How long did the Roman Empire survive?

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.

Heredity was not so much an issue with the Roman Kings as it was in medieval Europe.

If anything, the Romans saw heredity as a negative trait, since it signaled decline, a view that was shared by most of the hellenistic world.

Its not coincidental that Rome's last king was also the first real inheritor of the throne.

Originally posted by Theodore Felix Heredity was not so much an issue with the Roman Kings as it was in medieval Europe. If anything, the Romans saw heredity as a negative trait, since it signaled decline, a view that was shared by most of the hellenistic world. Its not coincidental that Rome's last king was also the first real inheritor of the throne.

Originally posted by es_bih 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. � I do know that heredity was not stressed upon by Roman kings, the Senate voted the new King into office. however, while it may be theoretically possible, to say the least such a claim that seven kings ruled over two hundred and forty plus years is practically not very likely. Even a thirty year reign is a bit much for some of the kings who are described to have been elected rather late in age, and in addition to that you would have to leave it up to chance to have all seven of the kings live into old age, that is not always the case either. Too many coincidences would have to have occured for this to have been possible. � Resarch confirms continued habitation from around 1000BC at the site, so what may have been the case is that the various herders, and villagers, combined slowly into one Latin city, and strongmen were slowly replaced by Kings, considering that almost all of Rome's official records were burnedi n 390 when the Gauls sacked Rome, a whole line of Kings might have been possible, with the seven or six (and Romolus as patron) surviving by word of mouth on the virtue of their achievements and popularity.

Just thought I'd point something out: For centuries Troy was considered to be total myth, made up by Homer to tell a great but entirely fanciful tale. Then it was discovered that Troy actually did exist, and Homer's descriptions were very accurate. And what was in the hand of the man who discovered Troy? None other than Homers "fanciful" ILIAD. The ancients knew what they were talking about, and I believe that most of their stories are more fact and less fiction. And until given any hardcore evidence to the contrary, I will trust the date if 753 B.C. and the record of seven kings as facts.

Originally posted by es_bih It is also a fact that their state records were burned in 390BC. � Aside from that point, Trebizond, just like the Empire of Nicaea were successor states, the only reason we see the Emperor in Nicaea acknowledged as Emperor now is because his successors were able to regain Constantinople, however, both and the Despotate of Epirus were all Byzantine on the same level to me. They all had legitimate authority in their region as the sucessor states to the dismembered Empire in 1204AD. � �

Yes, I am well aware that Epir and Trebizond were legitimate authorities. But neither one managed to restore the Empire after it's fall, in 1204 or in 1453. Had all three failed to restore the Empire, then I would believe that Rome had ended in 1204. Also, in the hypothetical scenario that Trebizond restored Rome sometime after 1453, then it would count as a legitimate continuation. But because the Roman Empire was destroyed in 1453, and has not been resurrected since, I would say that 1453 is the end date of Rome. The point about Trebizond being a successor state is why I said it would be a stretch, because the claim can be made, but very loosly, because Trebizond failed to restore the Empire, both after 1204 and after 1453.

They did. Family names were important, however, those were not always, nor was it stressed upon for them to be, continued by blood, adoption was a favorable option to boost your family's honor and virtue through the adoption of a suitable heir to the already famous name.

Heredity, to the Romans, was the idea that you descended from somebody who gained numerous high posts during his life. Since good blood spreads, if one person did good the other expected to do good.

But it was not "inherited", meaning, while you would have an easier time, you would not be simply pushed up the ranks because of your birth(ideally, although it did happen). The Roman myth of Superbus, which came from actual Hellenic mythology and history(here in particular it is modeled after Athens' history), played on the idea that a person who "inherits" his title is generally a degenerative.