Yes, yes, I know that the middle flag was never the Byzantine flag, but it's the most recognisable as such, so I'm going with it.
Ah, the Roman Empire, just sitting as a unified state, until Diocletian had to go and split it in half in 284 AD. With the Western half ruled from Rome, and the Eastern half ruled from Byzantium, we're left with the question of whether the Eastern Roman Empire was a Roman state or a Greek state. Obviously in its beginnings, the Eastern Roman Empire was Roman, but as time progressed, the question remains about whether the Eastern Roman Empire remained a Roman state, or was it Roman in name only. Obviously, it had both Roman and Greek influences, but the question is whether it was a Greek state or a Roman state
Arguments for Rome
The Eastern Roman Empire was the successor of the Western Roman Empire. The entire was referred to as the "Eastern Roman Empire", and its citizens, Romans, for the entirety of its existence. The term "Byzantine" didn't even exist till a century after the city's fall. Nobody conquered the Eastern Roman Empire until the Ottoman Conquest and the subsequent fall of Constantinople, and thus, the Eastern Roman Empire remained the undisrupted descendant of the Roman Empire. It was Roman from its founding to its fall in 1453 AD. Further, if I'm not mistaking, Byzantine held onto the Roman legal system, and held onto everything else that Rome did. And whilst the Eastern half of the Empire was very Greek, Rome loved the Greeks, and Rome was extremely inspired by Greece, in and of herself, so setting up a culturally Greek state wasn't too much of a stretch
Arguments for Greece
The Eastern Roman Empire was culturally, and linguistically Greek. The Byzantine Empire stood for almost a millennium after the fall of the Roman Empire. As the Roman Empire was very Rome-centric, it would be hard to imagine a Roman state without Rome. Further, considering that the Western Half of the Empire, the cultural heart of the empire was gone, could the Eastern half really be considered the same empire? I mean, the Eastern half did last for almost a thousand years after the fall of the West, and the split happened for nearly a century before the fall of the West. That's a very long time. That's more than enough for the East to abandon its Roman-ness and become Greek, which was sort of the case. Further, after a while, the emperors who controlled Byzantium. Further, the entire was centred around Constantinople. Constantinople was always a Greek city, from its foundation as Byzantium. Constantine didn't build Constantinople, he merely made it bigger. Even then, Constantinople remained culturally and linguistically Greek. Aside from the Greek influences, the Eastern Roman Empire was very culturally different from the West. She was more cosmopolitan and urban, where as the West was more rural. And let's not even mention the religious differences between the two, post Great Schism. And Byzantine's rump state was undeniably Greek
My Conclusion
Whilst the Byzantine Empire was technically Roman, and I would technically call it Roman by every regard of the word, I also consider the Greek claim to the empire as legitimate, and would also state that Greeks can also legitimately claim it as theirs. I'm a little on the fence about this one. I'll swing toward Greek state, mainly because of how Roman-centric the Roman Empire was, and Byzantine continued till well after the fall of Rome, and because of how culturally and linguistically Greek it was
Your Opinion
This is the part you fill in
What do you think? Byzantine, Roman or Greek?Questions
Why do we have to pick sides, why can't we say "both?"- Because that's the easy way out. Considering that most of us would agree that Byzantine was both Greek and Roman, this would lead to a very monotonous discussion. Fence-sitting is the easy out, you have to choose a side. Okay, okay, fine. You can sit on the fence, as long you have to choose a side to dangle your feet on. Happy?
