ooh she replied!
Yesterday I posted a comment that I sent to an ok cupid user about her european history test. Well apparently she didn't care for my input and she sent me a reply! So for those of you you who care, here it is and my response.
That was the Holy Roman Empire, which was far more Germanic than Mediterranean. It is not the same, nor should it be construed as the same. Hence why historians and the people themselves of these empires distinguished them with different names. The Roman Empire ended and split into the western remains, the Holy Roman Empire, and the eastern Byzantine Empire, as I'm sure you already know. Though Nepos was the last recognized and useful emperor of the ancient and true Roman Empire, Romulus Augustus was the one that had to flee and was the final, crowned emperor.
These should all be facts of which you are aware, and I find your haughtiness unwarranted and very pretentious.
It was almost enough to make me fall out of my chair laughing when she tried to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about but at the same time she doesn't understand how the roman, byzantine, and holy roman empires all came about. I still don't think she knows who julius nepos is, but here's my reply.
I'm afraid you've mixed up your roman empires. I wasn't refering to the sham that was the holy roman empire. as the saying goes, the holy roman empire was neither holy nor roman. The holy roman empire only came about because the pope decided to call the king of the franks the holy roman emperor. this is going offtrack and I only mention it because you mentioned the h.r.e.
Back to the point. Though Constantine divided the empire into halves, both were still roman. How did one half remain roman and one become foreign? Fact is they were both roman, they just had two emperors because the country was too large for one emperor to govern. When the west fell the east remained roman. If half of the united states was conquered by canada, the other remaining half would still be called the united states and this is exactly what happened. As a matter of fact, the term 'byzantine' would be foreign to anyone who lived with the borders of the 'byzantine empire' they refered to themselves as romans. In Greece today one can find that a rarely used folk name for the people of Greece is 'rhomanoi' which is of course, greek for roman.
romulus augustus was installed as emperor illegally and he had no effect being that he was only a child and his barbarian father was the real power behind the throne.
by the way, the reason historians call the east byzantine and the west roman is because of the personal agendas of old historians. everyone from edward gibbon to montesquieu had an idealized view of the ancient roman empire while its medieval counterpart drew their ire as decadent and weak. This couldn't be farther from the truth as the romans(byzantines) were the closest thing the world had to a military superpower in their own time. But those people are responsible for people today not knowing that the byzantine empire is actually the same nation as the roman empire and it's a travesty. The proud nation of the romans remained in place until mehmed ii led his army of turks into the greatest european city while the western europeans twiddled their thumbs. put simply, the country of the byzantines was called 'romania' not 'the eastern roman empire' or 'the byzantine empire.'
now as a history book writer, these are facts *you* should be aware of. this is nothing personal but it is very important to me that people understand the truth about the 'byzantines' and when people perpetuate these untruths as historical fact we all lose.
>>ancient and true Roman Empire
by the way, you sound just like gibbon and montesquieu, revisionist historians with their own agenda. alexios I komnenos was just as roman as tiberius caesar.
That was the Holy Roman Empire, which was far more Germanic than Mediterranean. It is not the same, nor should it be construed as the same. Hence why historians and the people themselves of these empires distinguished them with different names. The Roman Empire ended and split into the western remains, the Holy Roman Empire, and the eastern Byzantine Empire, as I'm sure you already know. Though Nepos was the last recognized and useful emperor of the ancient and true Roman Empire, Romulus Augustus was the one that had to flee and was the final, crowned emperor.
These should all be facts of which you are aware, and I find your haughtiness unwarranted and very pretentious.
It was almost enough to make me fall out of my chair laughing when she tried to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about but at the same time she doesn't understand how the roman, byzantine, and holy roman empires all came about. I still don't think she knows who julius nepos is, but here's my reply.
I'm afraid you've mixed up your roman empires. I wasn't refering to the sham that was the holy roman empire. as the saying goes, the holy roman empire was neither holy nor roman. The holy roman empire only came about because the pope decided to call the king of the franks the holy roman emperor. this is going offtrack and I only mention it because you mentioned the h.r.e.
Back to the point. Though Constantine divided the empire into halves, both were still roman. How did one half remain roman and one become foreign? Fact is they were both roman, they just had two emperors because the country was too large for one emperor to govern. When the west fell the east remained roman. If half of the united states was conquered by canada, the other remaining half would still be called the united states and this is exactly what happened. As a matter of fact, the term 'byzantine' would be foreign to anyone who lived with the borders of the 'byzantine empire' they refered to themselves as romans. In Greece today one can find that a rarely used folk name for the people of Greece is 'rhomanoi' which is of course, greek for roman.
romulus augustus was installed as emperor illegally and he had no effect being that he was only a child and his barbarian father was the real power behind the throne.
by the way, the reason historians call the east byzantine and the west roman is because of the personal agendas of old historians. everyone from edward gibbon to montesquieu had an idealized view of the ancient roman empire while its medieval counterpart drew their ire as decadent and weak. This couldn't be farther from the truth as the romans(byzantines) were the closest thing the world had to a military superpower in their own time. But those people are responsible for people today not knowing that the byzantine empire is actually the same nation as the roman empire and it's a travesty. The proud nation of the romans remained in place until mehmed ii led his army of turks into the greatest european city while the western europeans twiddled their thumbs. put simply, the country of the byzantines was called 'romania' not 'the eastern roman empire' or 'the byzantine empire.'
now as a history book writer, these are facts *you* should be aware of. this is nothing personal but it is very important to me that people understand the truth about the 'byzantines' and when people perpetuate these untruths as historical fact we all lose.
>>ancient and true Roman Empire
by the way, you sound just like gibbon and montesquieu, revisionist historians with their own agenda. alexios I komnenos was just as roman as tiberius caesar.