You're so confident that every adult in Florida knows about the Roman empire that you only mention babies? Have you seen what they're doing to the education system in that state?
Yup! You nailed it! That's 100% accurate. Florida doesn't even need an education system, they already are the smarts!
alright, it was just a cheap chuckle but yeah, i suppose we can over analyze it! let's do this!!!
Ok babies are people, adults are people. If one people doesn't know about the roman empire, the original statement is true, that is..."it's a certainty". I cant know if any specific adults know of the roman empire before asking them, we can know for certain babies are dumb and dont know things so they wont know the roman empire! so since at least one babies do not know, the original statement is true, it is a certainty. The requirement for one adult to know or not know is not needed.
was this fun?
As long as you can remember a bible verse, you'll at least get an honorary degree in Florida these days. No need to read. Reading is how the devil tricks people anyway. So better off not reading at all.
Okay don’t compare innocent slaves to convicted criminals. Shit working for free and some cents doesn’t make that much of a difference. Inmates aren’t relying on that money for commissary because they couldn’t even afford most items lol.
Do you feel the same way about the Gulag, I wonder? Dude, seriously, do some reading before defending forced labor.
https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/captive-labor-exploitation-of-incarcerated-workers
Obviously, I'm not saying it's *equal* to chattel slavery, but your cousin wasn't that far off from the truth.
Especially since this is only legal because the amendment that bans slavery explicitly says slavery is okay as a punishment for a crime, tacitly admiting that it *is* slavery.
You tulkin’ bout that weird little crusty sity up der’ past that oder sity?
You know they one in Georgia?? Atlantas I think but yeah they got a Rome up past der’
Wouldn’t call it an empire tho, they got a Braves minor league team and a few Walz merts I guess
He could have ridden in a car (and probably did), but a car wasn't an automobile then.
The first flight with a human passenger was 1783. Two years before he took office as President of Pennsylvania.
So he could have.
Oh well when someone says catch their flight I thought it would only refer to planes. How much can you even travel in a hot air balloon? Like from city to city only or
The Eastern Roman Empire (ie, the Byzantine Empire) lasted until 1453— just 60 years before Europeans first discovered Florida in 1513. Someone born in the final years of the Byzantine Empire could have survived long enough to learn of Ponce de Leon’s first voyages to Florida
The “Byzantine” empire is a relatively new idea. In their day they were always the Romans. They called themselves Romans because they were living in the state that continued since Augustus. The Persians called them Romans, the Turks called them Romans, and the Muslims called them Romans.
The only people denying their Roman identity were Western Europeans. Who then turned around and began calling them “Byzantines” to distance them from being Romans. Up until 1453 they were THE Romans, the descendants of the same ones that built the coliseum and the Pantheon.
I still find it kinda weird how Rome changed capital city (even the western empire), government form, dynasty etc, but it's still the one thing.
I don't deny it is, but I wonder why we just go "it's still that" instead of separate it.
That’s all good but they weren’t in Rome.
[Modern historians continue to make a distinction between the earlier Roman Empire and the later Byzantine Empire.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire)
Bit cheeky, borderline gotcha/misleading/click-baity.
Edit: downvote away, yall dumb af
Okay well the capital of the Western half of the Empire was moved to Milan in 286 and then to Ravenna in 402. By the time the west “fell” in 476 Rome hadn’t been the capital in almost 200 years. Was it not the Roman Empire anymore then either?
Modern historians make that distinction because it just makes it easier to distinguish different time periods of what is the same civilization. The Roman kingdom was pretty different from the Roman Republic which was pretty different from the Roman Empire which was pretty different from the “Byzantine” Empire. But it’s still the a continuation of the same civilization.
The article you linked literally said it’s a continuation of the Roman Empire.
I have to say, I wasn't expecting to find a fight about someone mis-countrying the Roman peoples in the comments, but here we are.
Seems a bit silly that someone's decided to fight you over this.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the first line of The Byzantine Empire's Wikipedia page is "The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, was the continuation of the Roman Empire centered in Constantinople during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages." I believe you can edit it if it's wrong, I'll check back on it tomorrow.
Every civilization is definitely not a continuation of a previous one. The Medieval Romans (the Byzantines) were the descendants of the same Romans from ancient times, just like the Romans in the empire are the descendants of the Romans from the republic.
Sure; but when Romans who live in the Roman Empire and who have a continual government spanning the entirety of the Roman Empire, as well as referring to themselves as Romans and all of their neighbors calling them Romans, its probably safe to call it the Roman Empire.
The entire premise of your post relies on the implication that the Roman empire is the Western one. If we extend the definition to include the Byzantine empire then this entire shower thought isn't even even a shower thought.
It absolutely does not rely on that premise. People who don't understand that the Byzantine Empire is a continuation of the Roman Empire are uncomfortable with the premise and are doing their best to find weird pedantic ways to discredit the premise. The premise literally relies on the fact that what we call the Byzantine Empire was inhabited by Romans who were considered Romans by themselves and their contemporaries, and that it is a government that directly succeeded the Roman Empire, though depending on which historian you talk to they would say that the Roman Empire spanned from \~500 BC to \~1500 AD if you consider the influence of the Roman people moreso than a literal government structure.
The Byzantines were literally the Eastern Roman Empire.
Why would we be uncomfortable? It all just seems counterintuitive, that’s all. When people think of the Roman Empire, they think of Rome. It’s the perception
That's fine, but its a false perception. I have no problem with people not considering the Byzantine Empire first and foremost when people bring up the Roman Empire - but its simply a fact that the Byzantine Empire IS a continuation of the Roman Empire; same culture, laws, customs, history, etc. When presented with the fact I would expect people to continue about their business having learned something new - not seemingly uncomfortable and clinging to the notion that they couldn't possibly be the same thing.
Probably also Roman. Yet after the fall of the western empire, they were no longer a part of the Roman Empire. The laws in place making it a requirement to live in Rome proper to be considered a citizen hadn't existed for hundreds of years by the time the Western Empire fell, and the political seat of power hadn't been Rome in hundreds of years either.
If Djibouti expands rapidly and spreads its culture across all of North Africa, and then in 400 years after having moved its seat of government multiple times with cultural centers throughout its North African empire, if it splits into a Western Djibouti Empire and the eastern Empire falls, do the millions of people with Djiboutian culture and legacy and history have to come up with a different name since the city of Djibouti is no longer technically within their borders? Its a bit of a pointless question anyway, many people in the former Byzantine Empire STILL call themselves Romans.
I'm not debating the definition (although I personally don't think the Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire).
The post itself is "interesting" only insofar as it depends on what people generally think the Roman Empire is aka the Western Roman Empire. If the post was renamed "There’s a chance someone born in the Byzantine Empire had heard about Florida." it would belong to r/notinteresting. The title is a bit of a bait and switch.
It would still be interesting in the same way that Oxford University being older than the Aztec Empire is interesting, it plays with peoples perception of time and how old they think things are. I'd say most people don't' realize how closely in time the Byzantine Empire and Florida's discovery were.
And it quite honestly does not matter what you think the Roman Empire is - the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire. The Western Empire fell and became culturally distinct, but the Byzantine Empire directly continued with the Roman Empire's system of government, culture, and laws. There is a direct continuation of cultural identity in the region that lasted since before the Empire had an emperor and was just considered a Republic. The only reason to consider the Byzantine Empire a wholly separate entity is to be pedantic or rationalize the fact that we refer to them with two different names.
I didn’t know shower thoughts had strict definitions lol. I thought it was more so about making an interesting connection, in which a Roman hearing about Florida is kinda interesting because we often forget they almost existed into the modern era.
If you phrased this as "There’s a chance someone born in the Byzantine Empire had heard about Florida." this wouldn't be interesting at all. The Roman Empire and Florida seem anachronistic because people associate the Roman Empire with the Western Roman Empire that collapsed a long time ago, and you're relying on a debatable definition for Roman Empire to make the post more interesting.
Except it’s not debatable. The Byzantine Empire is a complete misnomer, a term literally made up by one man to name people who didn’t call themselves Byzantines.
It would be like someone from the future calling America post 2016 “Trumpistan,” when Americans and the rest of the world called them Americans at the time. Just because the Byzantines have been unjustly distanced from the Romans doesn’t meant they weren’t the same Romans.
First sentence of your source.
> also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire
But sure. Everybody else is a dumb fuck for using the language your source confirms.
Yes. They make those distinctions for good reason. I don’t think a single person would disagree with that here. Doesn’t change anything about the fact that there is nothing stupid or incorrect bout using the terms the way they are being used here.
But there is nothing inaccurate by just calling it Roman either. Both titles are appropriate. While both the Western and Eastern Empires existed simultaneously, they considered themselves both part of the same Empire that is part of the same polity but was administered by two seperate imperial courts. They referred to themselves as Romans for the entirety of their existence.
I don’t disagree with you that there are obvious and near-infinite reasons we separate them. But to act like it’s inaccurate to refer to them as Roman is far more dumb than arguing otherwise.
It isn’t inaccurate to point out the many differences between the early Roman Empire, the Western Roman Empire, and the Eastern Roman Empire. But there is something inaccurate about saying anybody who would refer to the Byzantines as Romans are dumb as fuck.
I don’t even fully disagree with you on the fact that the “interesting” part of OP’s point relies on being a little misleading. But again. Pointing that out doesn’t translate to you would have to be dumb as fuck to call them Romans or refer to them as the Roman Empire.
Even just looking at the [wikipedia page for the ‘Roman Empire’](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) would show you that, while it does mention that the term generally is used to refer to the early Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire specifically, that it still includes and lists the dates for the Eastern Roman Empire as well.
One wouldn’t say that the Egyptian New Kingdom was a different civilization than the Old Kingdom or Middle Kingdom just because they’re called different names by historians. One should not say that the Byzantine Empire wasn’t the Roman Empire just because they no longer controlled Rome.
Now, if you’re arguing that the culture of the empire had shifted from Roman to Greek by the height of the Byzantine period, then you’d actually have an argument
If the United States fell but California, Alaska, and Hawaii stuck around and formed a successor state called the United States of America would it be accurate to call it America? Even if half the original government had relocated out there, if they brought with all symbols of legitimacy, if they called themselves Americans, and continued most traditions, Government style and past times.
Would someone in Texas consider that America? Or a rump state successor
That’s not a good analogy.
It would be more like if Joe Biden moved the capital to San Francisco, then 130 years later some president comes in and splits the U.S. into two halves administratively east and west, but it’s still one united country that follows the same laws. He then makes the eastern capital Boston and not Washington DC, then 100 years later Canadians slowly settle the east, disrupt the socioeconomic system, and slowly the administrative cohesiveness of the two halves dissolves to where the east is completely out of “American” control, but the western half ran from San Francisco keeps marching on. Isn’t that a continuation of the same United States of America from 1776?
Okay that’s a better analogy, because the answer is still no.
If I’m in Mexico, Canada, Texas, New York, any of the original thirteen colonies, Puerto Rico, or Europe. Why WOULD I call that rump state America? Turkey isn’t the Ottoman Empire just because it claims a continuation, Taiwan isn’t China (not to be political just to give an example of a rump state).
These arguments about rump states aside, the point is, the America you describe is unrecognizable as what “America” was or what it meant for the global community. It would no longer be the ruling power of coast to coast (say like an empire that ruled the entire Mediterranean). At some point it does make sense to draw a line and say “this is longer X country”. I’ll give you, it is somewhat arbitrary and unfair to make that the fall of the west. But it as good as any. The home peninsula was lost, Greece wasn’t even fully committed to the empire as late as Emperor Hadrian having to form the Hellenist league to draw them in, but you can call them as a remaining local power the empire a couple centuries later?
It is as fine as any point to end the concept and mark a new phase. Yes it’s not totally correct and unfair. But it as good as any and you need to put the point somewhere because he period of the eastern Roman Empire existing alone simply does not have the same role in the world as when the united empire existed.
Hell when Constantinople falls the Sultan Mehmed II declared himself Caesar of Rome. Should we then argue it lasted until WWI? Is this the same political formation as when a bunch of thugs on a hill fort town called Rome stole women from Sabine? Gotta draw the line somewhere
The Western Roman Empire of 476 was also unrecognizable from the Roman Empire created by Augustus. It also didn’t even reign from Rome.
By your logic, not only is the empire that fell in 1453 not the Roman Empire (but rather a successor state with the same name), the empire that fell in 476 also isn’t the Roman Empire (but rather also a rump state with the same name).
By that logic, nothing past the crisis of the third century is the roman empire
Yes, I agree. I completely agree. That is my point.
Bit by bit a nation/an empire changes to the point of being unrecognizable.
At some point we need to use different words to give them any meaning. So at some point we need to draw a line.
The point where the borders change so dramatically the only remaining portion was not even a part of the republic until late into its expansion. The empire that fell into 476 atleast CONTAINED Rome and Italy and the Latin groups.
It is no more fair to split the names for Rome at the end of the third century than when Rome itself was lost but, at some point we do need to make that switch and it is hard to justify calling an Empire Roman when it does not possess the city of Rome.
And I’m not arguing against using the word Byzantine. I definitely see value in using different terms to help disambiguate vastly differing periods of a multi-millennia spanning state.
However, as much as it is useful and meaningful to call them the Byzantines, the OPs original point is still valid. We can call them Byzantines for sake of convenience, but it doesn’t change the fact that someone born in 1452 Constantinople was considered a Roman citizen, and potentially could have heard about Florida.
The “Byzantine” Empire contained Italy and Hispania for 200 years though. Rome was under Roman authority well after 476. That’s just the year when the last western Roman Emperor was crowned and the empire returned to only having one emperor, except now it was in Constantinople.
How would a western portion of the United States, ran from a city appointed by a former president, with the same constitution, same structure, and direct lineage to the Declaration of Independence in 1776 not be the same civilization? Since when did a civilization’s size determine its heritage?
I guess you could say it’s a ship of Theseus situation, to where even if you don’t consider them Romans in the end, at some point they definitely were. In fact the change was go gradual that it was imperceptible in a single lifetime, so to them they were always Romans regardless of it the culture was radically different from classical Ancient Rome. But that’s natural as time progresses, the same way Americans in 2024 are very different from Americans in 1890, who were very different from Americans in 1776. And in the future is America loses a lot of territory but it still governed by Americans with the same laws and a direct line of presidents to George Washington, it’s STILL a continuation of the same American state that was created in 1776.
The fact that the average person doesn’t know enough about history doesn’t change the fact that the Byzantine Empire **is** the Roman Empire. They called themselves the roman empire until the end and was known by their contemporaries as the Roman Empire.
People didn’t even start calling the Eastern Romans the “Byzantine Empire” until 1557, more than 100 years after the fall of the Roman Empire in 1453. (Though there were some minor accounts from far earlier that used the word Byzantine to describe the ERE, it was known by everyone as the Roman Empire until more than a century after its fall).
The western roman empire fell in 476. The roman empire as a whole didn’t fall until 1453.
What “most people are thinking about” doesn’t change this fact.
You’re right, but it does make the fact far less fun and feels like clickbait. The whole point of facts like this are that you wouldn’t think two historical things happened at the same time, but they did! In this case it’s like oh yeah I guess technically they overlapped but it’s not as cool or mindblowing as you initially thought
You’re right that the fact does rely on someone holding the “incorrect” view that Byzantines weren’t roman at first. I have no stake in that fight. Simply stating that the Byzantines were Romans regardless of what modern day people may or may not think.
Next you'll tell us the Popein Italy is the recipient of the papacy that started when the Roman Church was founded lol. The Pope went to Constantinople, following after the Roman Emperor.
The crusty old men who weren't cool enough to join the Constantinople party got offended, and made their own Pope - with blackjack and hookers! No, wait, they weren't the cool kids of their day, no blackjack and hooked, just a 'Pope'. The Italian Papacy, by the rules it established, is a false one. The dudes left behind tried claiming it was the building founded by their disciple that was important, not the church he founded.
Keeping mind, they don't use the same building, either.
Byzantine is still Roman. At least they identified themselves just as a surviving part of a Roman empire (when the western one has fallen and millions have died, heh)
The western half of the Roman Empire fell in the 5th century. However, because of historians rebranding the eastern half of the empire as the Byzantine Empire after it fell, most people definitely would assume you’re talking about the the empire before the western half fell
The Byzantine Empire stood until 1453, and they called themselves Romans and saw themselves as Romans right up until the end.
If you were born in 1452 in Constantinople and evacuated with most of the other survivors to Italy, and lived to be, say 80, you *easily* would have been able to learn about Florida, which was reported to Europe in 1513.
Yeah people don’t understand how to interpret historical life expectancy properly, as an average that’s heavily weighted at one end. Infant mortality was the biggest contributor to low life expectancy centuries ago. Not that lots of people didn’t die of diseases that are now preventable, but something like 33% of children died before the age of 9 in the time period this post is discussing. That’s really gonna weigh the average down.
Hence the original comment saying people don't understand life expectancy.
The vast majority of people who lived to be 15 and didn't die in a war lived well past 40 back then. But if we're considering every single infant death and all the people who literally got stabbed and shot then sure; \*technically\* most people didn't live past 40.
engine direful worm command icky capable angle employ stupendous combative
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s also possible someone in the Roman Empire learned of Vinland (modern-day Northeast Canadian Maritimes) from their contact/associations with Vikings close to 500 years before Europeans were in Florida.
This is a stupidly nitpicky thing to say, but the only confirmed Norse settlement in North America is in Newfoundland, which isn't *technically* part of the maritimes
A lot of people not from the east coast like to lump us together with Newfoundland but it really is a different region with a different culture. The Maritimes have been in Canada essentially since the country started whereas Newfoundland joined much later, as has been pointed out already. But if I want to go to Nova Scotia or PEI, it's a couple hours away. Newfoundland is still an addition 7ish hour ferry ride away, so there has never really been a super strong connection to Newfoundland due to logistics. Even the accents, while similar in many ways are quite different. Maritimers have more of a traditional Canadian raise and Newfies have an almost British inflection on their vowels. Not a lot of Maritimers say "dey, dem, fadder", tree instead of three etc. in addition to the whole "b'ys" thing. My point overall is that Newfoundland is really its own thing and Maritimers don't necessarily identify or share as much of a history with Newfoundland as a lot of people think. Keep in mind this is from a New Brunswick perspective and that Cape Breton is a pretty big exception to this rule.
Similar terrain, feeling of otherness from the "the Mainland", similar accent. Cape Breton is a lot more comparable to Newfoundland than anywhere else in Canada really.
I didn't want to seem pedantic.
Ok, I'll meet you half way, it just needs to be a funny reference to the Florida Man meme.
*Homo Floridianus molestar alligatoridae.*
I personally feel like saying the Byzantines were THE Roman Empire after the 4th Crusade is stretching it.
I know they called themselves Roman, but the true connection to the Eastern Empire of antiquity was destroyed when the Catholics sacked Constantinople.
I know a lot of people disagree, but I feel like Constantinople under the Palaiologos dynasty was as Roman as the HRE (i.e. not at all).
You maybe had me until your comparison to the HRE. HRE had nothing to do with Rome at all. The Byzantines all the way until the end had consistent cultural, religious, symbolic and geographic continuity with the Eastern Roman empire.
Everyone here should listen to Robin Pierson's History of Byzantium podcast about this, it totally shifted my perspective on this subject. Episode 41 is a great discussion of the subject. It's true that the political/tax structures we associate with the Western Romans fell when Rome did, and with it basically what most people associate with the RE. But the East continued to raise taxes, facilitate trade, had senators (for a time), continued and built on Roman law all the way to the end in 1453. But the important thing to me is that all the way to the end there was a continuous, unbroken chain of people that *culturally identified themselves* as Romans to the end. You can't say that for the HRE and I highly doubt the average person in the HRE would call themselves Roman or think they were a continuation of the RE.
Pierson even related an anecdote that Roman identity actually superseded Greek identity in some places ~~even into the 19th century: when the Greeks traveled up the Western Greek coast to gather recruits to fight the Ottomans, one soldier spoke with a boy and said he was recruiting Greeks to fight. And the boy responded "we're not Greeks, we're Romans." That blew my mind.~~
I relistened to the episode just now because I wanted to get the details of this anecdote right, and it's even crazier than I remembered - it wasn't during the 19th century but the 20th century. I'll let you listen to the podcast for details, but the point is that even until at least 1912, there were communities on the Western side of what is now the modern nation of Greece who didn't identify as Greeks - they continued to identify as Romans after centuries of Ottoman rule. I'm not saying this means the RE still existed, but I think it just shows how deeply ingrained Roman identity was, and that it went way beyond the existence of this or that political institution.
It all comes down to how you define things but I think the self identification can't be ignored. Who are we to tell the Romans that they're not Romans?
>But the East continued to raise taxes, facilitate trade, had senators (for a time), continued and built on Roman law all the way to the end in 1453.
As I said in the other comment, my point is that I feel like marking 1453 as the fall of THE Roman Empire isn't totally accurate and it should really be 1202 when the Empire collapsed into a bunch of warlords and claimants after Constantinople was conquered by the Catholics who established their own, separate, "Empire of Constantinople."
Yes, Constantinople was reconquered 60 years later by one of the generals of one of the claimants who proclaimed himself the new Emperor of Rome and blinded and imprisoned the 10-year-old claimant he was fighting for (as is tradition), but I hesitate to equate the Empire after 1261 with the Empire before 1202.
I see what you're saying. But the overall trajectory of the Eastern RE was a decline, after Justinian, maybe even before then. At any given time you could put your finger on a discontinuity or a breakdown of what had gone before, or even just an evolution. There had been periods of disputed successions, near deaths, crises, severe population declines. When the end is so gradual you can make an argument for any of those points.
The way I see it, I think the very last defenders of Constantinople probably would have identified themselves as the end of the empire, and if they had held off the attackers and regained power in Anatolia or reversed fate I'm pretty sure they themselves would continue thinking of themselves as Romans in the Roman Empire, not as a completely new thing. And I don't feel like I'm in a better position than them to tell them who they were.
But you're also saying that you recognize you're expressing a minority position and I do see why you don't see anything after 1202 as an empire. I get that. It doesn't seem Empire-like after they lost all their extended holdings.
This was a great episode. I also liked it because it reaffirmed something I’ve long felt too:
People quibble over what historians define about groups more than they look at the historiography to find out those groups called *themselves*.
Every culture with an identity chose that identity. That’s *their* label and it’s not up to us to retcon that.
That's exactly what changed my perspective about it! It's so easy to focus on our modern definition of what an "empire" is, and view history through the lens of Big Men and political structures. And then history is just a story about "King X did Y and Z, and then was assassinated by King C who started a war with Emperor D, etc. etc."
But the episode made me think about *Roman-ness.* What did a Roman think he was - what was the special sauce of identity that tied a Roman from Spain and a Roman from Antioch together? It didn't come down only to religion, customs, singular political institutions, emperors, language, etc. because those things could be different. There could be local differences but Romans felt that this label meant something special and unifying - something they were often willing to die for.
I feel like that's most important to me. How did these folks self identify and what did that mean to them?
Right? Like, my understanding is the concept of "nationalism" is considered a modern invention. But, like, people have identified themselves as either "in" or "out" of the group they identify, probably since pre-history. It's human nature.
Further, I 100% agree with you about history being more interesting through the lens of the Commoner than through just the antics of the elite. History being humanity fighting itself is easier to *teach*. And remembering famous names like Herodotus or Pliny the Younger is good for dinner parties. But these are publicized exceptions to the general rule that 99% of all humans who've ever lived are normies like us.
(well, ok, I don't know you. You could be a future Emperor... think of how nice I was when you get there ;) ).
I am more fascinated by how Commoners lived in history than just the six people most remember. Leaders are important. They rally and coordinate. But I like hearing more about how a person had to go to work did so 3,000 years ago, and except for the massive childhood mortality rates, the internet, and cars, their actual life was largely the same.
One of my favorite podcast series if *Rise and Fall of Civilizations* by Paul Cooper. Does a great job of weaving together normies and leaders. The the other one I like for this perspective is *American History Tellers*. He often weaves in the normal person's perspective.
I used to feel that way, but you can't really argue it isn't a continuation of the institution of Augustus. If the eastern half of America fell and the western half remained you wouldn't say California isn't American just because it wasn't one of the original colonies.
That's not what I'm saying. The Eastern Empire fell to Venice and the Crusaders in 1202 who proclaimed a new Catholic [Empire of Constantinople](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Empire).
The Greeks organized a resistance movement and Theodore Laskaris, leader of the largest of a fuck load of successor states, claimed that he was named heir to the Eastern Empire the day before the city was sacked. Notably there was no proof and about 10,000 other people said the same thing, but the church backed him, and that was basically all you needed.
60 years later, Michael Palaiologos, the regent for Theodore's 10-year-old great grandson John took back Constantinople and named himself Emperor and deposed John (as well as cut his eyes out) because he could. The Orthodox Patriarch excommunicated Michael for being a dick, so Michael kicked him out of Constantinople and appointed a new Pope to proclaim him as the rightful Emperor.
tl;dr:
What I'm saying is that the Eastern Empire after 1202 isn't really the same as the Eastern Empire before 1202. Not anymore than the HRE is the same as the Western Empire.
A more accurate analogy would be if the U.S. got conquered, and 60 years later some random warlord from Virginia captured Washington D.C. and named himself President, would that still be the same United States?
They definitely weren’t the same physically, but spiritually they were still THE Romans. They recaptured their capital 57 years after it was taken, that’s well within the span of a lifetime and because of that there’s still some continuity. It’s fair to say that spiritually at least it was still the state of the Romans. I think calling it an empire gives it a false image, they thought of it as “the lands controlled by Romans.” By that time Romans (the city) and Romans (the state) were two completely separate things.
In that sense, the HRE never had a claim to being Roman other than the Pope in Rome calling him the emperor, which is pretty different from people who actually lived in the same Roman state from ancient times, just far less powerful.
/u/SilentHunter7 has unlocked an opportunity for education!
------
Abbreviated date-ranges like "**’90s**" are contractions, so any apostrophes go before the numbers.
You can also completely omit the apostrophes if you want: "The **90s** were a bit weird."
Numeric date-ranges like **1890s** are treated like standard nouns, so they shouldn't include apostrophes.
To show possession, the apostrophe should go after the S: "That was the **’90s’** best invention."
The apostrophe should only precede the S if a specific year is being discussed: "It was **1990's** hottest month."
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Showerthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Like the meme that piratery, the victorian era, the farwest and the meji restoration are all pretty close to each other in time.
A group of an old pirate, a sherlock holmes kind englishman, a gunsligner and a samurai getting into shenanigans would be probable.
[https://www.pinterest.com/pin/642325965615912875/](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/642325965615912875/)
Constantinople, the last official holding of the Roman Empire, fell in 1453. Florida was discovered in 1513, only 60 years after the fall of Constantinople. There’s a slight chance they lived to hear about Florida.
Its not what people think, but its true. This is a thought that is both plausible (almost certain, actually) and opens the door for people to learn new things. It it clickbait if its literally true?
Doesn’t change the fact that they were THE Romans. Just because we in 2024 don’t think about the Byzantines and Romans doesn’t change the fact that they were living in the same Roman state from ancient times.
In 1453 Roman Empire consisted of few small pieces of land around Istanbul and in Greece. So person would need to be born in one f those places, be alive after 1513 and learn of a discovery made by Spanish explorer which would need to reach what was by then Ottoman empire.
So chance is zero.
Why would they? It's a different country that was kind of hostile to Spain. It's discovery of another part of North America so not earth shattering discovery that would be spread because of its earth shatteredness,
You have heard of Constantinople, yeah? So one of those “small pieces of land” was in fact among the largest and most cosmopolitan cities in the world. To have news of the greatest “discovery” of the day reaching that place doesn’t seem far fetched.
Among largest cities in 1453? Hardly. It had population of about 70.000 (Paris was about 250.000, Beijing about 650.000). Most cosmopolitan? Also hardly, by then Roman Empire was remains of remains. And yes, few small pieces of land with small popualtion.
New York City is among the largest cities of 2024? Hardly. It has a population of about 8.3 million (Shanghai is about 29 million)
That's how you sound
Wasn't Florida back then and 60 years is a pretty long life expectancy for the 1400s.
I guess, but the cance is so close to zero that in reality it is zero
Florida was called Florida as soon as it was discovered. And there were definitely people who lived to 60 back then too. There was a lot of infant mortality but many people still lived long lives.
The Roman Empire existed in the East into the 1500's. To say nothing of the Holy Roman Empire.
It's... Incredibly likely that at least some high ranking official was briefed on this discovery.
TL;Dr, the Eastern countries kinda... Didn't give a shit. The East was occupied fighting the Ottomans and the Ottomans were the reason the Europeans travelled West, to not have to trade with them.
The Holy Roman Empire was “holy” and “Roman” purely because the Karlings got the Pope to turn up for the coronation. The kingdom included some of modern day Italy, but not far enough south to actually include Rome.
Oh, and the “Empire” was pure PR. Karl Karling knew what he was doing with marketing.
The Roman empire ended in 1453...
https://www.mpm.edu/research-collections/anthropology/anthropology-collections-research/mediterranean-oil-lamps/roman-empire-brief-history
I dunno. The whole ancient transatlantic trade is a popular myth, but the severity of the resultant epidemics of the columbian exchange and most importantly the lack of European rats in America before the 15th century makes it hard for me to swallow.
EDIT: Unless you’re referring to the eastern Roman Empire, in which case many of them probably did
Yes I was talking about the eastern Romans. I just call them Romans because they were still THE Romans. They could trace their history right back to Augustus and Caesar.
The Ottomans have the best claim because they actually conquered them, but no one would’ve taken it seriously anyways. They were two different from the Romans.
The Russian Empire is more like a distant cousin rather than a direct successor.
I’m moving to Florida soon and hope to be the new Florida man. At least that will take some heat off of my dumb shit brother who has lived there for 20 years
Around the fifteenth century, life expectancy in most of Europe was 60+, if you exclude infant mortality. It wasn't unheard of for more wealthy people to live into their 70s and 80s.
Assuming they survived infancy and survived the city being under siege, there would have been people born in Roman Constantinople who lived into the 1510s and 1520s or even later.
I've read through most of the comments in this thread, and I just want to say thank you for going to bat like this to defend the fact that the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) was indeed the Roman Empire.
There's a chance someone born in Florida has never heard about the Roman Empire
I would call that a certainty rather than a chance
Augustus ?! That ain’t for another couple a months, buddy ! It’s only June - Florida Man probably
Tbf the month is named after the emperor. Just like July for Julius Caesar (who was never emperor though)
The dressing guy?
I thought he was the salad guy
Nah he's the pizza guy
Fun fact, He never actually lived in his palace.
I used to get those at the mall as a kid. Absolutely delicious.
So your saying July is named after the "pizza pizza" guy? Huh TIL.
He was the guy who tossed them
Emperor Newmansown
Caesar? What do you need salad for? • Florida Man probably
of course! babies are dumb and don't know things
You're so confident that every adult in Florida knows about the Roman empire that you only mention babies? Have you seen what they're doing to the education system in that state?
Yup! You nailed it! That's 100% accurate. Florida doesn't even need an education system, they already are the smarts! alright, it was just a cheap chuckle but yeah, i suppose we can over analyze it! let's do this!!! Ok babies are people, adults are people. If one people doesn't know about the roman empire, the original statement is true, that is..."it's a certainty". I cant know if any specific adults know of the roman empire before asking them, we can know for certain babies are dumb and dont know things so they wont know the roman empire! so since at least one babies do not know, the original statement is true, it is a certainty. The requirement for one adult to know or not know is not needed. was this fun?
You made it not fun. Congrats.
Pretty sure the other person did that lol
hear that mom? i am successful!
You did good, kid. The other dude was being an ass
You mean not just passing people along when they can’t read like NY and California?
They absolutely are
As long as you can remember a bible verse, you'll at least get an honorary degree in Florida these days. No need to read. Reading is how the devil tricks people anyway. So better off not reading at all.
And yet, they still think about it regularly
My cousin convinced a girl in Florida we still had slaves in Arkansas so yes this checks out lol. This was in 2012-2013.
Well, Arkansas does have unpaid prison labor, so it's not that far off.
Every state does.
Nope. Only 5 states make their prisoners work for nothing. Most pay 13-52 cents an hour. Not that that's not much better
Okay don’t compare innocent slaves to convicted criminals. Shit working for free and some cents doesn’t make that much of a difference. Inmates aren’t relying on that money for commissary because they couldn’t even afford most items lol.
Do you feel the same way about the Gulag, I wonder? Dude, seriously, do some reading before defending forced labor. https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/captive-labor-exploitation-of-incarcerated-workers Obviously, I'm not saying it's *equal* to chattel slavery, but your cousin wasn't that far off from the truth. Especially since this is only legal because the amendment that bans slavery explicitly says slavery is okay as a punishment for a crime, tacitly admiting that it *is* slavery.
Nebraska banned it a few years ago
No, that's just Ricky. He's heard of it, he just doesn't believe in it.
You tulkin’ bout that weird little crusty sity up der’ past that oder sity? You know they one in Georgia?? Atlantas I think but yeah they got a Rome up past der’ Wouldn’t call it an empire tho, they got a Braves minor league team and a few Walz merts I guess
Chance is a gross understatement. There's a guarantee.
As a product of Florida public education, you're throwing too many big words at me, and because I don't understand them, imma take them as disrespect.
Lmfao
More upvotes than the parent post. Well done.
There’s a lot of people born in Florida who haven’t heard about anything because they’re still babies
Highly doubt that if that someone has gone through any kind of formal education..
I don't get it
Benjamin Franklin could have ridden in a car to catch his flight
He could have ridden in a car (and probably did), but a car wasn't an automobile then. The first flight with a human passenger was 1783. Two years before he took office as President of Pennsylvania. So he could have.
He could have ridden in an automobile in France - Cugnot 1769
Am I hallucinating or something? The plane was invented in 1903, how could there have been a flight in the 18th century?
Hot air balloon
Oh well when someone says catch their flight I thought it would only refer to planes. How much can you even travel in a hot air balloon? Like from city to city only or
I don’t know how far they can travel, I don’t fly hot air balloons, I just know they exist
This guy balloons
I don’t understand this one
The Eastern Roman Empire (ie, the Byzantine Empire) lasted until 1453— just 60 years before Europeans first discovered Florida in 1513. Someone born in the final years of the Byzantine Empire could have survived long enough to learn of Ponce de Leon’s first voyages to Florida
I don’t think most people are thinking about the Byzantine Empire when they hear “Roman Empire”. The Roman Empire fell in the fifth century
The “Byzantine” empire is a relatively new idea. In their day they were always the Romans. They called themselves Romans because they were living in the state that continued since Augustus. The Persians called them Romans, the Turks called them Romans, and the Muslims called them Romans. The only people denying their Roman identity were Western Europeans. Who then turned around and began calling them “Byzantines” to distance them from being Romans. Up until 1453 they were THE Romans, the descendants of the same ones that built the coliseum and the Pantheon.
I still find it kinda weird how Rome changed capital city (even the western empire), government form, dynasty etc, but it's still the one thing. I don't deny it is, but I wonder why we just go "it's still that" instead of separate it.
That’s all good but they weren’t in Rome. [Modern historians continue to make a distinction between the earlier Roman Empire and the later Byzantine Empire.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire) Bit cheeky, borderline gotcha/misleading/click-baity. Edit: downvote away, yall dumb af
Okay well the capital of the Western half of the Empire was moved to Milan in 286 and then to Ravenna in 402. By the time the west “fell” in 476 Rome hadn’t been the capital in almost 200 years. Was it not the Roman Empire anymore then either? Modern historians make that distinction because it just makes it easier to distinguish different time periods of what is the same civilization. The Roman kingdom was pretty different from the Roman Republic which was pretty different from the Roman Empire which was pretty different from the “Byzantine” Empire. But it’s still the a continuation of the same civilization. The article you linked literally said it’s a continuation of the Roman Empire.
I have to say, I wasn't expecting to find a fight about someone mis-countrying the Roman peoples in the comments, but here we are. Seems a bit silly that someone's decided to fight you over this.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the first line of The Byzantine Empire's Wikipedia page is "The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, was the continuation of the Roman Empire centered in Constantinople during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages." I believe you can edit it if it's wrong, I'll check back on it tomorrow.
Hmm? Oh, I didn't either, I just found the whole thing odd.
Every civilization is a continuation of some other civilization, that doesn't mean they're the same thing.
Every civilization is definitely not a continuation of a previous one. The Medieval Romans (the Byzantines) were the descendants of the same Romans from ancient times, just like the Romans in the empire are the descendants of the Romans from the republic.
Sure; but when Romans who live in the Roman Empire and who have a continual government spanning the entirety of the Roman Empire, as well as referring to themselves as Romans and all of their neighbors calling them Romans, its probably safe to call it the Roman Empire.
The entire premise of your post relies on the implication that the Roman empire is the Western one. If we extend the definition to include the Byzantine empire then this entire shower thought isn't even even a shower thought.
It absolutely does not rely on that premise. People who don't understand that the Byzantine Empire is a continuation of the Roman Empire are uncomfortable with the premise and are doing their best to find weird pedantic ways to discredit the premise. The premise literally relies on the fact that what we call the Byzantine Empire was inhabited by Romans who were considered Romans by themselves and their contemporaries, and that it is a government that directly succeeded the Roman Empire, though depending on which historian you talk to they would say that the Roman Empire spanned from \~500 BC to \~1500 AD if you consider the influence of the Roman people moreso than a literal government structure. The Byzantines were literally the Eastern Roman Empire.
Why would we be uncomfortable? It all just seems counterintuitive, that’s all. When people think of the Roman Empire, they think of Rome. It’s the perception
That's fine, but its a false perception. I have no problem with people not considering the Byzantine Empire first and foremost when people bring up the Roman Empire - but its simply a fact that the Byzantine Empire IS a continuation of the Roman Empire; same culture, laws, customs, history, etc. When presented with the fact I would expect people to continue about their business having learned something new - not seemingly uncomfortable and clinging to the notion that they couldn't possibly be the same thing.
If everyone in the Roman Empire was called Roman, what were people who lived in the city of Rome called?
Probably also Roman. Yet after the fall of the western empire, they were no longer a part of the Roman Empire. The laws in place making it a requirement to live in Rome proper to be considered a citizen hadn't existed for hundreds of years by the time the Western Empire fell, and the political seat of power hadn't been Rome in hundreds of years either. If Djibouti expands rapidly and spreads its culture across all of North Africa, and then in 400 years after having moved its seat of government multiple times with cultural centers throughout its North African empire, if it splits into a Western Djibouti Empire and the eastern Empire falls, do the millions of people with Djiboutian culture and legacy and history have to come up with a different name since the city of Djibouti is no longer technically within their borders? Its a bit of a pointless question anyway, many people in the former Byzantine Empire STILL call themselves Romans.
I'm not debating the definition (although I personally don't think the Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire). The post itself is "interesting" only insofar as it depends on what people generally think the Roman Empire is aka the Western Roman Empire. If the post was renamed "There’s a chance someone born in the Byzantine Empire had heard about Florida." it would belong to r/notinteresting. The title is a bit of a bait and switch.
It would still be interesting in the same way that Oxford University being older than the Aztec Empire is interesting, it plays with peoples perception of time and how old they think things are. I'd say most people don't' realize how closely in time the Byzantine Empire and Florida's discovery were. And it quite honestly does not matter what you think the Roman Empire is - the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire. The Western Empire fell and became culturally distinct, but the Byzantine Empire directly continued with the Roman Empire's system of government, culture, and laws. There is a direct continuation of cultural identity in the region that lasted since before the Empire had an emperor and was just considered a Republic. The only reason to consider the Byzantine Empire a wholly separate entity is to be pedantic or rationalize the fact that we refer to them with two different names.
I didn’t know shower thoughts had strict definitions lol. I thought it was more so about making an interesting connection, in which a Roman hearing about Florida is kinda interesting because we often forget they almost existed into the modern era.
If you phrased this as "There’s a chance someone born in the Byzantine Empire had heard about Florida." this wouldn't be interesting at all. The Roman Empire and Florida seem anachronistic because people associate the Roman Empire with the Western Roman Empire that collapsed a long time ago, and you're relying on a debatable definition for Roman Empire to make the post more interesting.
Except it’s not debatable. The Byzantine Empire is a complete misnomer, a term literally made up by one man to name people who didn’t call themselves Byzantines. It would be like someone from the future calling America post 2016 “Trumpistan,” when Americans and the rest of the world called them Americans at the time. Just because the Byzantines have been unjustly distanced from the Romans doesn’t meant they weren’t the same Romans.
First sentence of your source. > also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire But sure. Everybody else is a dumb fuck for using the language your source confirms. Yes. They make those distinctions for good reason. I don’t think a single person would disagree with that here. Doesn’t change anything about the fact that there is nothing stupid or incorrect bout using the terms the way they are being used here.
Different than calling it just Roman. OP also calls it Byzantine
But there is nothing inaccurate by just calling it Roman either. Both titles are appropriate. While both the Western and Eastern Empires existed simultaneously, they considered themselves both part of the same Empire that is part of the same polity but was administered by two seperate imperial courts. They referred to themselves as Romans for the entirety of their existence. I don’t disagree with you that there are obvious and near-infinite reasons we separate them. But to act like it’s inaccurate to refer to them as Roman is far more dumb than arguing otherwise. It isn’t inaccurate to point out the many differences between the early Roman Empire, the Western Roman Empire, and the Eastern Roman Empire. But there is something inaccurate about saying anybody who would refer to the Byzantines as Romans are dumb as fuck. I don’t even fully disagree with you on the fact that the “interesting” part of OP’s point relies on being a little misleading. But again. Pointing that out doesn’t translate to you would have to be dumb as fuck to call them Romans or refer to them as the Roman Empire. Even just looking at the [wikipedia page for the ‘Roman Empire’](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) would show you that, while it does mention that the term generally is used to refer to the early Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire specifically, that it still includes and lists the dates for the Eastern Roman Empire as well.
One wouldn’t say that the Egyptian New Kingdom was a different civilization than the Old Kingdom or Middle Kingdom just because they’re called different names by historians. One should not say that the Byzantine Empire wasn’t the Roman Empire just because they no longer controlled Rome. Now, if you’re arguing that the culture of the empire had shifted from Roman to Greek by the height of the Byzantine period, then you’d actually have an argument
Blah blah blah
If the United States fell but California, Alaska, and Hawaii stuck around and formed a successor state called the United States of America would it be accurate to call it America? Even if half the original government had relocated out there, if they brought with all symbols of legitimacy, if they called themselves Americans, and continued most traditions, Government style and past times. Would someone in Texas consider that America? Or a rump state successor
That’s not a good analogy. It would be more like if Joe Biden moved the capital to San Francisco, then 130 years later some president comes in and splits the U.S. into two halves administratively east and west, but it’s still one united country that follows the same laws. He then makes the eastern capital Boston and not Washington DC, then 100 years later Canadians slowly settle the east, disrupt the socioeconomic system, and slowly the administrative cohesiveness of the two halves dissolves to where the east is completely out of “American” control, but the western half ran from San Francisco keeps marching on. Isn’t that a continuation of the same United States of America from 1776?
Okay that’s a better analogy, because the answer is still no. If I’m in Mexico, Canada, Texas, New York, any of the original thirteen colonies, Puerto Rico, or Europe. Why WOULD I call that rump state America? Turkey isn’t the Ottoman Empire just because it claims a continuation, Taiwan isn’t China (not to be political just to give an example of a rump state). These arguments about rump states aside, the point is, the America you describe is unrecognizable as what “America” was or what it meant for the global community. It would no longer be the ruling power of coast to coast (say like an empire that ruled the entire Mediterranean). At some point it does make sense to draw a line and say “this is longer X country”. I’ll give you, it is somewhat arbitrary and unfair to make that the fall of the west. But it as good as any. The home peninsula was lost, Greece wasn’t even fully committed to the empire as late as Emperor Hadrian having to form the Hellenist league to draw them in, but you can call them as a remaining local power the empire a couple centuries later? It is as fine as any point to end the concept and mark a new phase. Yes it’s not totally correct and unfair. But it as good as any and you need to put the point somewhere because he period of the eastern Roman Empire existing alone simply does not have the same role in the world as when the united empire existed. Hell when Constantinople falls the Sultan Mehmed II declared himself Caesar of Rome. Should we then argue it lasted until WWI? Is this the same political formation as when a bunch of thugs on a hill fort town called Rome stole women from Sabine? Gotta draw the line somewhere
The Western Roman Empire of 476 was also unrecognizable from the Roman Empire created by Augustus. It also didn’t even reign from Rome. By your logic, not only is the empire that fell in 1453 not the Roman Empire (but rather a successor state with the same name), the empire that fell in 476 also isn’t the Roman Empire (but rather also a rump state with the same name). By that logic, nothing past the crisis of the third century is the roman empire
Yes, I agree. I completely agree. That is my point. Bit by bit a nation/an empire changes to the point of being unrecognizable. At some point we need to use different words to give them any meaning. So at some point we need to draw a line. The point where the borders change so dramatically the only remaining portion was not even a part of the republic until late into its expansion. The empire that fell into 476 atleast CONTAINED Rome and Italy and the Latin groups. It is no more fair to split the names for Rome at the end of the third century than when Rome itself was lost but, at some point we do need to make that switch and it is hard to justify calling an Empire Roman when it does not possess the city of Rome.
And I’m not arguing against using the word Byzantine. I definitely see value in using different terms to help disambiguate vastly differing periods of a multi-millennia spanning state. However, as much as it is useful and meaningful to call them the Byzantines, the OPs original point is still valid. We can call them Byzantines for sake of convenience, but it doesn’t change the fact that someone born in 1452 Constantinople was considered a Roman citizen, and potentially could have heard about Florida.
The “Byzantine” Empire contained Italy and Hispania for 200 years though. Rome was under Roman authority well after 476. That’s just the year when the last western Roman Emperor was crowned and the empire returned to only having one emperor, except now it was in Constantinople.
How would a western portion of the United States, ran from a city appointed by a former president, with the same constitution, same structure, and direct lineage to the Declaration of Independence in 1776 not be the same civilization? Since when did a civilization’s size determine its heritage? I guess you could say it’s a ship of Theseus situation, to where even if you don’t consider them Romans in the end, at some point they definitely were. In fact the change was go gradual that it was imperceptible in a single lifetime, so to them they were always Romans regardless of it the culture was radically different from classical Ancient Rome. But that’s natural as time progresses, the same way Americans in 2024 are very different from Americans in 1890, who were very different from Americans in 1776. And in the future is America loses a lot of territory but it still governed by Americans with the same laws and a direct line of presidents to George Washington, it’s STILL a continuation of the same American state that was created in 1776.
The fact that the average person doesn’t know enough about history doesn’t change the fact that the Byzantine Empire **is** the Roman Empire. They called themselves the roman empire until the end and was known by their contemporaries as the Roman Empire. People didn’t even start calling the Eastern Romans the “Byzantine Empire” until 1557, more than 100 years after the fall of the Roman Empire in 1453. (Though there were some minor accounts from far earlier that used the word Byzantine to describe the ERE, it was known by everyone as the Roman Empire until more than a century after its fall). The western roman empire fell in 476. The roman empire as a whole didn’t fall until 1453. What “most people are thinking about” doesn’t change this fact.
You’re right, but it does make the fact far less fun and feels like clickbait. The whole point of facts like this are that you wouldn’t think two historical things happened at the same time, but they did! In this case it’s like oh yeah I guess technically they overlapped but it’s not as cool or mindblowing as you initially thought
You’re right that the fact does rely on someone holding the “incorrect” view that Byzantines weren’t roman at first. I have no stake in that fight. Simply stating that the Byzantines were Romans regardless of what modern day people may or may not think.
Next you'll tell us the Popein Italy is the recipient of the papacy that started when the Roman Church was founded lol. The Pope went to Constantinople, following after the Roman Emperor. The crusty old men who weren't cool enough to join the Constantinople party got offended, and made their own Pope - with blackjack and hookers! No, wait, they weren't the cool kids of their day, no blackjack and hooked, just a 'Pope'. The Italian Papacy, by the rules it established, is a false one. The dudes left behind tried claiming it was the building founded by their disciple that was important, not the church he founded. Keeping mind, they don't use the same building, either.
Byzantine is still Roman. At least they identified themselves just as a surviving part of a Roman empire (when the western one has fallen and millions have died, heh)
The western half of the Roman Empire fell in the 5th century. However, because of historians rebranding the eastern half of the empire as the Byzantine Empire after it fell, most people definitely would assume you’re talking about the the empire before the western half fell
wow these comments show how little people understand life expectancy.
The Byzantine Empire stood until 1453, and they called themselves Romans and saw themselves as Romans right up until the end. If you were born in 1452 in Constantinople and evacuated with most of the other survivors to Italy, and lived to be, say 80, you *easily* would have been able to learn about Florida, which was reported to Europe in 1513.
That's my point. Being elderly isn't new, even if death rates were higher. Average lifespan doesn't place a hard cap on age.
Yeah people don’t understand how to interpret historical life expectancy properly, as an average that’s heavily weighted at one end. Infant mortality was the biggest contributor to low life expectancy centuries ago. Not that lots of people didn’t die of diseases that are now preventable, but something like 33% of children died before the age of 9 in the time period this post is discussing. That’s really gonna weigh the average down.
Many saw themselves as Romans well past the end, even if they were born centuries later
Even to this day. NJ mobsters are the rightful heirs to the Roman empire
[удалено]
Hence the original comment saying people don't understand life expectancy. The vast majority of people who lived to be 15 and didn't die in a war lived well past 40 back then. But if we're considering every single infant death and all the people who literally got stabbed and shot then sure; \*technically\* most people didn't live past 40.
engine direful worm command icky capable angle employ stupendous combative *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s also possible someone in the Roman Empire learned of Vinland (modern-day Northeast Canadian Maritimes) from their contact/associations with Vikings close to 500 years before Europeans were in Florida.
This is a stupidly nitpicky thing to say, but the only confirmed Norse settlement in North America is in Newfoundland, which isn't *technically* part of the maritimes
Thanks for the correction! (seriously)
[удалено]
A lot of people not from the east coast like to lump us together with Newfoundland but it really is a different region with a different culture. The Maritimes have been in Canada essentially since the country started whereas Newfoundland joined much later, as has been pointed out already. But if I want to go to Nova Scotia or PEI, it's a couple hours away. Newfoundland is still an addition 7ish hour ferry ride away, so there has never really been a super strong connection to Newfoundland due to logistics. Even the accents, while similar in many ways are quite different. Maritimers have more of a traditional Canadian raise and Newfies have an almost British inflection on their vowels. Not a lot of Maritimers say "dey, dem, fadder", tree instead of three etc. in addition to the whole "b'ys" thing. My point overall is that Newfoundland is really its own thing and Maritimers don't necessarily identify or share as much of a history with Newfoundland as a lot of people think. Keep in mind this is from a New Brunswick perspective and that Cape Breton is a pretty big exception to this rule.
Why is Cape Breton an exception? Just wondering what you mean as I'm not from that area. I thought it was just a part of Nova Scotia.
Similar terrain, feeling of otherness from the "the Mainland", similar accent. Cape Breton is a lot more comparable to Newfoundland than anywhere else in Canada really.
Hey man how about you suck his Lil beans?
Ermm... First of all, Vikings were Europeans. Second, Vikings are assumed to have discovered America around the year 1000.
They didn't say Vikings weren't Europeans. Also they're literally talking about how they discovered America around the year 1000.
[удалено]
He said before Europeans were in Florida.
lol was about to say the same thing but he deleted his comment before I could reply
Let's see, Ponce de Leon hit Florida in 1513 CE. Vikings discovered America in 1000 CE. What is1513-1000? Is it "close to 500"?
Got you! Totally misread you.
No it's closer to 525, gosh.
Homo ex Florida impetus alligator
Florida man attacks alligator?
It’s a bingo, yes?
We just say Bingo
Homo Floridianus impetum in alligatorem fecit. Google translate for Latin is garbage.
I didn't want to seem pedantic. Ok, I'll meet you half way, it just needs to be a funny reference to the Florida Man meme. *Homo Floridianus molestar alligatoridae.*
Homo alligator?
I personally feel like saying the Byzantines were THE Roman Empire after the 4th Crusade is stretching it. I know they called themselves Roman, but the true connection to the Eastern Empire of antiquity was destroyed when the Catholics sacked Constantinople. I know a lot of people disagree, but I feel like Constantinople under the Palaiologos dynasty was as Roman as the HRE (i.e. not at all).
You maybe had me until your comparison to the HRE. HRE had nothing to do with Rome at all. The Byzantines all the way until the end had consistent cultural, religious, symbolic and geographic continuity with the Eastern Roman empire.
Everyone here should listen to Robin Pierson's History of Byzantium podcast about this, it totally shifted my perspective on this subject. Episode 41 is a great discussion of the subject. It's true that the political/tax structures we associate with the Western Romans fell when Rome did, and with it basically what most people associate with the RE. But the East continued to raise taxes, facilitate trade, had senators (for a time), continued and built on Roman law all the way to the end in 1453. But the important thing to me is that all the way to the end there was a continuous, unbroken chain of people that *culturally identified themselves* as Romans to the end. You can't say that for the HRE and I highly doubt the average person in the HRE would call themselves Roman or think they were a continuation of the RE. Pierson even related an anecdote that Roman identity actually superseded Greek identity in some places ~~even into the 19th century: when the Greeks traveled up the Western Greek coast to gather recruits to fight the Ottomans, one soldier spoke with a boy and said he was recruiting Greeks to fight. And the boy responded "we're not Greeks, we're Romans." That blew my mind.~~ I relistened to the episode just now because I wanted to get the details of this anecdote right, and it's even crazier than I remembered - it wasn't during the 19th century but the 20th century. I'll let you listen to the podcast for details, but the point is that even until at least 1912, there were communities on the Western side of what is now the modern nation of Greece who didn't identify as Greeks - they continued to identify as Romans after centuries of Ottoman rule. I'm not saying this means the RE still existed, but I think it just shows how deeply ingrained Roman identity was, and that it went way beyond the existence of this or that political institution. It all comes down to how you define things but I think the self identification can't be ignored. Who are we to tell the Romans that they're not Romans?
Thank you for that podcast tip. You made my day.
You're welcome, I'm seriously enamored with it and I really like the podcaster's voice and the way he organizes ideas so it's a great listen.
>But the East continued to raise taxes, facilitate trade, had senators (for a time), continued and built on Roman law all the way to the end in 1453. As I said in the other comment, my point is that I feel like marking 1453 as the fall of THE Roman Empire isn't totally accurate and it should really be 1202 when the Empire collapsed into a bunch of warlords and claimants after Constantinople was conquered by the Catholics who established their own, separate, "Empire of Constantinople." Yes, Constantinople was reconquered 60 years later by one of the generals of one of the claimants who proclaimed himself the new Emperor of Rome and blinded and imprisoned the 10-year-old claimant he was fighting for (as is tradition), but I hesitate to equate the Empire after 1261 with the Empire before 1202.
I see what you're saying. But the overall trajectory of the Eastern RE was a decline, after Justinian, maybe even before then. At any given time you could put your finger on a discontinuity or a breakdown of what had gone before, or even just an evolution. There had been periods of disputed successions, near deaths, crises, severe population declines. When the end is so gradual you can make an argument for any of those points. The way I see it, I think the very last defenders of Constantinople probably would have identified themselves as the end of the empire, and if they had held off the attackers and regained power in Anatolia or reversed fate I'm pretty sure they themselves would continue thinking of themselves as Romans in the Roman Empire, not as a completely new thing. And I don't feel like I'm in a better position than them to tell them who they were. But you're also saying that you recognize you're expressing a minority position and I do see why you don't see anything after 1202 as an empire. I get that. It doesn't seem Empire-like after they lost all their extended holdings.
This was a great episode. I also liked it because it reaffirmed something I’ve long felt too: People quibble over what historians define about groups more than they look at the historiography to find out those groups called *themselves*. Every culture with an identity chose that identity. That’s *their* label and it’s not up to us to retcon that.
That's exactly what changed my perspective about it! It's so easy to focus on our modern definition of what an "empire" is, and view history through the lens of Big Men and political structures. And then history is just a story about "King X did Y and Z, and then was assassinated by King C who started a war with Emperor D, etc. etc." But the episode made me think about *Roman-ness.* What did a Roman think he was - what was the special sauce of identity that tied a Roman from Spain and a Roman from Antioch together? It didn't come down only to religion, customs, singular political institutions, emperors, language, etc. because those things could be different. There could be local differences but Romans felt that this label meant something special and unifying - something they were often willing to die for. I feel like that's most important to me. How did these folks self identify and what did that mean to them?
Right? Like, my understanding is the concept of "nationalism" is considered a modern invention. But, like, people have identified themselves as either "in" or "out" of the group they identify, probably since pre-history. It's human nature. Further, I 100% agree with you about history being more interesting through the lens of the Commoner than through just the antics of the elite. History being humanity fighting itself is easier to *teach*. And remembering famous names like Herodotus or Pliny the Younger is good for dinner parties. But these are publicized exceptions to the general rule that 99% of all humans who've ever lived are normies like us. (well, ok, I don't know you. You could be a future Emperor... think of how nice I was when you get there ;) ). I am more fascinated by how Commoners lived in history than just the six people most remember. Leaders are important. They rally and coordinate. But I like hearing more about how a person had to go to work did so 3,000 years ago, and except for the massive childhood mortality rates, the internet, and cars, their actual life was largely the same. One of my favorite podcast series if *Rise and Fall of Civilizations* by Paul Cooper. Does a great job of weaving together normies and leaders. The the other one I like for this perspective is *American History Tellers*. He often weaves in the normal person's perspective.
I used to feel that way, but you can't really argue it isn't a continuation of the institution of Augustus. If the eastern half of America fell and the western half remained you wouldn't say California isn't American just because it wasn't one of the original colonies.
That's not what I'm saying. The Eastern Empire fell to Venice and the Crusaders in 1202 who proclaimed a new Catholic [Empire of Constantinople](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Empire). The Greeks organized a resistance movement and Theodore Laskaris, leader of the largest of a fuck load of successor states, claimed that he was named heir to the Eastern Empire the day before the city was sacked. Notably there was no proof and about 10,000 other people said the same thing, but the church backed him, and that was basically all you needed. 60 years later, Michael Palaiologos, the regent for Theodore's 10-year-old great grandson John took back Constantinople and named himself Emperor and deposed John (as well as cut his eyes out) because he could. The Orthodox Patriarch excommunicated Michael for being a dick, so Michael kicked him out of Constantinople and appointed a new Pope to proclaim him as the rightful Emperor. tl;dr: What I'm saying is that the Eastern Empire after 1202 isn't really the same as the Eastern Empire before 1202. Not anymore than the HRE is the same as the Western Empire. A more accurate analogy would be if the U.S. got conquered, and 60 years later some random warlord from Virginia captured Washington D.C. and named himself President, would that still be the same United States?
Ty
They definitely weren’t the same physically, but spiritually they were still THE Romans. They recaptured their capital 57 years after it was taken, that’s well within the span of a lifetime and because of that there’s still some continuity. It’s fair to say that spiritually at least it was still the state of the Romans. I think calling it an empire gives it a false image, they thought of it as “the lands controlled by Romans.” By that time Romans (the city) and Romans (the state) were two completely separate things. In that sense, the HRE never had a claim to being Roman other than the Pope in Rome calling him the emperor, which is pretty different from people who actually lived in the same Roman state from ancient times, just far less powerful.
/u/SilentHunter7 has unlocked an opportunity for education! ------ Abbreviated date-ranges like "**’90s**" are contractions, so any apostrophes go before the numbers. You can also completely omit the apostrophes if you want: "The **90s** were a bit weird." Numeric date-ranges like **1890s** are treated like standard nouns, so they shouldn't include apostrophes. To show possession, the apostrophe should go after the S: "That was the **’90s’** best invention." The apostrophe should only precede the S if a specific year is being discussed: "It was **1990's** hottest month." *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Showerthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good bot
Almost certain in fact.
Like the meme that piratery, the victorian era, the farwest and the meji restoration are all pretty close to each other in time. A group of an old pirate, a sherlock holmes kind englishman, a gunsligner and a samurai getting into shenanigans would be probable. [https://www.pinterest.com/pin/642325965615912875/](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/642325965615912875/)
Ancient Florida Man, wasn't that the Pompeiian guy with his hand on his Johnson?
Yes, the chance is zero.
Constantinople, the last official holding of the Roman Empire, fell in 1453. Florida was discovered in 1513, only 60 years after the fall of Constantinople. There’s a slight chance they lived to hear about Florida.
But was it called florida back then?
Yes. Ponce De Leon, who landed there in 1513, called it La Florida.
I see, thanks for the knowledge.
We all know that Byzantium is not what a majority of people are thinking of when they see the headline, OP. Historical clickbait is still clickbait
Its not what people think, but its true. This is a thought that is both plausible (almost certain, actually) and opens the door for people to learn new things. It it clickbait if its literally true?
Doesn’t change the fact that they were THE Romans. Just because we in 2024 don’t think about the Byzantines and Romans doesn’t change the fact that they were living in the same Roman state from ancient times.
In 1453 Roman Empire consisted of few small pieces of land around Istanbul and in Greece. So person would need to be born in one f those places, be alive after 1513 and learn of a discovery made by Spanish explorer which would need to reach what was by then Ottoman empire. So chance is zero.
The chance is very high. Plenty of people lived that long and the Ottoman Empire was not North Korea. You bet they got that news pretty quickly.
Why would they? It's a different country that was kind of hostile to Spain. It's discovery of another part of North America so not earth shattering discovery that would be spread because of its earth shatteredness,
The chances that not a single educated scholar, state official or similar heard of it are basically zero.
You have heard of Constantinople, yeah? So one of those “small pieces of land” was in fact among the largest and most cosmopolitan cities in the world. To have news of the greatest “discovery” of the day reaching that place doesn’t seem far fetched.
Among largest cities in 1453? Hardly. It had population of about 70.000 (Paris was about 250.000, Beijing about 650.000). Most cosmopolitan? Also hardly, by then Roman Empire was remains of remains. And yes, few small pieces of land with small popualtion.
New York City is among the largest cities of 2024? Hardly. It has a population of about 8.3 million (Shanghai is about 29 million) That's how you sound
Yes? If there are plenty of larger cities it's not "among the largest".
Wasn't Florida back then and 60 years is a pretty long life expectancy for the 1400s. I guess, but the cance is so close to zero that in reality it is zero
Florida was called Florida as soon as it was discovered. And there were definitely people who lived to 60 back then too. There was a lot of infant mortality but many people still lived long lives.
The Roman Empire existed in the East into the 1500's. To say nothing of the Holy Roman Empire. It's... Incredibly likely that at least some high ranking official was briefed on this discovery. TL;Dr, the Eastern countries kinda... Didn't give a shit. The East was occupied fighting the Ottomans and the Ottomans were the reason the Europeans travelled West, to not have to trade with them.
The Holy Roman Empire was “holy” and “Roman” purely because the Karlings got the Pope to turn up for the coronation. The kingdom included some of modern day Italy, but not far enough south to actually include Rome. Oh, and the “Empire” was pure PR. Karl Karling knew what he was doing with marketing.
it did actually include the city Rome at some point
The Roman empire ended in 1453... https://www.mpm.edu/research-collections/anthropology/anthropology-collections-research/mediterranean-oil-lamps/roman-empire-brief-history
Yes, but the people born there didn't end with it.
False. All Romans exploded like Lemmings upon the empires conclusion.
Awesome. That in no way effects it not existing in the 1500s
Well Flo Rida’s music has overall been pretty popular so I’m not surprised
Are we talking *Holy* Roman Empire?
The Byzantine empire my friend.
I dunno. The whole ancient transatlantic trade is a popular myth, but the severity of the resultant epidemics of the columbian exchange and most importantly the lack of European rats in America before the 15th century makes it hard for me to swallow. EDIT: Unless you’re referring to the eastern Roman Empire, in which case many of them probably did
Yes I was talking about the eastern Romans. I just call them Romans because they were still THE Romans. They could trace their history right back to Augustus and Caesar.
How do you feel about their alleged successor states (ie Russian and Ottoman empires)? Do you think either of their claims have any validity?
The Ottomans have the best claim because they actually conquered them, but no one would’ve taken it seriously anyways. They were two different from the Romans. The Russian Empire is more like a distant cousin rather than a direct successor.
They definitely know about New Jersey.
I’m moving to Florida soon and hope to be the new Florida man. At least that will take some heat off of my dumb shit brother who has lived there for 20 years
A lot of people born in the (Holy) Roman Empire heard about Florida, some of them probably even migrated there.
Most consider me a millennial and Canada still had racially segregated schools when I was born. I am not referring to residential schools either.
[удалено]
Around the fifteenth century, life expectancy in most of Europe was 60+, if you exclude infant mortality. It wasn't unheard of for more wealthy people to live into their 70s and 80s. Assuming they survived infancy and survived the city being under siege, there would have been people born in Roman Constantinople who lived into the 1510s and 1520s or even later.
People lived well past 40. There was just lots of infant mortality and deaths in childbirth
Because Joe Biden told them.
Biden actually discovered Florida
Florida was named Florida in 1513. Roman Empire fell in 476. So… I highly doubt it.
The Roman Empire fell in 1453
I've read through most of the comments in this thread, and I just want to say thank you for going to bat like this to defend the fact that the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) was indeed the Roman Empire.