Most militarily successful nation?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

He is asking you to source your claims. That is not an unreasonable request. If you provided sources, maybe you could backup your argument and change some opinions.

For example, if I wanted to state "the Western Roman army deserted upon the death of Aetius in 454 A.D." Few people would take that as face value. I'd have to back it up, for example with the Given Translation of Priscus via John of Antioch fr. 259 on Page 127 of Given's Translation (his fr. 69 of Priscus), and his second fragment again preserved through John of Antioch (fr. 71). And then I'd have to provide my interpretation: fr. 69 states Aetius was "General of the legions" when discussing his death in 454, and fr. 71 states that Gaiseric noted Petronius Maximus had "no noteworthy forces" at his disposal when he invaded Italy in 455 and sacked Rome.

I think that effectively conveys my point, although granted I'm working with far more limited sources than a 15th or 16th century historian would. Such extent of interpretation may therefore not be necessary. Providing sources makes an argument legitimate.

[Garbarsardar]

I strongly suggest to all and sunder to source your claims, exactly as Magister Militum Flavius Aetius points out . That will, in turn, hopefully reduce the amount of bickering and will give a life support to this thread which is in grave danger to be closed.

[Forredman]

Even if what you said is true. They still showed more effort to prove their Turkishness. Non ethnic self denifition must be "Rumi" not Rum. As far as I know "Rum" always used for Greek speakers from start till end. And Rumi was still a largely geophraphy based term. Just like Khorasani, Shirvani etc. Those were geopghraphical definitions evolved into some kind of cultural level. Im sure neither Rumi(Celaleddin) himself or his followers considered him "Roman".

If that Portuguese story is valid. This is the summary; Dude was simply not an ethnic Turk(most navy people were probably not). If I was a Turk from Black Sea region amd everyone kept calling me Laz because the region is associated with Laz, then I would be pissed too(Black Ses Turks already do).

Also, I remember very well that Murad I had the Khan title on his coins.

And the Byzantines put more effort in emphasizing their Greekness.

[Forredman]

I enjoy teasing my Hellenic friends by provocatively suggesting the Ottomans were a Roman successor state but I admit I go to far: the Osmanli state definitely continues Roman traditions but is identified closely with Islam (a pre-existing religion with a strong political tradition that sits distinct from Christian Roman rule) and the tradition of Turkic conqueror states that once again develop outside and alongside Christian Roman rule.To baldly state "Ottomans were Romans" does not fit the facts. The Ottomans conquered the Romans.

Christian Rome? Greek Christianity was distinctly opposed to Latin Christianity. By this logic, the Byzantine Empire is disqualified.

[Forredman]

The Romans certainly believed that chainmail was a Celtic invention. However, as I recall it appeared quite early in the steppes as well, it could have theoretically been invented in the steppes or in Dacia, and passed to the Celts (and from the Celts to the Romans). We just don't know for certain where the technology first emerged.

As to the West vs East Empire, debate, what do you mean the "East didn't protect the West from barbarian incursions"? The Eastern Empire was likewise subject to several barbarian incursions (and the Eastern military was likewise fairly "barbarised", although in this case the said "barbarians" didn't seek to form independent realms, only to hold power within the existing political structure), and served as the bulwark against Sassanid Persia, which was the strongest single nation that the Romans had to face. The Western Empire could hardly expect the Eastern half to take care of their problems, especially since the Eastern Empire wasn't in a position do so back then.

I agree. The Roman Empire couldn't depend on the Byzantines to defend them and it wasn't the Byzantines responsibiliy to defend them. After all, these were independent countries. If Russia had conquered Hungary even while it was weakening, that the Austrians would accept it without a peep? What unified country would accept such a thing without a struggle against an inferior enemy?

[Forredman]

Who are these "Easterners"? That's a relative term I think showing a Western European bias. The subjects of the Basileia ton Rhomaion called themselves Romaioi, as did contemporary "Westerners". Occasionally a papal delegate or villainous Frankish robber baron might call them "Graeci" but that was considered an insult and was not a widely accepted identity, ethnic or otherwise. I believe by the 19th century a backformation term Graiki or something of the sort had appeared as an ethonym in Hellas but that postdates our period.

When Virgil was born in 70 BC Italia (a geographic term for an administrative area) did not included Cisalpine Gaul. Yes it was Latinised, of course it was Latinised, it was a Roman province and the developing Roman ethnic identity was based firmly around Latin. It was in no way Italianised. Italian and Roman and Latin are not synonyms. Italia was an administrative and recruitment area.

Virgils use of the term "Italian" is likely consonant with Herodotus' use of the term "Peloponnesian" when describing the troops of the Spartan alliance. There was not a "Peloponnesian" ethnic identity or even sub identity (they included Dorians Achaeans and Aeolians), it was a convenient term for a body of soldiers of common geographic origin.

Nonsense, Italia was ethnically mixed, including Illyrian Hellenic and Oscan culture as well as imported Latin cultural elements. You do realise Hellenic dialects were spoken in Calabria and other parts of Italia continuously from Hellenic settlement (before Roma even existed) up until the formation of the modern Italian state? Italia was never culturally homogenous, although arguably in the 20th-21st century the national education system has finally Italianised the Hellenes of Italia.

Of course Romans considered themselves from Italia, they applied the term to their region: it was not an ethnic term. The first to use the word were AFAIK Hellenes and it is pretty clear the Romans adopted the term (as they did so much of their culture) from adjacent Hellenic city states.

We know Hellenes used it in writing before the Romans did (in Herodotus, I forget if there are earlier inscriptions?), and it is likely either Hellenic or a loan word adapted by them. We do know it is not Latin.

The Italians of Italia include the Hellenes of Italia. It also includes Oscans, Illyrians, and Latin or Latinised colonists.

Hellenes were ethnically unified by an Hellenic language, religious system and other cultural features. To deny an Hellenic ethnic identity when it is the first to self consciously identify as such is unsupportable.

Your argument is because Hellenes had a word for identifying their own and others ethnicity because they did not have an ethnic identity?

If you are referring to the Latin word natio it is preceded in literature by the term ethnos by some centuries. Consciousness of and pride in ones ethnic identity emerges probably during the Persian wars in Hellas, when Roma may not have digested its Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan influences into a coherent national culture. Any sense of a Roman identity vs folk outside Italia comes in the Punic wars at the earliest.

On an anonymous chat site we can assume a basic level of common knowledge on the subject, and as we are already online we can easily look up references fro ourselves. For example it took me less than ten seconds to confirm my recollection that Virgil was Latin and Roman but not Italian.

I assume you are familiar with Herodotus and can find for yourself references therein to Italiots, Peloponnesians and other relevant items.

So repetitive.

1) Give me a credible historian source that states Virgil wasn't Italian and didn't consider himself Italian.

2) Oscans are Italic first of all. Calabria and Sicily weren't part of Italy as defined by the early Romans. Anyone with any understanding of the subject knows that. As these areas were Italianized they were gradually accepted into the region defined as Italy. Also, it's hilarious that you'd try to argue that ethnic diversity precludes the formation of an Italian identity given the fact that the Byzantine Empire was by far more diverse.

3) Italians shared a language, religion and cultural institutions.

4) Yes, Greek unity was created against the Persian and Italian unity was created agains the Carthaginians. It's only natural since Greece was a far smaller and older region. Of course, unlike Italy this didn't translate into Unification.

5) The idea that Calabrians and Sicilians have been Greek up until the 20th century is completely stupid. They weren't even Greek in the Ancient world. These places had mixed communities on a far smaller scale than the Byzantine Empire. Phoenicians, Greeks and Italians lived there.

[Charerg]

Christian Rome? Greek Christianity was distinctly opposed to Latin Christianity. By this logic, the Byzantine Empire is disqualified.

There is no "Greek Christianity" or "Latin Christianity". The state religion of the Late Roman Empire was essentially "Orthodox Christianity", for the lack of a better term. The division to Catholic and Orthodox branches occurred much later, so I'm simply using the term to refer to the state religion of the Roman Empire.

[neoptolemos]

There is no "Greek Christianity" or "Latin Christianity". The state religion of the Late Roman Empire was essentially "Orthodox Christianity", for the lack of a better term. The division to Catholic and Orthodox branches occurred much later, so I'm simply using the term to refer to the state religion of the Roman Empire.

Indeed, the Roman christian church was a state religion adopted by the Roman state from the existed christian structures which the Roman state enhanced and in some cases set like the ecumenical synods. The schism was mostly a political deed on which some minor differences were added to make it look as "dogmatic" as it could get. In essense the two churches have more in common than differences.

[Forredman]

There is no "Greek Christianity" or "Latin Christianity". The state religion of the Late Roman Empire was essentially "Orthodox Christianity", for the lack of a better term. The division to Catholic and Orthodox branches occurred much later, so I'm simply using the term to refer to the state religion of the Roman Empire.

That's simply incorrect. As for the Schism, the Rome had seniority so Orthodox Christianity would be the offshoot.

Now if you want to argue that before the fall they shared the same religion as Catholics and that the separation led to a gradual separation, that's fair. However, the fact that the Ottomans were Islamic should not preclude them from being Roman seeing as Christianity was originally a small cult religion derived from Judaism. Both Christians and Jews were persecuted by the Romans.

[Spear Dog]

As for the Schism, the Rome had seniority so Orthodox Christianity would be the offshoot.

No. Rome was Constantinople when Christianity was adopted as the state religion. It is an extremely famous moment in history and there is a timeline involved from that point forward from which, eventually, all Christianity emerges. This includes the determination of doctrine and scripture. The Patriarch of Constantinople was the head of the Church and the Emperor in Constantinople included the titled ' First among the Apostles'. Eastern orthodox Christianity, such as Greek and Coptic trace an unbroken history from this time. The Church in Rome is clearly a later development and is the schism. Don't know how you missed it really, perhaps a definition of the word 'orthodox' will help.

[Cyclops]

So repetitive.

1) Give me a credible historian source that states Virgil wasn't Italian and didn't consider himself Italian.

2) Oscans are Italic first of all. Calabria and Sicily weren't part of Italy as defined by the early Romans. Anyone with any understanding of the subject knows that. As these areas were Italianized they were gradually accepted into the region defined as Italy. Also, it's hilarious that you'd try to argue that ethnic diversity precludes the formation of an Italian identity given the fact that the Byzantine Empire was by far more diverse.

3) Italians shared a language, religion and cultural institutions.

4) Yes, Greek unity was created against the Persian and Italian unity was created agains the Carthaginians. It's only natural since Greece was a far smaller and older region. Of course, unlike Italy this didn't translate into Unification.

5) The idea that Calabrians and Sicilians have been Greek up until the 20th century is completely stupid. They weren't even Greek in the Ancient world. These places had mixed communities on a far smaller scale than the Byzantine Empire. Phoenicians, Greeks and Italians lived there.

I'm sorry old chap but there's not really any basis for our discussion. I'm happy to agree to disagree but I can't see any merit in your position or your presentation.

[Forredman]

No. Rome was Constantinople when Christianity was adopted as the state religion. It is an extremely famous moment in history and there is a timeline involved from that point forward from which, eventually, all Christianity emerges. This includes the determination of doctrine and scripture. The Patriarch of Constantinople was the head of the Church and the Emperor in Constantinople included the titled ' First among the Apostles'. Eastern orthodox Christianity, such as Greek and Coptic trace an unbroken history from this time. The Church in Rome is clearly a later development and is the schism. Don't know how you missed it really, perhaps a definition of the word 'orthodox' will help.

It's always frustrating when people come in and speak so authoritativel on subjects they clearly have a weak undrstanding of.

1) Constantinople didn't become Rome. It was certainly one of the capitals, but Rome continued to exist.

2) The Patriarchs had their rootsin the 1st Century which is why Catholics (the Universal Church) believe that their first Pope was Peter. At that time, Constantinople was relatively inifnificant while Rome was the beating heart and soul of the Empire. Ultimately, there were 5 patriarchs. It began with Rome, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Antioch joined later. Constantinople really came to prominence in the 4th Century and grew in importance while Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch all eventually fell to Islam. Eventually it surpassed all Eastern churches in sigificance, but was still recognized as junior to the Roman church.

3) Yes. Orthodox means the right belief. If you knew anything about religion it might look suspiciousto you. The protestants are called protestants becaus they left the Universal Church in protest. The Rhight Belief church is called the Right Belief church because they broke from the Universal Church just like the Protestants. Both the Orthodox and the Protestant movements were invented in oposition to the senior Christian Church. The Christian Church in Rome.

[Spear Dog]

^ too off topic, I'm not going to reply. Be frustrated, it's a good condiment for dogmatic confusion - there's a difference between a religious cult and an Institutional Church.

[Forredman]

I'm sorry old chap but there's not really any basis for our discussion. I'm happy to agree to disagree but I can't see any merit in your position or your presentation.

Fair enough. I'm glad that I don't have to do this anymore. You just go on beleiving what you want and I'll stick to the historical record.

[Forredman]

^ too off topic, I'm not going to reply. Be frustrated, it's a good condiment for dogmatic confusion - there's a difference between a religious cult and an Institutional Church.

When I referred to Christianity as a cult, I was looking at it from the perspective of an Ancient Romen before Rome became Christian. If you're a Christian, I'd like you to know that I apologize. I didn't mean to offend you.