[Quranic Reflection]: The universe is expanding

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The amount of lying and hypocrisy can be shown here from the mod. He name-calls me and lie about history when he confronted with the evidence from historical records.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Greeks

The Byzantine Greeks were the Greek-speaking Eastern Romans of Orthodox Christianity throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. They were the main inhabitants of the lands of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire), of Constantinople and Asia Minor (modern Turkey), the Greek islands, Cyprus, and portions of the southern Balkans, and formed large minorities, or pluralities, in the coastal urban centres of the Levant and northern Egypt. Throughout their history, the Byzantine Greeks self-identified as Romans (Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι, romanized: Rhōmaîoi), but are referred to as "Byzantine Greeks" in modern historiography. Latin speakers identified them simply as Greeks or with the term Romei.

In modern Byzantine scholarship, there are currently three main schools of thought on medieval eastern Roman identity.

    First, a school of thought that developed largely under the influence of modern Greek nationalism, treats Roman identity as the medieval form of a perennial Greek national identity. In this view, as heirs to the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Byzantines thought of themselves as Rhomaioi, or Romans, though they knew that they were ethnically Greeks.
    Second, which could be regarded as preponderant in the field considers "Romanity" the mode of self-identification of the subjects of a multi-ethnic empire at least up to the 12th century, where the average subject identified as Roman.
    Third, a line of thought argues that the eastern Roman identity was a separate pre-modern national identity.The established consensus in the field of Byzantine studies does not call into question the self-identification of the "Byzantines" as Romans.

Western perception
Further information: Liutprand of Cremona and Massacre of the Latins
The Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople, by Eugène Delacroix, 1840.

In the eyes of the West, after the coronation of Charlemagne, the Byzantines were not acknowledged as the inheritors of the Roman Empire. Byzantium was rather perceived to be a corrupted continuation of ancient Greece, and was often derided as the "Empire of the Greeks" or "Kingdom of Greece". Such denials of Byzantium's Roman heritage and ecumenical rights would instigate the first resentments between Greeks and "Latins" (for the Latin liturgical rite) or "Franks" (for Charlemegne's ethnicity), as they were called by the Greeks.

Oh, and someone self identifying as "Roman" does not make you roman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
....else, until 1453 there would have been two *roman empires*.  


Tl;dr: The Byzantine empire was a continuation of the Roman Empire, but was through and through greek in religion and ehnicity.


Only someone with a black-and-white view of the world, a completely distortet one, and so narrowminded as Atlas would post such BS as he did (again, like in almost any post of almost any thread he participates in).

This is so clearly the case that it boggles me that Winter rejects it (though it shouldn’t). Throughout Roman history, subjugated people and Roman allies self-styled as ‘Roman’, but in context, this meant ‘legally Roman’ or ‘part of the Roman world’. Germans, for example, didn’t stop being Germans just because the various tribes got pounded into submission by Roman legions. They might have thought of themselves as Romans- in the sense mentioned above - and even been proud to do so (especially after the Caracalla debacle in the 3rd century CE), but they never stopped being Germans.

‘Just because your cat has kittens in the oven doesn’t make them biscuits.’ - Lincoln

Boru