Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Is it in the same area? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a historian who studies history, I am telling you, specifically, in history, no one calls the eastern roman empire byzantium. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "roman empire" you're referring to the entire empire, which includes things from the western empire to the eastern empire to the tetrarchs.
Also, calling eastern rome the heir to the roman empire or the eastern roman empire? It's not one or the other, that's not how history works. They're both. Eastern rome is eastern rome and a member of the roman empire. But that's not what you said. You said eastern rome is byzantium, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all roman institutions byzantium, which means you'd call ab urbe condita, roman kingships, and the republic, byzantium too. Which you said you don't.
/> フ
| _ _ l
/` ミ_xノ
/ |
/ ヽ ノ
│ | | |
/ ̄| | | |
| ( ̄ヽ__ヽ_)__)
\二つ