"Are Byzantines Romans?" Topic

I just had to break in the new board. So I decided to start this topic. On the "con" side of the question a few statements about the "Byzantine" Empire. They only controlled Rome for a very brief time, and they never ruled from there. They abandoned Latin as the language of the state. They didn't hold gladiatorial games. They had female "emperors". I know that they always considered themselves "Roman", but were they actually? The Crusaders always referred to them as "Greeks". What are your thoughts?

They identified as Romans.
And they NEVER identified as Byzantines.

What John said. Byzantines are a made up thing.

They are Romans.

And at some point they started speaking Greek instead of Latin, although apparently their orders and commands remained in Latin.

They called themselves Romanoi. So yes.

Apparently, the term "Byzantine Empire" was invented ~1540(?), after the final fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, by a German philosopher named Hieronymus Wolf.
It was meant as a pejorative.
Look it up! It's in all the interwebs!

So why do we call it the Byzantine Empire in discussion, podcasts, YouTube Videos, books, classes, games, rules lists, etc.? Have we caved to the whims of an old 15th century German philosopher? Why not the "Roman Empire" or even "The Eastern Roman Empire"? "Really Late Romans"? "The Eastern Medieval Continuation of the old Roman Empire"? "Basilea ton Rhomaion"?

We've been hijacked by the clique!

1. As most said above, yes, the "Byzantine Empire" is the direct descendant of the Roman Empire, and always considered themselves "Roman."

2. Since, as you mentioned, there were significant departures in all aspects of Byzantium's governance, military and social structures from both the Republic and Principate, historians needed to clearly pick out that change-hence the name change.

3. Nonetheless, its no different that saying the US is no longer "colonial America," but clearly the US today, although a significantly different nation in all respects than from 1800, is still the "United States."
England is still England, well over 1500 years after the term first began to appear…but it's clearly not the same, either…..you catch my drift.

"Byzantine" is now an established term of convenience and it's pretty well understood by most as to whom it refers. What would we change it to now, and would it be worth the fuss and bother and confusion? "Keltoi" was applied to various European peoples by the Greeks but they never called themselves that in the olden days.

That said, there's a valid view that Justinian might have been the last true "Roman" emperor (or at least the last great one) and had his conquests remained intact, who knows what might have happened later?

Heraclius' reign seems to mark a true cultural, linguistic, and political shift into a reduced state that had made a significant break from the old Eastern Roman Empire. As good a start of the "Byzantine Empire" as any I suppose.

They called themselves Romanoi. So yes.

Small correction, it should be Rhōmaioi for the people, and Rhomanía (Romanland) for the state.