Homer, agnostic Thucydides, and ir reverent poets-though Hellene was a word long avoided, for it meant pagan; and proudly Roman as the Romaioi, the living Romans, not without justification for Roman institutions long endured, at least symbolically. But until the Muslim conquest took away the Levant and Egypt from the empire, this triple identity was also a source of local disaffection from the ruling Constantinopolitan elite, for of the three only the Roman identity was universally accepted. To begin with, the speakers of Western Aramaic and Coptic, who accounted for most of the population of Syria and Egypt, including the Jews in their land and beyond it, did not partake in the Hellenic cul ture-except for their own secular elites, which were organically part of the Byzantine regime and were indeed often attacked by nativists as "Hellenizers." For the rest, the masses either did not know that Homer ever lived, or were easily led by unlettered fanatical priests to vehe mently hate what they were too ignorant to enjoy. Moreover, the zone that rejected Hellenism, as it had rejected the Roman habit of bathing as too sensual, also rejected the excessively intel lectual Chalcedonian definition of the dual nature of Christ, both human and divine, insisting on the more purely monotheistic conception of the single, divine nature of Christ. Luttwak, E., 2011. Grand strategy of the byzantine empire. Cambridge: Belknap Harvard, p.410 In about 1440 John Argyropoulos wrote of the struggle for the freedom of ' Hellas ' in a letter addressed to John VIII as 'Emperor of Hellas'. We have come a long way from the days when the ambassador Liudprand of Cremona was thought unfit to be received at the Court because his credentials were addressed to the 'Emperor of the Greeks'. But 'Graeci' was never an acceptable term. George Scholarius, the future Patriarch Gennadius, who was to be the link between the old Byzantine world and the world of the Turcocratia, often uses 'Hellene' to mean anyone of Greek blood. But he had doubts about its propriety; he still retained the older view. When he was asked his specific opinion about his race, he wrote in reply: "Though I am a Hellene by birth, yet I would never say that I was a Hellene. For I do not believe as the Hellenes believed. I should like to take my name from my faith and, if anyone asked me what I am, to reply "a Christian". Though my father dwelt in Thessaly,' he adds, 'I do not call myself a Thessalian, but a Byzantine. For I am of Byzantium.' It is to be remarked that though he repudiates the name of Hellene he calls the Imperial City not New Rome or Constantinople, but by its old Hellenic name. Runciman, S. (1970). IMPERIAL DECLINE AND HELLENIC REVIVAL. In The Last Byzantine Renaissance (The Wiles Lectures, pp. 1-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In contradistinction to a Julian, an Alexander Severus, a Marcus Aurelius and even a Hadrian, who felt themselves more Greek than Latin, Justinian wished to be a Latin Roman Emperor. He was confirmed in these feelings by his horror of Hellen ism. A Roman Emperor, Justinian was also a Christian Emperor. He considered himself the pillar of the Christian orthodox faith. The Hellenic spirit is profoundly pagan and Justinian abominated it. For him, as for his contem poraries and successors, Hellene was synonymous with pagan and to call anyone by this term was to insult him. The Greek peoples themselves assumed the name Pauaio (Romans). Even to-day Romios is still used by the common people. Hellene is an artificial term revived in the nineteenth century. The capital of the Empire is called Roum by the Arab and Turkish peoples of Asia. Lot, F., 2013. End of the Ancient World. Routledge. Many diverse peoples and languages coexisted within the Byzantine empire (Laiou and Maguire (eds.) 1992), and although Greek was the language of government and high culture and the terms 'Hellene' and even 'Greek' were sometimes applied to themselves by educated members of the elite in Constantinople from the Comnenian period onwards (Stouraitis 2014), Byzantium was not a Greek empire and Greek was never the only language spoken. Nevertheless the Byzantines' sense of themselves rested on a shared mythology of universalism and superiority. Linehan, P., Nelson, J. and Costambeys, M., n.d. The medieval world. Characteristics of the Byzantine Empire After its capital was established in the east, the empire became, in scholarly parlance, the Eastern Roman Empire. Furthermore, because Constantine and all of his successors (except Julian the Apostate, 361 63) were Christians, the empire from here on can also be called the Christian Roman Empire. As a consequence of these two changes the Roman Empire had become the Byzantine. However, though used by scholars, none of these three names was used at the time. Though the empire had its center in a Greek cultural and linguistic area, as a result of which there followed a gradual hellenization of its institutions and culture, the emperors recognized no change. The empire remained the Roman Empire and the citizens (even though Greeks came to domi nate it) still called themselves Romans. The term Hellene (Greek) connoted a pagan. The term Byzantine was an invention of Renais sance scholars after the fall of the Byzantine Empire and was never used by its contemporaries. By the middle of the seventh century Greek had become the official language of all spheres of government and the army; nevertheless the empire remained "Roman" and despite divisions of its territory at times it was always seen as a single unit. Essentially the Byzantine Empire was a combination of three major cultural components: (1) Roman in political concepts, administration. law, and military organization. (2) Greek in language and culture, and (3) Christian in religion. Fine, J., 1991. The early medieval Balkans. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, p.16.

@@thewarriorfrog Exactly The Greeks called themselves Roman so indeed it was still the Roman Empire

Correct, the east was a part of the Roman Empire, when the west unfortunately dissolved the east didn’t just immediately change their identity and name to Byzantine, they were still the other half of the once larger Roman Empire, considered themselves Romans because they were and then like in this video attempted to reclaim the west to make Rome whole again. The term Byzantine was not even created until 1557 104 years after the last trace of the Roman Empire was erased by the ottomans in 1453. Regardless of what section of the Roman Empire continues to exist the side closer to Greece was still under the Roman Empire Umbrella

He wasn't just about reconquering land. He was also about the revival of Artistic Culture that flavorished during his rule. He also had built the greatest Church that had ever been seen at the time. His law codex are also a big help in what we use today for our own laws

Yeah it’s fucking stupid

The heartland of of the Eastern Roman Empire was Greece, of which Asia Minor was a part of. Asia Minor *was* Greece, same as the Peloponnese, Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus, etc.. The region of Greece in Asia Minor was known as Ionia. So, yes, Greece was the heart of the Empire.

@@GenX-RadRat haha nice story

@@turkcukayi What story? You mean facts and recorded history? Ok

@@GenX-RadRat No one believes these lies and you Greeks are getting ridiculous

@@turkcukayi What lies? I'm not from Greece. And what do you mean "the blood of the Eastern Roman peoples flows in the veins of today's Turks"?? Do you mean the fact that 40% of the DNA of the Turks in Western Anatolia today is Greek DNA? Greece today is literally the rememinent of the Eastern Romans (duh). The Turks, on the other hand, are not even indigenous to the Mediterranean. I see you are brainwashed by propaganda and nationalism. The only Greeks and Turks who hate each other are dumb Greek nationalists and dumb Turkish nationalists. Grow up, kid

What do you think about when you hear the name of another german tribe aka Vandals?

@@alexwhite3830 I just think of an ethnic tribe then lol. Maybe it's just cause I watch too much South Park but I can't help of think of depressed all-black wearing teenagers when I think of the term "goth." It makes the video super funny when you imagine it that way but obviously I know it's not actually relevant to the rl history.

@@richyrich6099 Yeah. But for me vandals is the most amusing thing. To do something so even after 1 and a half thousand years people would still keep mentioning your name in a negative way

@@alexwhite3830 Oh yeah true. Sacks Rome once and suddenly vandalizing is bad lol

Yes that's true

But i recommended Mrs Sophia she's really my bitcion trading manager

@@eugenemarsha Wow I' m just shock someone mentioned expert Mrs Sophia I thought I'm the only one trading with her

She helped me recover what I lost trying to trade myself

@@vivianeverleig Now with the recent economy, To get financial freedom you have to be making money while you're asleep

No such thing as byzantine empire, Greek speaking Roman empire in the east, yes, but they identified as romans

@@klol3369 cant really call yourself Roman if you don't speak Latin, not acknowledge the Pope's authority, or not have Rome has your capitol.

@@theawesomeman9821 latins just a language spoken by the original Romans, many Romans knew Greek, infact every educated one did, and Greek was treated equally to Latin, if u were a Roman citizen, u were Roman, and culturally both Greeks and Roman homogenized, only separated by language, language doesn't define u, only ur ability to communicate with someone else, also I don't know what the Pope has to do with being Roman, Romans were Romans before the christian pontifex maximus, seems more political to add that in, are Italians not Italians if they aren't Catholic too? And the city of Rome is a place, Romans are a people, who originated from Rome and spread across the Mediterranean, a physical place didn't make them the people they were, it's tantamount to saying a German isn't German without Berlin, it's wrong

@@klol3369 I'm just citing what Western critics say

@@theawesomeman9821 Western Critics aren't the greatest for learning everything

"With the collapse of the empire in the west, its eastern counterpart became, in reality, an entirely new and independent state, at once Greek by language and Roman in name: 'A Greek Roman empire'." Roderick Beaton, "The Greeks: a global history", New York: Basic books 2021, pp. 212 "The Byzantine empire was clearly, despite its multinational dimension, a GREEK empire while its neighbours considered it so, and whose unity was based on the power of authority, in the dominance of Orthodoxy and the use of Greek as the official language." Sylvain Gouguenheim, "La gloire des Grecs", 2017, pp. 73

"After the Empire lost non-Greek speaking territories IN THE 7th AND 8th CENTURIES, "Greek" (Ἕλλην), when not used to signify "pagan", became synonymous with "Roman" (Ῥωμαῖος) and "Christian" (Χριστιανός) to mean a Christian Greek citizen of the [Eastern] Roman Empire." "Roman, GREEK (if not used in its sense of 'pagan') and Christian became SYNONYMOUS terms, counter-posed to 'foreigner', 'barbarian', 'infidel'. The citizens of the Empire, now predominantly of GREEK ethnicity and language, were often called simply ό χριστώνυμος λαός 'the people who bear Christ's name'." Harrison, Thomas (2002). Greeks and Barbarians. New York: Routledge., p. 268 In the "Souda" Lexicon written (10th century) Graikos=Hellene and also Graikos=Romaios [Graikoi (plural) =Hellenes (plural) (Γραικοί : Οι Έλληνες. Εκ του Γραίξ, Γραικός.) and Raikos=Rhomaios (Ῥαικός : Ρωμαίος)] In the "Zonaras" Lexicon (12th century) Romaios=Graikos=Hellene. [Graikoi (plural) = Hellenes (plural) (Γραικοί. οἱ Ελληνες. ἀπὸ κώμης τινός. παρὰ τὸ ῥαῖσαι ῥαικὸς καὶ γραικός. καὶ γὰρ διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀνδρείαν οἱ Ελληνες ουτως ἐκαλοῦντο.) and Raikos=Rhomaios=Graikos (Ραικός. ὁ ̔Ρωμαῖος. ̓Επίχαρμος· φιλεῖ ειναι γραικὸς, ἀποβολῇ τοῦ ˉγ ῥαικός.)] "As heirs to the Greeks and Romans of old, the Byzantines thought of themselves as Rhomaioi, or Romans, though THEY KNEW FULL WELL that they were ETHNICALLY GREEKS." (see also: Savvides & Hendricks 2001).Niehoff 2012, Margalit Finkelberg, "Canonising and Decanonising Homer: Reception of the Homeric Poems in Antiquity and Modernity", p. 20 or Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum 2003, p. 482:

@@vandare6913 Identity The Byzantine ruling elite faced the outside world and its unending dangers with a strategic advantage that was neither diplomatic nor military but instead psychological: the powerful moral reassurance of a triple identity that was more intensely Christian than most modern minds can easily imagine, and specifically Chalcedonian in doctrine: Hellenic in its culture, joyously possessing pagan Homer, agnostic Thucydides, and ir reverent poets-though Hellene was a word long avoided, for it meant pagan; and proudly Roman as the Romaioi, the living Romans, not without justification for Roman institutions long endured, at least symbolically. But until the Muslim conquest took away the Levant and Egypt from the empire, this triple identity was also a source of local disaffection from the ruling Constantinopolitan elite, for of the three only the Roman identity was universally accepted. To begin with, the speakers of Western Aramaic and Coptic, who accounted for most of the population of Syria and Egypt, including the Jews in their land and beyond it, did not partake in the Hellenic cul ture-except for their own secular elites, which were organically part of the Byzantine regime and were indeed often attacked by nativists as "Hellenizers." For the rest, the masses either did not know that Homer ever lived, or were easily led by unlettered fanatical priests to vehe mently hate what they were too ignorant to enjoy. Moreover, the zone that rejected Hellenism, as it had rejected the Roman habit of bathing as too sensual, also rejected the excessively intel lectual Chalcedonian definition of the dual nature of Christ, both human and divine, insisting on the more purely monotheistic conception of the single, divine nature of Christ. Luttwak, E., 2011. Grand strategy of the byzantine empire. Cambridge: Belknap Harvard, p.410 In about 1440 John Argyropoulos wrote of the struggle for the freedom of ' Hellas ' in a letter addressed to John VIII as 'Emperor of Hellas'. We have come a long way from the days when the ambassador Liudprand of Cremona was thought unfit to be received at the Court because his credentials were addressed to the 'Emperor of the Greeks'. But 'Graeci' was never an acceptable term. George Scholarius, the future Patriarch Gennadius, who was to be the link between the old Byzantine world and the world of the Turcocratia, often uses 'Hellene' to mean anyone of Greek blood. But he had doubts about its propriety; he still retained the older view. When he was asked his specific opinion about his race, he wrote in reply: "Though I am a Hellene by birth, yet I would never say that I was a Hellene. For I do not believe as the Hellenes believed. I should like to take my name from my faith and, if anyone asked me what I am, to reply "a Christian". Though my father dwelt in Thessaly,' he adds, 'I do not call myself a Thessalian, but a Byzantine. For I am of Byzantium.' It is to be remarked that though he repudiates the name of Hellene he calls the Imperial City not New Rome or Constantinople, but by its old Hellenic name. Runciman, S. (1970). IMPERIAL DECLINE AND HELLENIC REVIVAL. In The Last Byzantine Renaissance (The Wiles Lectures, pp. 1-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In contradistinction to a Julian, an Alexander Severus, a Marcus Aurelius and even a Hadrian, who felt themselves more Greek than Latin, Justinian wished to be a Latin Roman Emperor. He was confirmed in these feelings by his horror of Hellen ism. A Roman Emperor, Justinian was also a Christian Emperor. He considered himself the pillar of the Christian orthodox faith. The Hellenic spirit is profoundly pagan and Justinian abominated it. For him, as for his contem poraries and successors, Hellene was synonymous with pagan and to call anyone by this term was to insult him. The Greek peoples themselves assumed the name Pauaio (Romans). Even to-day Romios is still used by the common people. Hellene is an artificial term revived in the nineteenth century. The capital of the Empire is called Roum by the Arab and Turkish peoples of Asia. Lot, F., 2013. End of the Ancient World. Routledge. Many diverse peoples and languages coexisted within the Byzantine empire (Laiou and Maguire (eds.) 1992), and although Greek was the language of government and high culture and the terms 'Hellene' and even 'Greek' were sometimes applied to themselves by educated members of the elite in Constantinople from the Comnenian period onwards (Stouraitis 2014), Byzantium was not a Greek empire and Greek was never the only language spoken. Nevertheless the Byzantines' sense of themselves rested on a shared mythology of universalism and superiority. Linehan, P., Nelson, J. and Costambeys, M., n.d. The medieval world. Characteristics of the Byzantine Empire After its capital was established in the east, the empire became, in scholarly parlance, the Eastern Roman Empire. Furthermore, because Constantine and all of his successors (except Julian the Apostate, 361 63) were Christians, the empire from here on can also be called the Christian Roman Empire. As a consequence of these two changes the Roman Empire had become the Byzantine. However, though used by scholars, none of these three names was used at the time. Though the empire had its center in a Greek cultural and linguistic area, as a result of which there followed a gradual hellenization of its institutions and culture, the emperors recognized no change. The empire remained the Roman Empire and the citizens (even though Greeks came to domi nate it) still called themselves Romans. The term Hellene (Greek) connoted a pagan. The term Byzantine was an invention of Renais sance scholars after the fall of the Byzantine Empire and was never used by its contemporaries. By the middle of the seventh century Greek had become the official language of all spheres of government and the army; nevertheless the empire remained "Roman" and despite divisions of its territory at times it was always seen as a single unit. Essentially the Byzantine Empire was a combination of three major cultural components: (1) Roman in political concepts, administration. law, and military organization. (2) Greek in language and culture, and (3) Christian in religion. Fine, J., 1991. The early medieval Balkans. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, p.16.

@@vandare6913 Eastern romans never called themselves greek they shunned the hellenic culture the eastern roman empire was not always ruled by greeks its founder constantine was an illyrian it had a syriac dynasty khazar dynasty and so on

@Constantine VII LOL. Korais was a liberal democrat of the late 18th century who was ideologically opposed to any type of monarchism and absolutism and fervent supporter of the French revolution of 1789, which he actually viewed at first hand. He tried to connect the Greeks of his times solely with the ancient classical Greek democratic ideals and also tried as hard as possible to disconnect them from the autocratic monarchical (as he viewed them) Byzantines. He was a highly educated intellectual for his times, but he was in fact a merchant by profession and surely NOT A HISTORIAN by any means. There are famously also passages in his writings where he reluctantly admits that the Byzantines were Greeks in ancestry and speech and even refers to them as "Graikoromaioi" - "Grecoromans", but he considered them as degenerate ultra-religious autocrats (due to the brain-washing of the contemporary western European historiography which generally disrespected Byzantium, see Gibbon's opinions on Byzantium) and tried to disconnect the Greeks of the late 18th century from any non-liberal - non-democratic past. It was a PURELY IDEOLOGICAL AND NOT really a HISTORICAL issue for him. And surely it was not the majority opinion of most Greeks at the time. Most Greeks and even the "Filiki Etairia", the secret organization with thousands of members that organized the Greek revolution of 1821, clearly aimed to revive the Byzantine empire with a monarch as a ruler and Konstantinoupolis as its capital, calling it a Greek (Hellenic) empire. Many influential figures of the time (if not the majority) clearly thought of themselves as descendants not only of the ancient Hellenes but also of the Byzantines whom they also considered Hellenic. Yet you picked the opinions of an ideologist liberal merchant of the 18th century WHO WAS NOT EVEN A HISTORIAN in order to supposedly propagandize against the Greekness of the Byzantines... LOL

Thank you for pointing out it was still the Roman Empire, not the Byzantine Empire. Rome lasted till the late 1400s

You mean the German historians?

"With the collapse of the empire in the west, its eastern counterpart became, in reality, an entirely new and independent state, at once Greek by language and Roman in name: 'A Greek Roman empire'." Roderick Beaton, "The Greeks: a global history", New York: Basic books 2021, pp. 212 "The Byzantine empire was clearly, despite its multinational dimension, a GREEK empire while its neighbours considered it so, and whose unity was based on the power of authority, in the dominance of Orthodoxy and the use of Greek as the official language." Sylvain Gouguenheim, "La gloire des Grecs", 2017, pp. 73

"After the Empire lost non-Greek speaking territories IN THE 7th AND 8th CENTURIES, "Greek" (Ἕλλην), when not used to signify "pagan", became synonymous with "Roman" (Ῥωμαῖος) and "Christian" (Χριστιανός) to mean a Christian Greek citizen of the [Eastern] Roman Empire." "Roman, GREEK (if not used in its sense of 'pagan') and Christian became SYNONYMOUS terms, counter-posed to 'foreigner', 'barbarian', 'infidel'. The citizens of the Empire, now predominantly of GREEK ethnicity and language, were often called simply ό χριστώνυμος λαός 'the people who bear Christ's name'." Harrison, Thomas (2002). Greeks and Barbarians. New York: Routledge., p. 268 In the "Souda" Lexicon written (10th century) Graikos=Hellene and also Graikos=Romaios [Graikoi (plural) =Hellenes (plural) (Γραικοί : Οι Έλληνες. Εκ του Γραίξ, Γραικός.) and Raikos=Rhomaios (Ῥαικός : Ρωμαίος)] In the "Zonaras" Lexicon (12th century) Romaios=Graikos=Hellene. [Graikoi (plural) = Hellenes (plural) (Γραικοί. οἱ Ελληνες. ἀπὸ κώμης τινός. παρὰ τὸ ῥαῖσαι ῥαικὸς καὶ γραικός. καὶ γὰρ διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀνδρείαν οἱ Ελληνες ουτως ἐκαλοῦντο.) and Raikos=Rhomaios=Graikos (Ραικός. ὁ ̔Ρωμαῖος. ̓Επίχαρμος· φιλεῖ ειναι γραικὸς, ἀποβολῇ τοῦ ˉγ ῥαικός.)] "As heirs to the Greeks and Romans of old, the Byzantines thought of themselves as Rhomaioi, or Romans, though THEY KNEW FULL WELL that they were ETHNICALLY GREEKS." (see also: Savvides & Hendricks 2001).Niehoff 2012, Margalit Finkelberg, "Canonising and Decanonising Homer: Reception of the Homeric Poems in Antiquity and Modernity", p. 20 or Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum 2003, p. 482:

@@vandare6913 Identity The Byzantine ruling elite faced the outside world and its unending dangers with a strategic advantage that was neither diplomatic nor military but instead psychological: the powerful moral reassurance of a triple identity that was more intensely Christian than most modern minds can easily imagine, and specifically Chalcedonian in doctrine: Hellenic in its culture, joyously possessing pagan Homer, agnostic Thucydides, and ir reverent poets-though Hellene was a word long avoided, for it meant pagan; and proudly Roman as the Romaioi, the living Romans, not without justification for Roman institutions long endured, at least symbolically. But until the Muslim conquest took away the Levant and Egypt from the empire, this triple identity was also a source of local disaffection from the ruling Constantinopolitan elite, for of the three only the Roman identity was universally accepted. To begin with, the speakers of Western Aramaic and Coptic, who accounted for most of the population of Syria and Egypt, including the Jews in their land and beyond it, did not partake in the Hellenic cul ture-except for their own secular elites, which were organically part of the Byzantine regime and were indeed often attacked by nativists as "Hellenizers." For the rest, the masses either did not know that Homer ever lived, or were easily led by unlettered fanatical priests to vehe mently hate what they were too ignorant to enjoy. Moreover, the zone that rejected Hellenism, as it had rejected the Roman habit of bathing as too sensual, also rejected the excessively intel lectual Chalcedonian definition of the dual nature of Christ, both human and divine, insisting on the more purely monotheistic conception of the single, divine nature of Christ. Luttwak, E., 2011. Grand strategy of the byzantine empire. Cambridge: Belknap Harvard, p.410 In about 1440 John Argyropoulos wrote of the struggle for the freedom of ' Hellas ' in a letter addressed to John VIII as 'Emperor of Hellas'. We have come a long way from the days when the ambassador Liudprand of Cremona was thought unfit to be received at the Court because his credentials were addressed to the 'Emperor of the Greeks'. But 'Graeci' was never an acceptable term. George Scholarius, the future Patriarch Gennadius, who was to be the link between the old Byzantine world and the world of the Turcocratia, often uses 'Hellene' to mean anyone of Greek blood. But he had doubts about its propriety; he still retained the older view. When he was asked his specific opinion about his race, he wrote in reply: "Though I am a Hellene by birth, yet I would never say that I was a Hellene. For I do not believe as the Hellenes believed. I should like to take my name from my faith and, if anyone asked me what I am, to reply "a Christian". Though my father dwelt in Thessaly,' he adds, 'I do not call myself a Thessalian, but a Byzantine. For I am of Byzantium.' It is to be remarked that though he repudiates the name of Hellene he calls the Imperial City not New Rome or Constantinople, but by its old Hellenic name. Runciman, S. (1970). IMPERIAL DECLINE AND HELLENIC REVIVAL. In The Last Byzantine Renaissance (The Wiles Lectures, pp. 1-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In contradistinction to a Julian, an Alexander Severus, a Marcus Aurelius and even a Hadrian, who felt themselves more Greek than Latin, Justinian wished to be a Latin Roman Emperor. He was confirmed in these feelings by his horror of Hellen ism. A Roman Emperor, Justinian was also a Christian Emperor. He considered himself the pillar of the Christian orthodox faith. The Hellenic spirit is profoundly pagan and Justinian abominated it. For him, as for his contem poraries and successors, Hellene was synonymous with pagan and to call anyone by this term was to insult him. The Greek peoples themselves assumed the name Pauaio (Romans). Even to-day Romios is still used by the common people. Hellene is an artificial term revived in the nineteenth century. The capital of the Empire is called Roum by the Arab and Turkish peoples of Asia. Lot, F., 2013. End of the Ancient World. Routledge. Many diverse peoples and languages coexisted within the Byzantine empire (Laiou and Maguire (eds.) 1992), and although Greek was the language of government and high culture and the terms 'Hellene' and even 'Greek' were sometimes applied to themselves by educated members of the elite in Constantinople from the Comnenian period onwards (Stouraitis 2014), Byzantium was not a Greek empire and Greek was never the only language spoken. Nevertheless the Byzantines' sense of themselves rested on a shared mythology of universalism and superiority. Linehan, P., Nelson, J. and Costambeys, M., n.d. The medieval world. Characteristics of the Byzantine Empire After its capital was established in the east, the empire became, in scholarly parlance, the Eastern Roman Empire. Furthermore, because Constantine and all of his successors (except Julian the Apostate, 361 63) were Christians, the empire from here on can also be called the Christian Roman Empire. As a consequence of these two changes the Roman Empire had become the Byzantine. However, though used by scholars, none of these three names was used at the time. Though the empire had its center in a Greek cultural and linguistic area, as a result of which there followed a gradual hellenization of its institutions and culture, the emperors recognized no change. The empire remained the Roman Empire and the citizens (even though Greeks came to domi nate it) still called themselves Romans. The term Hellene (Greek) connoted a pagan. The term Byzantine was an invention of Renais sance scholars after the fall of the Byzantine Empire and was never used by its contemporaries. By the middle of the seventh century Greek had become the official language of all spheres of government and the army; nevertheless the empire remained "Roman" and despite divisions of its territory at times it was always seen as a single unit. Essentially the Byzantine Empire was a combination of three major cultural components: (1) Roman in political concepts, administration. law, and military organization. (2) Greek in language and culture, and (3) Christian in religion. Fine, J., 1991. The early medieval Balkans. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, p.16.