Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Leonardo
General
Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
|
Quote Reply
Topic: How long did the Roman Empire survive? Posted: 01-May-2007 at 05:06 |
Originally posted by olvios
And kaiser the german . A great deal of europe continued to have the holy roman empire theme if even partly. |
The German Empire (the Second Reich I mean) lasted too little and it was never a real multinational empire as the other cited were.
|
|
olvios
Colonel
Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 559
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-May-2007 at 05:12 |
Yeah i just hate kaiser for some reason and he popped up in my head when the caesar wannabe personialities came up.
|
http://www.hoplites.net/
|
|
zeno
Knight
Joined: 30-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-May-2007 at 05:21 |
5th Century or WW1...
|
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-May-2007 at 06:03 |
The truth of the matter is we cannot answer this question without first defining one term: Roman Empire.
Roman Empire may be defined as the autocratic state, highly
militatarised, using the prefecturate administrative structure
inherited from the republic, ruled largely by an Italian elite at its
core, multiethnic and multilingual in the people it ruled.
Because of this definition, I would put the end of the Empire at the
reign of Heraclius. It was not the coming to power of Heraclius which
ended the Roman Empire, but rather the events which occurred during his
reign which so transformed its character that we cannot truly call it
Roman any longer.
During this period (610-640 AD), the Empire finally dispensed with
Latin and Greek became the true language of the law and administration.
It was during this period also that the Empire began to lose much of
its multi-ethnic character and transformed into a Greek state. The
prefecture structure of administration and organisation was finally
gotten rid of - instead the distinctly Byzantine thema system
replaced it. The rulers were now truly Hellenic rather than Roman in
their tastes, language and world outlook - with a strong fusion of
Christian ideas also.
While the Empire may have had a chance to rest and then go on to
recover her former Western territories, this ideal was shattered
forever by the eruption of Islam onto the world stage. No longer was
the Empire the Roman hegemon, losing and reconquering territory as had
been the fashion for the previous four centuries. Instead she was the
Byzantine Empire, continuously engaged in a struggle with Islam for her
very survival. The notion of Roman centrality and universalism died
during the reign of Heraclius.
|
|
olvios
Colonel
Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 559
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-May-2007 at 07:04 |
the ww1 i dont like
|
http://www.hoplites.net/
|
|
zeno
Knight
Joined: 30-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-May-2007 at 07:25 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
The truth of the matter is we cannot answer this question without first defining one term: Roman Empire.
Roman Empire may be defined as the autocratic state, highly militatarised, using the prefecturate administrative structure inherited from the republic, ruled largely by an Italian elite at its core, multiethnic and multilingual in the people it ruled.
Because of this definition, I would put the end of the Empire at the reign of Heraclius. It was not the coming to power of Heraclius which ended the Roman Empire, but rather the events which occurred during his reign which so transformed its character that we cannot truly call it Roman any longer.
During this period (610-640 AD), the Empire finally dispensed with Latin and Greek became the true language of the law and administration. It was during this period also that the Empire began to lose much of its multi-ethnic character and transformed into a Greek state. The prefecture structure of administration and organisation was finally gotten rid of - instead the distinctly Byzantine thema system replaced it. The rulers were now truly Hellenic rather than Roman in their tastes, language and world outlook - with a strong fusion of Christian ideas also.
While the Empire may have had a chance to rest and then go on to recover her former Western territories, this ideal was shattered forever by the eruption of Islam onto the world stage. No longer was the Empire the Roman hegemon, losing and reconquering territory as had been the fashion for the previous four centuries. Instead she was the Byzantine Empire, continuously engaged in a struggle with Islam for her very survival. The notion of Roman centrality and universalism died during the reign of Heraclius.
|
i'd go along with that
|
|
|
centurion
Knight
Joined: 20-Oct-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 73
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-May-2007 at 10:50 |
Since the question is "how long did the Roman Empire survive?", the precise answer -for me- is: from Augustus to Constantine. Before Augustus there was the Roman Republic, and after Constantine there were the Western and Eastern Roman Empire.
But if we "enlarge" the meaning of the question, I can agree with many more possibilities, like those explained by Leonardo (and others like Pinguin).
I personally like to remember that there were successors of "Caesar" until WWI (the Kaiser, the Czar, etc..) or until the conquest of Abissinia by Mussolini in 1936 (who proclamed the "rebirth" of the Roman Empire around the "Mare nostrum", as Romans called the Mediterranean sea). It is interesting to note that Nostradamus cited -in his typical confusing way- that ...the "last of the Caesars" will try to recreate the Roman Empire when "Hister" will devastate the world....
In our times the last "concrete" reference to something similar to the Roman Empire was done by Adenauer and De Gasperi when was created the European Economic Union in the fifties with the "Treaty of Rome". They boasted at that moment that -with the future entrance of Spain and England- it was going to have the same borders of the Western Roman empire in Europe.
Anyway, many catholic historians judge that 1453 was the end of the Roman Empire, but they write that the Pope (as recognized "head of Rome" from Charlemagne) is the spiritual heir of the "rulers of Rome" and their civilization (so for them the Roman empire survives in the catholic church "empire", with a transformation like that of a kind of spiritual "butterfly" ).
Centurion
Edited by centurion - 01-May-2007 at 14:34
|
CIVIS ROMANUS SUM
|
|
Larus
Knight
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: Bosnia Hercegovina
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 54
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 11:08 |
Technically, in true political terms- the last remnant of the Roman Empire fell with the fall of German and A-H Empires after the wwi (or in 1922 if we calculate the Ottoman empire as one of the pretenders- and in many ways we rightfully should). Other remnents of the Roman empire were- West Roman empire, East Roman (Byzantine) empire, Bulgarian empire, Sultanate of Rum, Latin Empire in Constantinople, Empire of Trebizond, Serbian Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Russian Empire and French Empire (I think- that's about it). So it lasted from 27 BC to 1918 (1922).
Edited by Larus - 02-May-2007 at 11:10
|
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 11:22 |
I do not buy these artificial links between the Roman empire and later ones. The only link between the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire is a lot of wishful thinking, same for any that came after.
The only direct continuum of the Empire was the Byzantine empire, and that ended well and good with the Ottomans. Any other claims are just desperate attempts to create continuity where there is none.
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
|
|
Larus
Knight
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: Bosnia Hercegovina
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 54
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 11:35 |
Originally posted by Aelfgifu
I do not buy these artificial links between the Roman empire and later ones. The only link between the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire is a lot of wishful thinking, same for any that came after.
The only direct continuum of the Empire was the Byzantine empire, and that ended well and good with the Ottomans. Any other claims are just desperate attempts to create continuity where there is none.
|
Perhaps you are right, but still, that "wishful thinking" was a crucial political agenda of the following era.
|
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 11:58 |
Perhaps. But 'which empires were hoping to be like the Roman Empire' was not the question at hand. The question is when did the Roman Empire end. And the answer to that is not 1922.
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
|
|
Larus
Knight
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: Bosnia Hercegovina
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 54
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 12:12 |
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
|
|
nikodemos
Shogun
Joined: 24-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 248
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-May-2007 at 17:41 |
After the reign of Heraclius in the 7th century, the byzantine empire consisted mainly of greek speaking provinces.Egypt and the provinces of the Middle East were conquered by the islamic arab armies.Until that time the empire used two official languages,greek and latin.After the reign of Heraclius latin was not used anymore.The official language was greek only.It took however some centuries more before one could say that the byzantine state had become a totally greek state. Heraclius didn't use the term imperator on the coins , instead he used the greek term for the king.
The Roman empire in my opinion survived until the 5th century in the west when the last roman emperor abdicated and until the 7th century in the east.
|
|
Leonardo
General
Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-May-2007 at 02:21 |
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. "
Another interesting stuff (I already posted time ago):
|
|
Penelope
Chieftain
Alia Atreides
Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-May-2007 at 07:11 |
Originally posted by centurion
Since the question is "how long did the Roman Empire survive?", the precise answer -for me- is: from Augustus to Constantine. Before Augustus there was the Roman Republic, and after Constantine there were the Western and Eastern Roman Empire.
But if we "enlarge" the meaning of the question, I can agree with many more possibilities, like those explained by Leonardo (and others like Pinguin).
I personally like to remember that there were successors of "Caesar" until WWI (the Kaiser, the Czar, etc..) or until the conquest of Abissinia by Mussolini in 1936 (who proclamed the "rebirth" of the Roman Empire around the "Mare nostrum", as Romans called the Mediterranean sea). It is interesting to note that Nostradamus cited -in his typical confusing way- that ...the "last of the Caesars" will try to recreate the Roman Empire when "Hister" will devastate the world....
In our times the last "concrete" reference to something similar to the Roman Empire was done by Adenauer and De Gasperi when was created the European Economic Union in the fifties with the "Treaty of Rome". They boasted at that moment that -with the future entrance of Spain and England- it was going to have the same borders of the Western Roman empire in Europe.
Anyway, many catholic historians judge that 1453 was the end of the Roman Empire, but they write that the Pope (as recognized "head of Rome" from Charlemagne) is the spiritual heir of the "rulers of Rome" and their civilization (so for them the Roman empire survives in the catholic church "empire", with a transformation like that of a kind of spiritual "butterfly" ).
Centurion |
Before the reign of Caesar Augustus, Rome was already ruling over people of many different ethnicities and cultures. So to assume that Rome was already an Empire, before the crowning of the First emperor, would be a correct assumption.
|
|
nikodemos
Shogun
Joined: 24-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 248
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-May-2007 at 07:03 |
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
|
|
Balain d Ibelin
Pretorian
Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Indonesia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 197
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-May-2007 at 10:43 |
What did you ask??
If Roman Civilization, I think it'll never end, the Roman Civilization started at about 800 B.C. where Clans are fighting near Rome.
If Roman Empire, was started during the age of Julius Caesar when defeating rival Pompeii (Also known as Pompeius) at 46 BC and ended at the time of Emperor Diocletianus (This one is the United Roman Empire), since Diocletianus's time (about 200 ADs), the Empire divided into the Western Empire (Rome), and Eastern Empire (Byzantine).
The Western Empire fall at about 476 AD when the Barbarians slaughtered the Romans and Raid the Empire.
While the Eastern Empire (Byzantine) fall at 1453 when the Ottoman Sultan, Mehmet II sieged Constantinople.
If Roman Republic, is started about mid 400 BCs, when Brutus "The Silly" defeated King Lucius Tarquin and made a Republic with himself as the first leader.
|
"Good quality will be known among your enemies, before you ever met them my friend"Trobadourre de Crusadier Crux
|
|
zeno
Knight
Joined: 30-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-May-2007 at 15:23 |
that its such a complex question is a fantastic testament to the romantic side of Rome.
As a civilisation it marked an epoch, and we are all still gripped like a vice in the repercussions of those times
|
|
|
Ironduke
Immortal Guard
Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-May-2007 at 23:04 |
The Roman Empire lasted as a continuous political entity from 27 BC to 1453 AD. The early Byzantine Empire can also be considered the "Late Roman" period. The change from "Roman" to "Byzantine" was gradual.
|
Admin of the World Affairs Board
Geopolitical, Military, & Defense Discussion
351,000 posts - 4,100 members
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-May-2007 at 01:11 |
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.
|
|