I never did get this. When the western roman empire fell, the other half didn’t just poof away from existence, it still existed albeit in a different form.
Basileus instead of Augustus or princeps. The fact that their culture was more greek than roman does not mean its not roman. Roman nobility during the republic and empire spoke greek regularly instead of latin. Does that make them greek? Certainly not.
I thought Rome was based on an idea, its government, its institutions. Not based on your race or your culture which i don’t think people back then even define one another by their skin color.
The concept of “greek” wasn’t even a thing back during the time of the empire. Hell, i think back when the greek city states exist they were less a nationalistic “greek” nation but rather hellenic city states with their own culture and patron god/goddess.
The western roman empire was nothing like classical rome either. It was so fundamentally changed that people’s common interpretation of rome in the 1st and 2nd century would be so different.
Rome was no longer important. It was culturally and symbolical sure but its actual strategic value wasn’t much by the time of the western roman empire. It was poor and was becoming less urbanized with a dwindling population.
Rome was only powerful because emperors pooled money and resources and distribute massive grain shipments to the city. Once that’s gone the city wouldn’t sustain that many people. The city itself is also bad in terms of architectural design.
Constantinople had a better strategical position and better economic value. It had well designed streets and was virtually impregnable. It was truly the “nova roma”.
Just because the previous city byzantium once existed there does not mean we should call it by that name. Byzantium no longer exists. Its called constantinople or istanbul if you prefer.
Nor should we call it the constantinople empire either. Seems silly its like calling the sassanid empire the ctesiphon empire.
Source: reddit post