Inheritance of romans

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by The Chargemaster Look here about the information and MAPS of these empires: http://4umi.com/image/map/rome/19maps.htm Well, the site could have well drawn the Holy Roman Empire of Charles V as well (from Peru to Slovakia, from Philippines to the Netherlands)... Don't know why the fall of Constantinople should be any final line.

Just to be precise. Charles V was neither the king of Bohemia nor Hungary. (since present day Slovakia was a part of Hungary.)

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by The Chargemaster Originally posted by Maju Don't know why the fall of Constantinople should be any final line. The Easterh Roman Empire have been founded by the romans themselves. And not just "founded" - it was the eastern half of the ancient Roman Empire. The Western half fall in 4th september 476 year. The Eastern half fall in 1453 year. In 29 may 1453 year Constantinople was captured and the last byzantine emperor was killed.  That`s all. The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation(Latin -  Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicae) have been founded in 962 year. This was one political state with very different SOCIETY than the ancient Roman Empire. I think that it will be similar, if someone found today some empire with a title like: "Great Roman Empire of some Nation" or other title of that sort... I've been through this before: we all know that the move of the capital from Rome to Byzantium, together with the impositon of Christianity can't be seen but as an act of treason by Constantine. The HRE is the reconstrution of the riginal Roman Empire: an Empire that had Latin as its official language, even if it had changed religion for then.

1. Treason? I think you have a very unque view of this question.

2. It was quite general that a medieval country used Latin as official language.

Originally posted by Maju 1. Yes: treason to the city of Rome. Or wasn't Constantine who removed its privileges and demoted it from capitalhood? After constantine there was no more Rome just a neo-Helenistic state with a Judaist religion. 2. Only countries that had a Roman heritage used Latin as oficial languages. Byzantium didn't since certain moment, Muslim countries didn't either nor we know that Scandinavian countries or Great Moravia or Russia did. Only the countries that kept direct Latin heritage or had adopted it (in form of Catholic religion mostly) used Latin.

1.  Interesting view. In my opinion it was a good decision to chose an empire instead of a city.

2. You are right, but being a catholic country is far from being the new Roman Empire.

Originally posted by Raider 1.  Interesting view. In my opinion it was a good decision to chose an empire instead of a city.

My point is that Constantine killed the Empire with that action - he did save nothing. The glue that had kept the Empire united was the "colonialism" of Rome capital over specially the East, which provided most of the founding. Moving the capital to the East, as Constantine did, was acnowledging that the West, Rome included, was superfluous and therefore it was an anticipation of it's abandonement to the barbarians.

It was a very anti-Roman decission, as you can see.

2. You are right, but being a catholic country is far from being the new Roman Empire.

My point is not that they are Catholic but that they use Latin as official language, which made them more closely connected to Rome than Greek-speaking Byzantium.

I don't care about the continuity of the state or title, I care about the cultural and ethnological legacy. In this sense only Romania (the Latin World) and, in a more flexible sense, Catholic states which used Latin as oficial language and often were vassal of either the Emperor of Rome (HRE) or the Pope of Rome or both, can be considered true heirs of Rome as such, while the Eastern Empire is culturally more a legacy of Athens and Macedon - which is not any shame, in my understanding.

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Raider 1.  Interesting view. In my opinion it was a good decision to chose an empire instead of a city. My point is that Constantine killed the Empire with that action - he did save nothing. The glue that had kept the Empire united was the "colonialism" of Rome capital over specially the East, which provided most of the founding. Moving the capital to the East, as Constantine did, was acnowledging that the West, Rome included, was superfluous and therefore it was an anticipation of it's abandonement to the barbarians. It was a very anti-Roman decission, as you can see. 2. You are right, but being a catholic country is far from being the new Roman Empire. My point is not that they are Catholic but that they use Latin as official language, which made them more closely connected to Rome than Greek-speaking Byzantium. I don't care about the continuity of the state or title, I care about the cultural and ethnological legacy. In this sense only Romania (the Latin World) and, in a more flexible sense, Catholic states which used Latin as oficial language and often were vassal of either the Emperor of Rome (HRE) or the Pope of Rome or both, can be considered true heirs of Rome as such, while the Eastern Empire is culturally more a legacy of Athens and Macedon - which is not any shame, in my understanding.

I disagree. Langue is an important thing, but not the only. The politicaly  in administration and military Byzantium had much more connection to the ancient Rome. On the other hand the Holy Roman Empire was an intellectual creation, but I do not think that the population considered himself as Roman, unlike in Byzantine Empire.

Originally posted by R_AK47 Maju you are wrong.

Constantine was the savior of the Roman Empire.  He gave the empire a powerfull new capital city, rejuventated it with a new religion, built the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.  He was able to do this because he placed the sacred chi-rho symbol on the shields of his soldiers and other places.  This brought him victory, honor, and glory.  Rome was deteriorating and had to be replaced.  As stated earlier in this thread, Ravenna was of greater importance to the western half of the empire during its last years.  Besides, the greatest threats to the empire's existence all came from the east (Persia/Iran and later the arabs and turks).  Moving the capital closer to the front lines made sense.  Constantinople was also a far more secure (easily defended) position to govern from then Rome was.

You are a very superstitious Christian - I couldn't but expect this sort of ideological discourse from you: Constantine was "Great" because he placed the "sacred" XP on his shield (we don't know for sure that the XP means Christ and not Chronos or whatever - but anyhow) and built a church in Jerusalem (did he? actually?).

I disagree that the main threat came from the East: Parthia was never any major threat and they had never managed to conquer anything of importance. As history would prove the true major threat were always the Germans.

As discussed in certain "what if..." (what if Hannibal would have won), the main issue is that while control of Gaul is of central geostrategical importance for Rome/Italy, it is relatively irrelevant for other centers like Carthage/Africa or Byzantium/Greece. Once the center of the Empire was moved away from Western Europe, the work of Caesar couldn't be be undone, as those alternative centers had not the slightest interest in defending Western Europe from the Germans. Soon the West was on its own: doomed.

Originally posted by Herschel Originally posted by Maju 1. Yes: treason to the city of Rome. Or wasn't Constantine who removed its privileges and demoted it from capitalhood? After constantine there was no more Rome just a neo-Helenistic state with a Judaist religion. Obviously for the next 200 years the West Romans had no problem with not having their capital in Rome, as it was moved two more times. Even during Justinians reconquest, Ravenna was the seat of the Italian provinces.

If Ravenna would have been the capital of all the Empire, then there qouls hev been less diference. Even if we ignore the fact that Ravenna looks to the Adriatic and therefore to the East, while Rome looks to the Tyrrhenian and therefore the West, Ravenna had +/- the same defenssive needs as Rome: the line of the Rhin-Danub could not be abandoned under any pretext.

But it's the emancipation of the East what actually damaged Rome: half the empire wasn't viable. All the empire, with center in Italy was the only viable option. And that option asn't available anymore after Constantine.