Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
azimuth
Caliph
SlaYer'S SlaYer
Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Chances for resurrection of the Roman empire Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 23:24 |
Originally posted by Belisarius
To a smaller extent, the Abbasid caliphate, having in their possession many former Roman provinces, also saw themselves as an heir to the Greco-Roman legacy.
|
i dont think they by any means Saw themselves as an heir to the Greco-Roman lagacy
Originally posted by Reginmund
Wasn't that the Ummayad Caliphate? This is not my field of expertise, but I think I recall something about the Abbasids leaning more heavily on the Persian cultural inheritance. They were also the ones who moved the seat of the caliphate from the formerly Roman city of Damascus to Baghdad, in the Persian heartland. |
The Umayyad are the once who completed the conquer of north Africa but the main Attacks against the Roman empire was before the Umayyad it was at the time of the 3rd Caliph.
even so they didnt consider them selfs as as hier to others Legacy as far as i know.
and about the topic which Roman Empire you are talking about? at which period? Eastern or Western or when they used to be one empire? i think it was largest in 300 AD?
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 23:44 |
Rome was alive in Russia until 1917, when the emperor and his family were killed. Today it lives on only in poetic references regarding the EU, which is undergoing a bit of a "fall" of its own.
|
|
TheodoreFelix
Colonel
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 00:12 |
Rome was alive in Russia until 1917, when the emperor and his family were killed. |
I dont see how anything Empirial Russia adopted to give it the title of Rome. Orthodoxy?
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 08:51 |
Rome was a cultural inheritance of centuries. It wasnt related with ethnicities, religions (pagan, Christian, Muslim) etc.
Byzanthine Empire was the second Rome, Ottoman Empire (Kayser-i Rums, Roman Caesars) was the third. Russian Empire (Tzsars- Caesars) was the fourth Rome, and USA is the final one.
|
|
Yiannis
Sultan
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 09:05 |
Originally posted by Oguzoglu
Byzanthine Empire was the second Rome, Ottoman Empire (Kayser-i Rums, Roman Caesars) was the third. Russian Empire (Tzsars- Caesars) was the fourth Rome, and USA is the final one.
|
here we go again!
Byzantine empire was considered to be "second Rome" because it has maintained Roman structures to an extended degree and because it was seen as the continuation or Rome in it's line of Emperors. Ottoman empire had nothing to do with Roman admin and Law structures, so I won't even comment on this unfounded viewpoint. Russia was called (by the Russians themselves) as "Third Rome" only to emphasize their claims to Constantinople and ultimatelly to ensure exit to the Mediterranean. Plus they had the same religion as the Byzantines. USA, the final one? No comment on that either...
|
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 09:53 |
To claim the Ottoman empire is the 3rd Rome is frankly laughable, and really deserves to to be ignored. Not to menion America, Ill never know where you got that one from.
Moscow is the Third Rome because Byzantine survivors from Constantinople etc fled to the Orthodox Russians tot he north and brought their culture and art with them. Not to mention the niece (I believe it was his neice anyway) of Constantine XI married the Russian leader.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 10:56 |
I didn't mean to imply that Russia was in fact a "third Rome," only that the Czar's adopted much of what they could from Constantinople including religion, architecture, and of course the title of Caesar. However, Russia, at the time, lacked the sophistication, education, technological prowess, social structures, and culturual development of the Byzantines. The Ottomans, or at least their conquered subjects, managed these issues much better, but I agree that they in no way represented an extension of Rome.
In any case, names and titles aside, Rome fell in the 5th century, although much of what was "Rome" ceased to be long before that. The Byzantines became more Greek than Roman as the years passed. The German-Roman kingdoms of the early medieval period developed along their own lines as well.
Regarding the United States: It is fashionable to name any current power as the new Rome simply because it dominates other nations. But Rome was a civilization and culture of its own. Was Spain in the 16th century the new Rome? What about France in the 17th or Britain in the 18th and 19th? Was Hitler a Caeasar? Or Stalin? These are just examples of states that were seeking hegemony and the U.S. is no more the new Rome than they were. I guess Rome will just have to live on in Russel Crowe movies and the occasional article in the Economist.
|
|
kotumeyil
Chieftain
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 21-Jun-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1494
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 11:05 |
In fact, the Ottoman Empire adopted many administrative things from the Byzantine Empire including the land regime and ruled on its lands; however depending on a different religious system. Calling it a third Roman Empire is up to you...
|
|
Yiannis
Sultan
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 11:47 |
Land regime? Care to elaborate?
What are the similarities in Byzantine & Ottoman agricultural policies?
In my mind, in Ottoman times, all land belonged to the Sultan and not to individuals.
|
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 12:16 |
Yes, and during the Byzanthine times, everything belonged to the citizens. Or would I say the heaven of Byzanthine? Com'on, the princes owned until the boxers of the villagers, that is why central authority was weak.
Plus they had the same religion as the Byzantines |
So the first Romans arent Romans at all since they were pagans. Roman heritage wasnt related with religion. It was a capture the flag race.
The Byzanthines' official language wasnt Roman, so they werent the successors of the Romans at all. Plus they werent pagans. Is this sensible?
|
|
Komnenos
Tsar
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 12:25 |
I remember that we already had a discussion on "Who's the third, fourth and so on Rome?".
As far as I'm concerned anybody can help themselves to that title, Turks, Russians,Chinese and the Irish. It is just a convenient headline, with no significance whatsoever, just a slogan, that should be laughed off in any serious discussion about the successor states of the Roman or Byzantine Empire.
Don't get so worked up about this!
|
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
|
|
Monteleone
Immortal Guard
Joined: 23-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 13:09 |
I'm sorry since the U.S. was mentioned in this discussion I had to chime in.
The beginning of Rome, it was ruled by kings who where subordinate to Etruscan kings
The beginning of U.S., it was ruled by governors who where subordinate to English Kings
The Romans over throw the reign of these Etruscan Kings and established a democratic republic
The U.S. over throw the reign of these English kings and established a democratic republic.
The Romans, though they established a democracy, only allowed the wealthy land owners to rule in their senate. Less than about fifty men.
The U.S., though they established a democracy, it was generally the wealthy land owners who rule in their senate. Twenty six men to be exact at first.
Rome did establish a voice for its people called the comitia centuriata, but its decisions all needed the approval of the Senate and the Consuls.
U.S. did establish a voice for its people called the House of Representatives, but its decisions all needed the approval of the Senate and the President.
The Roman republic was led by two Consuls who were joint heads of the Roman state and commanders-in-chief of the army. They were elected only for one year and thereafter could not be re-elected again for 10 years, in order to prevent any form of tyranny.
The U.S. is led by one President who is Head of State and commander-in-chief of the Army. They are elected for four years and can be elected for another four years. But after that they can not be elected again in order to prevent any form of tyranny.
The Romans established an office of Praetor who had authority over the laws this eventually turned into a six man consol in charge of the judiciary of Rome. They where the chief law officer. They acted as the chief judges. The U.S. established an office called the Judiciary consisting of a Supreme Justice and associate Justices. They are the chief law officers. They act as the chief judges.
Rome quickly expanded its territory by conquering weaker local tribes and inhabitants in the area such as the Latins
U.S. quickly expanded its territory by conquering weaker local tribes and inhabitants in the area such as the Indians.
Eventually Rome established a strong military and navy and became a very formidable power in the world
Eventually the U.S. established a strong military and navy and became a very formidable power in the world.
Romes expansion and spread of ideas was kept in check by the very strong Persian Empire that dominated the east.
U.S.s expansion and spread of ideas was kept in check by the very strong Soviet Empire that dominated the east.
Rome eventually became ruled by an Emperor who was extreme authority over all. The empire stretched of a large portion of the known world
U.S. eventually became rule by
We shall see
As Tsar said: "Don't get so worked up about this"
Edited by Monteleone
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 14:14 |
Similarities between Rome can be drawn to just about every major nation in the world, but similarities are irrelevant its legacy and heritage that is important, and America for all its similarities has no relation to the Roman empire therefore cannot be its successor or a continuation of it.
Just as much as the British empire couldnt be and that was far larger and greater than Romes.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 14:52 |
The United States, with its great deal of corruption and ineffective
bureaucracy, deserves to be called Rome, at least in its later days of
unity.
I am sorry, that was controversial, wasn't it. Forgiveness, forgiveness...
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 16:36 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
What else could he have been referring to then? |
with "he" i was not referign to Voltaire but miniechick, because it would make no sense otherwise and she also posted it after the comments about the catholic church, no one was talking about the HRE in the last few posts.
|
|
Monteleone
Immortal Guard
Joined: 23-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 20:03 |
Originally posted by Belisarius
The United States, with its great deal of corruption and ineffective bureaucracy, deserves to be called Rome, at least in its later days of unity.
I am sorry, that was controversial, wasn't it. Forgiveness, forgiveness...
|
Yes that was very controversial but an excellent observation.
But the post started as:
"What do you think - there was really chance to ressurect the Roman empire in middle ages? Even if, how it will "look"? I wait for your comments."
I think it wasn't possible because of the way it was tried. The people as a nation formed Rome not a single individual. With all its good and bad it was the people who kept Rome alive. Where as during the middle ages it was individuals that tried to re-instate the Glory of Rome.
Attila's empire, with all his greatness and expansion fell apart after his death. The nations he had under his sway did not want their empire after he was gone.
So I'm thinking that if an empire wants to be perpetually successful the people of the empire must be willing subjects.
But as to the actual heir of the Roman/Byzantine empire, someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
Archduke Otto of Hungary is heir to the Holy Roman Empire, and since we know the Franks and the Byzantines did allow royal marriages between these two empires. One can assume that the royal blood of the Byzantines mixed with the royal blood of the Franks Holy Roman empire. Giving a claim of the Byzantine Empire to the Holy Roman Empire. And since the Byzantine Empire has the right to claim the Roman empire, well Archduke Otto can claim it all I guess.
Now I'm sure lots of other royal families can claim the rights to the Byzanetine Empire also.
|
|
minchickie
Shogun
Joined: 03-Jul-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 241
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 00:15 |
Originally posted by Belisarius
The United States, with its great deal of corruption and ineffective bureaucracy, deserves to be called Rome, at least in its later days of unity.
I am sorry, that was controversial, wasn't it. Forgiveness, forgiveness...
|
I live in the US and i couldnt agree with you more except the US doesnt deserve to be associated with the "Roman Empire" because the US hasnt done anything "great"!
I wave my Hungarian flag because THAT i am proud of.
|
|
|
Monteleone
Immortal Guard
Joined: 23-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 14:18 |
Originally posted by minchickie
because the US hasnt done anything "great"!
|
Yes you are right. Neal Armstrong walking on the moon is shadowed by Trajans great feat of building a bridge across the Danube and invading Dacia. We could never even light a candle to them.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 14:41 |
Unfortunately for Trajan he was born nearly 1900 years before travel to the moon was possible, such a comparison of achievements is absurd at best.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 16:45 |
Originally posted by Monteleone
Archduke Otto of Hungary is heir to the Holy Roman Empire, and since we know the Franks and the Byzantines did allow royal marriages between these two empires. One can assume that the royal blood of the Byzantines mixed with the royal blood of the Franks Holy Roman empire. Giving a claim of the Byzantine Empire to the Holy Roman Empire. And since the Byzantine Empire has the right to claim the Roman empire, well Archduke Otto can claim it all I guess.
|
first, its Otto von Habsburg, he isn't archduke as royal titles have been completely abolished in Austria, and he's not "of Hungary" it was part of his titles but not his primary one. second, Holy Roman emperors often intermarried with byzantine princesses, like Otto the Great and at least one other, but the real legal heir to the Roman empire was the pope in Rome, but still the rulers of teh RHe wanted to give themselves mroe legitimacy by intermarry with the byzantine royal house as they did still regard themselves as Romans.
|
|