When did the Roman Empire fall? page 1

oblivion

11th January 2012, 08:10 PM

What time period would you choose for the fall of the Roman Empire, and why?

nostrum

12th January 2012, 03:37 AM

Hmm C500AD because I vaguely recall someone telling me so. I never studied history :o

What time period would you choose and why?

oblivion

12th January 2012, 05:05 AM

Probably the time of the fourth crusade.

Magicziggy

13th January 2012, 12:13 PM

I consulted widely
I still don't know...
HORRIBLE HISTORIES - The Roman Report with Bob Hale - YouTube

charlou

13th January 2012, 01:48 PM

There isn't a definable moment, is there? It just kinda crumbled ...

DaveD

13th January 2012, 08:29 PM

The sooner it ends the better.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r107/DaveD_05/ForumVarious/EmperorBenny.jpg

Hermit

13th January 2012, 11:53 PM

What time period would you choose for the fall of the Roman Empire, and why?Which one?

oblivion

13th January 2012, 11:59 PM

What time period would you choose for the fall of the Roman Empire, and why?Which one?
that's an interesting question. which one was the real one?

Hermit

14th January 2012, 12:31 AM

What time period would you choose for the fall of the Roman Empire, and why?Which one?
that's an interesting question. which one was the real one?Perhaps both? Moving along that line of thought, can we even see a resemblance between the empire under Octavian and that of Romulus Augustus, let alone between the former and the entity that was finally pushed over by the Ottomans in the fifteenth century? I mean, it doesn't even look like the same river any more, but where do you draw a line of demarcation? Sometimes concepts meant to define something can only be made less nebulous by decisions that are in the final analysis quite arbitrary.

Grumps

16th January 2012, 04:42 AM

I call the Ides of March. It was that singular action which set the foundations for the birth of the Emperor (No, rly, as Caesar never intended power to be hereditary, despite the claims of Octavius and Antony), and it was the death of an Emperor that sundered the empire in two (A false claim, once again, of inheritance by the church). As you all know, that didn't turn out too well. Rome eventually turned on itself, East vs West, and then half of it completely collapsed.

Don't expect anything better than that. History is not my strong point.

Jerome

16th January 2012, 04:44 AM

What time period would you choose for the fall of the Roman Empire, and why?

December 23, 1913

This gave the ability to the elite to consume the worker.

oblivion

16th January 2012, 01:32 PM

What time period would you choose for the fall of the Roman Empire, and why?Which one?
that's an interesting question. which one was the real one?Perhaps both? Moving along that line of thought, can we even see a resemblance between the empire under Octavian and that of Romulus Augustus, let alone between the former and the entity that was finally pushed over by the Ottomans in the fifteenth century? I mean, it doesn't even look like the same river any more, but where do you draw a line of demarcation? Sometimes concepts meant to define something can only be made less nebulous by decisions that are in the final analysis quite arbitrary.
Yeah, I think both east and west were real. And the eastern empire maintained cohesiveness long after the western empire had imploded. You can make an argument for the 15th century, but it's hard to recognize any Roman Empire in what the Ottomans took over.

Maybe the same argument can be made of the early 13th Century as well.

Hermit

16th January 2012, 02:14 PM

What time period would you choose for the fall of the Roman Empire, and why?Which one?
that's an interesting question. which one was the real one?Perhaps both? Moving along that line of thought, can we even see a resemblance between the empire under Octavian and that of Romulus Augustus, let alone between the former and the entity that was finally pushed over by the Ottomans in the fifteenth century? I mean, it doesn't even look like the same river any more, but where do you draw a line of demarcation? Sometimes concepts meant to define something can only be made less nebulous by decisions that are in the final analysis quite arbitrary.
Yeah, I think both east and west were real. And the eastern empire maintained cohesiveness long after the western empire had imploded. You can make an argument for the 15th century, but it's hard to recognize any Roman Empire in what the Ottomans took over.

Maybe the same argument can be made of the early 13th Century as well.
I replaced the handle, my brother replaced the head, but it's still grandfather's axe.

ConvolutedLogic

16th January 2012, 04:05 PM

oblivion wrote:-

Yeah, I think both east and west were real. And the eastern empire maintained cohesiveness long after the western empire had imploded. You can make an argument for the 15th century, but it's hard to recognize any Roman Empire in what the Ottomans took over.

Maybe the same argument can be made of the early 13th Century as well.

So the Ottomans completely reinvented the wheel? They didn't take over existing devices of government or laws? :hmmm:

oblivion

16th January 2012, 04:13 PM

oblivion wrote:-

Yeah, I think both east and west were real. And the eastern empire maintained cohesiveness long after the western empire had imploded. You can make an argument for the 15th century, but it's hard to recognize any Roman Empire in what the Ottomans took over.

Maybe the same argument can be made of the early 13th Century as well. So the Ottomans completely reinvented the wheel? They didn't take over existing devices of government or laws? :hmmm:
That's not what I meant. Sorry I wasn't more clear. Long before the Ottoman empire, the continuity was broken or at least nibbled to death. There was a somewhat unbroken line of succession/rule from the Ides of March, but the devices of government and laws weren't significantly more "Roman" than some of the 15th century redux fragments of the Western empire.

ConvolutedLogic

17th January 2012, 05:07 AM

oblivion wrote:-

Yeah, I think both east and west were real. And the eastern empire maintained cohesiveness long after the western empire had imploded. You can make an argument for the 15th century, but it's hard to recognize any Roman Empire in what the Ottomans took over.

Maybe the same argument can be made of the early 13th Century as well. So the Ottomans completely reinvented the wheel? They didn't take over existing devices of government or laws? :hmmm:
That's not what I meant. Sorry I wasn't more clear. Long before the Ottoman empire, the continuity was broken or at least nibbled to death. There was a somewhat unbroken line of succession/rule from the Ides of March, but the devices of government and laws weren't significantly more "Roman" than some of the 15th century redux fragments of the Western empire.

Tanks. Me dumb about the Roman stuff. I did medieval and modern history mostly. :beercheers:

Nixon

20th January 2012, 10:59 PM

It never fell according to messages beamed directly into Philip K. Dick's head by St. Paul using a pink laser. About a year ago I read David Ewing Duncan's The Calendar (a history of the same) followed almost immediately by an episode of Kenneth Clarke's Civilisation covering roughly the same period, the transition from Roman to Roman Christianity to Holy Roman Empire. My understanding is that oddly, Philip K. Dick was sort of right.

queenb

20th January 2012, 10:59 PM

It fell when pizza was attributed to Italy

MSG

20th January 2012, 11:03 PM

6 August 1806 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire)

Clinton Huxley

2nd February 2012, 02:57 PM

It's still going. The EU is the Roman Empire.

nick

2nd February 2012, 03:52 PM

Depends on the player. You can side with NCR or an independent New Vegas. I didn't, I supported Caesar's Legion.

Teshi

6th February 2012, 02:06 PM

Depends on the player. You can side with NCR or an independent New Vegas. I didn't, I supported Caesar's Legion.

I supported an independent New Vegas...with me at the helm :smug:

senor boogie woogie

8th February 2012, 08:05 AM

Hello everyone!

senor boogie woogie

8th February 2012, 09:38 AM

Hello, this is my first post here!

I have always enjoyed history, and this was one class in school that I excelled at, and one of the few I actually enjoyed.

Funny to read this, because I have very recently rewatched "I, Claudius", a wonderful BBC 12 part mini series that was about the life of the fourth emperor, Claudius (actually the First, Claudius II was another Emperor of the 3rd Century). I loved that series and I was totally gripped with it, the same I was when I watched it on PBS when I was a child. It is actually a mostly accurate telling of history, with some soap opera elements.

Now, back to WHEN the Roman Empire fell. This is not something that can be easily pinpointed.

In the 3rd Century (285 AD) under an Emperor named Diocletian basically cut the empire into two halves, a western half and an eastern half. Diocletian set up a system of governance that allowed four people to be co-Emperors. This system was called a Tetarchy. It was thought that this system would make governance easier, and help shore up the Roamn Empire which nearly fell in the 3rd Century due to many factors, economics, the military, overpopulation, welfare, basically a shaky, corrupt government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarchy)

Although, Diocletian did a lot of good fixing the short term problems of the Empire sturcture, Tetarchy failed. After Diocletian died, Tetarchy fell apart completely. Out of this mess came a leader named Constatine who became the first "Christian" Emperor. He started to mark the end of the old pagan religion to be replaced by Christianity, which was a 180 degree reverse from Diocletian's persecutions. Most historians think that Constantine was someone who wanted to bring the Christians into the government, and he could see that they were the future of the Empire and more or less Europe themselves and it is best to keep them happy rather than to be overthrown for someone else.

After Constatine died, there was only one more Pagan Emperor and he only lasted around two years or so. Later early 5th Century Emperors actually made the old paganism illegal and the temples closed and destroyed, which included the House of the Vestel Virgins and the closing of the Games. Over these times also, the tribes of Northern Europe and tribes from Russia and even Central Asia moved across into Europe and into the Roman Empire. Why this happened can be found in Wikipedia or wherever. They were poor and lived in huts in a cold climate. People move somewhere where they can live the best quality of life. For whatever reason, where they came from was doing it for them anymore.

Some of the new peoples assimilated, but others wanted to conquer Roma and pillage it and they finally did so. It was a gradual thing over time, which took place over a span of a century. The country became less Roman and became more "diversified". The old Roman Empire of Augustus was no more on any level. However, it isn't like the whole of Rome was destroyed and replaced with crazy naked blue guys eating babies and yelling "booga booga!", basically there was a government, and a successor state. The end of the Western Kingdom is said to be in 476 AD.

Sort of imagine the United States, and then the half east of the Mississippi fell due to an enemy or civil wars and was now a succession of independent, non cohesive nation states, while the USA west of the river was OK and doing well. Denver becomes the new Capitol and life goes on, trying to forge relationships and allies of people east of the river. Now flip east and west together in Europe in the 3rd-5th Century and about the same thing happened. The Roman Capitol was moved to Canstantinople, which is now the modern city of Instanbul. This new Greco-Roman Empire did much better than the West at keeping invaders at bay and being more successful and secure. A famous 6th Century Emporer named Justinian I actually reconquered Rome for a time and reunited the Empire. Some historians call the Eastern Roman Empire the Byzantine Empire instead, which is not without merit. The conquest of Rome was short lived. Little by little over the centuries however, the East Roman Empire was being chipped away, and was finally conquered in 1453, almost a 1000 years after the fall of the west. It was conquered by Turkish Muslims who named their new nation the Ottoman Empire, which lasted until the end of World War I.

Many historians use 476 AD as the beginning of the Middle Ages, or worse, the Dark Ages. The last vestiges of the Roman Empire with a similar monarchial set up that went back 1500 years fell less than 40 years before Columbus sailed to the New World. Even the western empire lasted over 200 years longer than the United States, and even longer than most of the current nations on Earth.

Some say Rome never fell, and it really didn't. The Church of Rome became the Catholic Church, whose power was unequalled for a 1000 years and better in most of Europe. The Pope was the King of Kings on the Earth with his own military and having strong allies to keep the other nations in check. The Pope has more or less continued what the Roman Emperors started way back when. The Emperor was also a High Priest of the religion. Did not Catholics punish people severely within their realms who were not Christians? Spanish Inquisition? The priests also read and even spoke Latin instead of the tounge of the common people.

There was another empire called the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted from 982 AD to 1806 (the end of the Napoleanic Wars). This was oddly a mostly German nation, although they did have territory in northern Italy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire)

senor boogie woogie

8th February 2012, 10:03 AM

Hello, this is my first post here!

I have always enjoyed history, and this was one class in school that I excelled at, and one of the few I actually enjoyed.

Funny to read this, because I have very recently rewatched "I, Claudius", a wonderful BBC 12 part mini series that was about the life of the fourth emperor, Claudius (actually the First, Claudius II was another Emperor of the 3rd Century). I loved that series and I was totally gripped with it, the same I was when I watched it on PBS when I was a child. It is actually a mostly accurate telling of history, with some soap opera elements.

Now, back to WHEN the Roman Empire fell. This is not something that can be easily pinpointed.

In the 3rd Century (285 AD) under an Emperor named Diocletian basically cut the empire into two halves, a western half and an eastern half. Diocletian set up a system of governance that allowed four people to be co-Emperors. This system was called a Tetarchy. It was thought that this system would make governance easier, and help shore up the Roamn Empire which nearly fell in the 3rd Century due to many factors, economics, the military, overpopulation, welfare, basically a shaky, corrupt government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarchy)

Although, Diocletian did a lot of good fixing the short term problems of the Empire sturcture, Tetarchy failed. After Diocletian died, Tetarchy fell apart completely. Out of this mess came a leader named Constatine who became the first "Christian" Emperor. He started to mark the end of the old pagan religion to be replaced by Christianity, which was a 180 degree reverse from Diocletian's persecutions. Most historians think that Constantine was someone who wanted to bring the Christians into the government, and he could see that they were the future of the Empire and more or less Europe themselves and it is best to keep them happy rather than to be overthrown for someone else.

After Constatine died, there was only one more Pagan Emperor and he only lasted around two years or so. Later early 5th Century Emperors actually made the old paganism illegal and the temples closed and destroyed, which included the House of the Vestel Virgins and the closing of the Games. Over these times also, the tribes of Northern Europe and tribes from Russia and even Central Asia moved across into Europe and into the Roman Empire. Why this happened can be found in Wikipedia or wherever. They were poor and lived in huts in a cold climate. People move somewhere where they can live the best quality of life. For whatever reason, where they came from was doing it for them anymore.

Some of the new peoples assimilated, but others wanted to conquer Roma and pillage it and they finally did so. It was a gradual thing over time, which took place over a span of a century. The country became less Roman and became more "diversified". The old Roman Empire of Augustus was no more on any level. However, it isn't like the whole of Rome was destroyed and replaced with crazy naked blue guys eating babies and yelling "booga booga!", basically there was a government, and a successor state. The end of the Western Kingdom is said to be in 476 AD.

Sort of imagine the United States, and then the half east of the Mississippi fell due to an enemy or civil wars and was now a succession of independent, non cohesive nation states, while the USA west of the river was OK and doing well. Denver becomes the new Capitol and life goes on, trying to forge relationships and allies of people east of the river. Now flip east and west together in Europe in the 3rd-5th Century and about the same thing happened. The Roman Capitol was moved to Canstantinople, which is now the modern city of Instanbul. This new Greco-Roman Empire did much better than the West at keeping invaders at bay and being more successful and secure. A famous 6th Century Emporer named Justinian I actually reconquered Rome for a time and reunited the Empire. Some historians call the Eastern Roman Empire the Byzantine Empire instead, which is not without merit. The conquest of Rome was short lived. Little by little over the centuries however, the East Roman Empire was being chipped away, and was finally conquered in 1453, almost a 1000 years after the fall of the west. It was conquered by Turkish Muslims who named their new nation the Ottoman Empire, which lasted until the end of World War I.

Many historians use 476 AD as the beginning of the Middle Ages, or worse, the Dark Ages. The last vestiges of the Roman Empire with a similar monarchial set up that went back 1500 years fell less than 40 years before Columbus sailed to the New World. Even the western empire lasted over 200 years longer than the United States, and even longer than most of the current nations on Earth.

Some say Rome never fell, and it really didn't. The Church of Rome became the Catholic Church, whose power was unequalled for a 1000 years and better in most of Europe. The Pope was the King of Kings on the Earth with his own military and having strong allies to keep the other nations in check. The Pope has more or less continued what the Roman Emperors started way back when. The Emperor was also a High Priest of the religion. Did not Catholics punish people severely within their realms who were not Christians? Spanish Inquisition? The priests also read and even spoke Latin instead of the tounge of the common people.

There was another empire called the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted from 982 AD to 1806 (the end of the Napoleanic Wars). This was oddly a mostly German nation, although they did have territory in northern Italy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire)

Hermit

8th February 2012, 11:11 AM

Nice work, senor boogie woogie. What do you think about the other dates mentioned earlier in the thread?

CES

7th May 2012, 10:17 PM

The shorthand version is that in 476 the Western Roman Empire fell because Rome was sacked and the last Roman Emperor -- Augustulus - left the throne, and was not replaced.

The Eastern Roman Empire endured, and became known as the Byzantine Empire, and that continued until sacked by the Arab Muslims who chipped away at Byzantine lands for centuries, and finally took Constantinople in 1453. That's why Constantinople became Istanbul. Constantinople was named for the Roman Emperor Constantine, and then the Muslims forcibly conquered it, and burned its churches, and built mosques on top of them.

A tad bit more tenuous is the connection that the Romanov -- get it "ROMANov" line of Czars made to the Roman emperors. Czar, of course, being a Russian-ized version of the name "Caesar", as in Gaius Julius Caesar. The Romanovs claimed to be the rightful heirs to the Roman Empire, and we all know what happened to the Czar and his family in 1917 -- or thereabouts. Some time duriing World War I the Communists lined them up and shot them, Czar, Czarina, Czareviches and whatever they called little princesses in Czarist Russia.

So, that is pretty much the end there.

There was the "Holy Roman Empire" which tried to reinvent a new Roman Empire, and that was ruled mainly by Franks under the auspices of the Catholic Church and the Pope. The first Holy Roman Emperor, I think, was Charlemagne. He was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope. The Holy Roman Empire hung around for a few hundred years in the middle ages, and then broke up into German principalities, French states, SPain, Italy, Austria, Hungary, etc.

ficus

5th August 2012, 03:14 PM

Probably the time of the fourth crusade.that's ridiculous: anyhow, why?

ficus

5th August 2012, 03:22 PM

One can not speak of 'Roman Empire' if the governance and culture of the polity is not defined by ethnic 'Romans/Latins'. Thus, by the 5th century there was no 'Roman Empire' left. Byzantium was "Roman" only as a title. It wasn't centered in Rome, it wasn't defined culturally by ethnic Latins, but by the Greek-Arameans.

oblivion

5th August 2012, 04:28 PM

Probably the time of the fourth crusade.that's ridiculous: anyhow, why?
it probably is ridiculous. To my mind, the reason for picking 476 as the date of the fall of the Western Roman Empire has to do with an attenuation of cultural continuity. The continuity didn't end at that point, but it had diffused and attenuated to a point where there was no empire.

The 1204 Venetian sack left the same sort of no-empire behind. An attenuated and diffused culture went on under the name of empire for another couple hundred years.

ficus

5th August 2012, 04:55 PM

Probably the time of the fourth crusade.that's ridiculous: anyhow, why?
it probably is ridiculous. To my mind, the reason for picking 476 as the date of the fall of the Western Roman Empire has to do with an attenuation of cultural continuity. The continuity didn't end at that point, but it had diffused and attenuated to a point where there was no empire.

The 1204 Venetian sack left the same sort of no-empire behind. An attenuated and diffused culture went on under the name of empire for another couple hundred years.but what the Venetians sacked wasn't the Roman empire

oblivion

5th August 2012, 05:05 PM

Probably the time of the fourth crusade.that's ridiculous: anyhow, why?
it probably is ridiculous. To my mind, the reason for picking 476 as the date of the fall of the Western Roman Empire has to do with an attenuation of cultural continuity. The continuity didn't end at that point, but it had diffused and attenuated to a point where there was no empire.

The 1204 Venetian sack left the same sort of no-empire behind. An attenuated and diffused culture went on under the name of empire for another couple hundred years.but what the Venetians sacked wasn't the Roman empire
heh

ficus

5th August 2012, 05:52 PM

I have never understood historians that try to pretend Byzantium was 'Roman'. It's name magic. Some even claim 'the Empire of Trebizond' was still 'the Roman Empire'. Absurd.

spruce

5th August 2012, 07:40 PM

"Byzantium" is a modern invention, IMO. The Empire had been so vast that I find it consistent to view the East as a new seat for the Empire.

If one doesn't pick an early date for the Fall, which certainly is culturally tenable and more consistent with the air of 'Empire', I like the date of the Ottoman breach of Constantinople/Istanbul in 1453 AD. I like oblivion's logic in suggesting the Fourth Crusade, though I think the city and 'Empire' recovered enough to count as the Roman Empire's symbol. Of course, by then and long before the 'Empire' was divided and diverse enough in the variety of symbolic claim as to have no clear symbolic center.

A strong claim can be made for the seat of Roman power and 'Empire' as remaining in the Roman Catholic Church and 'line' of Popes, or perhaps at least until the Protestant Reformation, but I see the Vatican and Popes as more indebted to the formula of Roman Empire than a continuance of it.

ficus

6th August 2012, 06:02 AM

"Byzantium" is a modern invention, IMO. The Empire had been so vast that I find it consistent to view the East as a new seat for the Empire. No, it is not consistent, because "Roman" denotes an ethnicity, one which did not partake in the Eastern Empire. The Eastern Empire is a successor state of, but not the 'Roman" state.

If one doesn't pick an early date for the Fall, which certainly is culturally tenable and more consistent with the air of 'Empire', I like the date of the Ottoman breach of Constantinople/Istanbul in 1453 AD.Which is an absurd date, because that which felt wasn't Roman, in any way, shape or form.

I like oblivion's logic in suggesting the Fourth Crusade, though I think the city and 'Empire' recovered enough to count as the Roman Empire's symbol. Of course, by then and long before the 'Empire' was divided and diverse enough in the variety of symbolic claim as to have no clear symbolic center. Symbols are insignias of power, not what defines a state's identity.

A strong claim can be made for the seat of Roman power and 'Empire' as remaining in the Roman Catholic Church and 'line' of Popes, or perhaps at least until the Protestant Reformation, but I see the Vatican and Popes as more indebted to the formula of Roman Empire than a continuance of it.ridiculous

spruce

6th August 2012, 01:05 PM

Well, I think it quite a stretch were one to postulate an end of the Roman Empire with the suicide of Nero, last of the Julio-Claudian dynastic line, with subsequent reigns from Spanish and Germanic impetus. Even emperors Trajan and Hadrian were Spaniards. And though Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus was a Serb, I also think it a stretch were one to postulate Constantine was not an emperor of the Roman Empire, whether East or West. One could argue he was more Greek than Roman, and indeed self-identified as such, and that a certain Romanesque or ideally Romanesque quality of the Empire had long since faded away. It's just as difficult to imagine that emperor Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus Augustus (Justinian the Great), a Macedonian, whose efforts to reunite East and West fell somewhat short, is nonetheless NOT to be considered an emperor of the Roman Empire. Citizens of the East certainly considered themselves as inhabitants of the Roman Empire, though sure, it can be argued that at some point they were simply clinging to an old idea of Rome past into the annals of 'greatness'.

Jutinian's Territory:
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k46/paracletos/Justinian555AD.png

ficus

6th August 2012, 02:57 PM

Well, I think it quite a stretch were one to postulate an end of the Roman Empire with the suicide of Nero, last of the Julio-Claudian dynastic line, with subsequent reigns from Spanish and Germanic impetus. Even emperors Trajan and Hadrian were Spaniards.
You are wrong: Trajan and Hadrian were Romans born in Hispania. There was no separate 'Spanish" ethnicity, as the hispanics had been completely romanized both culturally and genetically (there was much migration from Italy to Spain during the Republic). Hadrian and Trajan were Latins, and ruled from Rome. It's absurd for you to pretend their rule would mark an end of 'Roman-Latin' ethnic presence in the Empire, since they were Roman-Latins from the provinces.

And though Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus was a Serb, I also think it a stretch were one to postulate Constantine was not an emperor of the Roman Empire, whether East or West. One could argue he was more Greek than Roman, and indeed self-identified as such, and that a certain Romanesque or ideally Romanesque quality of the Empire had long since faded away. It's just as difficult to imagine that emperor Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus Augustus (Justinian the Great), a Macedonian, whose efforts to reunite East and West fell somewhat short, is nonetheless NOT to be considered an emperor of the Roman Empire. Citizens of the East certainly considered themselves as inhabitants of the Roman Empire, though sure, it can be argued that at some point they were simply clinging to an old idea of Rome past into the annals of 'greatness'.You are exhibiting monodymensional thinking: A non Latin (but Latin speaking) emperor ruling a Latin controlled polity (run from Rome by a Latin speaking burocracy) does not disqualify the empire as Roman. Point about the Eastern Empire is that it lost its connection to the Latin ethnicity all together, thus was no longer Roman, even if it kept the pretension. Likewise the German "Holy Roman Empire" wasn't Roman.

There can not be a 'Roman' Empire if not run from Rome/Italy (or a Latin speaking area), which doesn't speak Latin as its main tongue, nor is culturally connected with the traditions of such ethnicity. Thus the Eastern Empire wasn't a continuation of the Roman Empire but a successor state.

spruce

6th August 2012, 06:32 PM

You seem to want it both ways and neither way, ficus - that the provinces of the Roman Empire were at once Latin and yet not Roman, part of the Empire and yet either ethically or culturally disqualified as 'Roman Empire'. You allow for other ethnicity to establish 'Roman' emperors (like essentially Germanic, Spanish or Macedonian persons and armies) and yet disqualify Latin emperors of the East steeped in both Latin culture and tradition. And your arguments are particularly structured with flawed logic and repeated attribution as "absurd" 'pretense' only you have alluded in insisting an obscure and inconsistent Roman identity. But, hey, you're welcome to your opinion and unique attribution of 'Roman Empire'. The thread asks for nothing less.

ficus

6th August 2012, 06:51 PM

You seem to want it both ways and neither way, ficus -Ridiculous allegation

that the provinces of the Roman Empire were at once Latin and yet not Roman,I never wrote such an idiocy: If a province is Latin it is certainly Roman.

part of the Empire and yet either ethically or culturally disqualified as 'Roman Empire'. The provinces of the Empire that were not Latin speaking were certainly not Roman; Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, they were under Roman rule, but were not Latin-Roman.


You allow for other ethnicity to establish 'Roman' emperors (like essentially Germanic, Spanish or Macedonian persons and armies) you are writing incoherent garbage. The 'Spanish' emperors were 'Latin-Romans' born in the province of Hispania, a Latin speaking, heavily Italian blooded section of the empire. There was no 'Spanish ethnicity' at that time separate from 'Roman'. I never said anything about a "Germanic emperor", or 'Macedonian emperor", but the fact is that at the time when the non-Latin emperors began to appear, the Empire was still centered in ROME, and defined by Latin culture and still ruled heavily by a Latin bureocracy. Thus, the empire remained 'Roman'.


and yet disqualify Latin emperors of the East steeped in both Latin culture and tradition.They were Greek, not Latin, they were not steeped in Latin culture and tradition, but only remotely influenced by the imperial past. It is silly to pretend the Byzantine Empire was 'Roman', period.

And your arguments are particularly structured with flawed logicutter nonsense, you are the one that constantly recurs to incoherence.

and repeated attribution as "absurd" 'pretense' only you have alluded in insisting an obscure and inconsistent Roman identity. But, hey, you're welcome to your opinion and unique attribution of 'Roman Empire'. The thread asks for nothing less.Sure, speaking Latin as mother tongue, having Italian blood, having a culture derived from the region of Latium, and operating the empire from Rome is 'an obscure and inconsistent Roman identity". As if there could be any other. But according to you simply claiming Roman political derivation, speaking Greek and having no Latin blood, and having no geographical connection to the city of Rome is a consistent and clear Roman identity. You are a decrepit idiot.

spruce

6th August 2012, 08:31 PM

At least I acknowledge the sound historical simplicity that the Roman Empire was indeed the Roman Empire, and grant it's inhabitants to justly self-identify as being the Roman Empire, as does sound historical scholarship; instead of purporting some convoluted ethnically clean principle which does not apply throughout even to emperors prior to the 5th century. Where you excuse these as being of a Roman system or culture, it's astounding you deny the extent and influence of Roman norms beyond Rome itself as qualifying as sufficiently 'Roman'. You seem oddly stuck in a provincial city-state mentality where a world empire is concerned. But again, you're welcome to your strained opinion without me calling you an "idiot". I'm not quite willing to concede that as a brilliant stroke of valid argumentation.

Thus, by the 5th century there was no 'Roman Empire' left.
Maybe that says it all, by way of the depth of scholastic historical support behind you. And any claim of an "Eastern Roman Empire" must be mistaken, in favour of the revisionist terminology of a wholly un-Roman "Byzantine Empire", despite what history records?

ficus

6th August 2012, 09:32 PM

At least I acknowledge the sound historical simplicity that the Roman Empire was indeed the Roman Empire, and grant it's inhabitants to justly self-identify as being the Roman Empire, as does sound historical scholarship;irrelevant word salad which when coherent does not contradict my point


instead of purporting some convoluted ethnically clean principle which does not apply throughout even to emperors prior to the 5th century. There is nothing convoluted about identifying Romans as those that derived from the city of Rome, or spoke Latin and had some Italic ancestry, within the Empire, and the rest as 'other ethnicities' identified with the Empire. The ethnicity of an Emperor is not a defining factor when they operated from the city of Rome, in a society where Romans/Latins still constituted the ruling elite, where the ROMAN senate operated, and where Roman traditions were central. You are dense beyond the norm.


Where you excuse these as being of a Roman system or culture, it's astounding you deny the extent and influence of Roman norms beyond Rome itself as qualifying as sufficiently 'Roman'.I am quite sure a greek, syrian or egyptian peasant who never heard a Latin word wasn't a 'Roman', despite his citizenship. Your position is inane.

You seem oddly stuck in a provincial city-state mentality where a world empire is concerned. Nope, since I consider the Hispanics of the empire as fully Latin/Roman. Difference between Hispanics and Greeks being that the first spoke Latin and had much Roman/Italian blood, while the second spoke Greek and had no Roman/Italian blood. Why do you keep misrepresenting my position? Apart from being an idiot are you also dishonest?

But again, you're welcome to your strained opinion without me calling you an "idiot". I'm not quite willing to concede that as a brilliant stroke of valid argumentation.It's a diagnosis of your mental incapacity.

Thus, by the 5th century there was no 'Roman Empire' left.
Maybe that says it all, by way of the depth of scholastic historical support behind you.I am quite sure by the end of the 5th century there wasn't a polity in the Mediterranean region ruled by a Latin elite, centered in the city of Rome, following Roman culture. Rather there was a polity with a Greek speaking elite, inhabited by Thracians, Macedonians, Illyrians, Bythinians, Carians, Phrygians, Armenians, Lydians, Galatians, Paphlagonians, Lycians, Syrians, Cilicians, Misians, Cappadocians etc., following a middle eastern religion, with some remnants of the old imperial culture, laws and symbols. Anyhow, since the standard date for the 'fall of the Roman Empire' is 476, I don't understand why you imply that my claim lacks validity. Unless you are a moron.

spruce

6th August 2012, 09:37 PM

I am quite sure by the end of the 5th century...

"Et tu, Brute?"

How quickly your stated and quoted position changes to fit an accepted historical model.

spruce

6th August 2012, 10:09 PM

But just to clear the air;

“All right, all right, I apologise... I'm really really sorry, I apologise unreservedly... I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.”

ficus

6th August 2012, 10:42 PM

I am quite sure by the end of the 5th century...

"Et tu, Brute?"

How quickly your stated and quoted position changes to fit an accepted historical model.No moron, I was clarifying what I meant.