How long did the Roman Empire survive?

Originally posted by Pinguin In the East, become The Bizantine Empire, and then transformed into Russia.

It is also a fact that their state records were burned in 390BC.

Originally posted by es_bih How is another ten years too much of a stretch when associated to an already 2, 106 years? And Rome's founding date is rather mythical, the city's real founding date might have been around there or around the 650s. That is 244 years to be covered by the reign of seven Kings in an age where old age was drastically lower then our perceptions. On average that would be 34.86 years per King, In other words lets assume that each reigned for about that long, then of course if there was a sucessor to the throne he would be rather old after his father's long reign, or in case of some of the non dynastic kings, they must have been older to gain the influence necessary for the thronre. 650 Seems a much better date than 753 if there were only seven Kings of the Roman Kingdom, which preceded the Roman Republic. Either way adding ten years to that number does not seem that much of a stretch to me.

It's not the length of time that is the stretch, but rather who's adding the extra decade. The "Byzantine" Empire was a direct continuation of Rome, and the people knew that, calling themselves "Roman" and legitimately so. Trebizond only ever became influential after the 4th Crusade, when it became the refuge of the Komneni. But the rulers of Trebizond did not take on the same Roman concepts as "Byzantium". There's more, I just don't have it on the top of my head. So anyways, I hope that clarifies that it's not adding 10 years that makes it a stretch, but rather Trebizond being considered "Roman" enough to add those 10 years that is a stretch.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Heredity was not so much an issue with the Roman Kings as it was in medieval Europe. Romulus did not leave a son, sometimes the Romans chose an unrelated Sabine as king to keep the Sabines happy, while the last King simply married the daughter of the previous king and so was not a son as we know it. It is possible a couple of 50 year reigns occurred, lowering the reigns of the other 5 kings to a bit under 30 years. It's a stretch, but not impossible.

Heredity was not so much an issue with the Roman Kings as it was in medieval Europe. Romulus did not leave a son, sometimes the Romans chose an unrelated Sabine as king to keep the Sabines happy, while the last King simply married the daughter of the previous king and so was not a son as we know it.

It is possible a couple of 50 year reigns occurred, lowering the reigns of the other 5 kings to a bit under 30 years. It's a stretch, but not impossible.

Rome was founded in 753 B.C.
During the reign of Emperor Constantine, Constantinople became the prominent city of the Roman Empire, and after the fall of the Western half of the Empire is 476 AD, the Eastern Roman Empire continued the Roman Civilization until it's ultimate demise in 1453 AD. All in all, that is 2,106 years.

If you really want to stretch it, we could say that Trebizond was an even further continuation of Rome, which would then mean that Rome lasted until 1461 AD, pushing her total years to 2,114 years. But I think that's too much of a stretch.

that its such a complex question is a fantastic testament to the romantic side of Rome.

Originally posted by Leonardo Things are not so clear-cut ... � "Not until the time of Emperor Otto III [983-1002] did Western Emperors consistently start calling themselves "Imperator Romanorum" [Roman Emperor] in direct challenge to the "Basileus Romaion" of Constantinople. Otto III took this step on the prompting of his mother Theopano, a princess from Constantinople who understood the subtleties of the problem. The "Basileus Romaion" of the time, Basil II [reigned 976-1025] was not a kinsman of Theopano, and she desired to elevate her son above the competition at Constantinople by calling Otto "Imperator Romanorum." Of course, well-informed people in the West knew already that the best way to insult the authorities in Constantinople, if that was the goal, was to deny their identity as Romans. Call them "Graecus:" that translated to "Hellene," that implied pagan as well as not Roman. "

the Byzantines called themselves Romans because they had an uninterrupted history dating back to the founding of Constantinople and the split of the Roman empire to two halves.The emperors of Byzantium continued the line of the eastern roman emperors and saw themselves as the only heirs of Rome because it gave them prestige to be called Kings of the Romans than king of the Greeks.This was the official state propaganda.But by the time of the 10th century the Byzantines were greeks, not romans.
The majority of the common people spoke greek
The language of the Church was greek
the language of administration was greek
the language of the scholars was also greek
and finally they were called Greeks in the west and by the Pope

On the other hand Venice or the kingdom of Sicily were truly roman.
For example the common people in Venice spoke a language derived from latin
they had uninterrupted history since the roman times,
the language of their church was latin and the language of administration and of the scholars was also latin.

In my oprinion by the time of the reign of Basil II(10th century) Byzantiun represents medieval hellenism, not Rome.


Edited by nikodemos - 04-May-2007 at 07:06

Things are not so clear-cut ...

Well, if you put it like that- than the Byzantine Empire was not a Roman Empire- it was a Greek Empire. So we can also remove Constantinople from the equation and the eventual Ottoman conquest.

P.S. The question is not "when did the Roman Empire end?", but "How long did th Roman Empire survive"


Edited by Larus - 02-May-2007 at 12:17