How long did the Roman Empire survive?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mediterranean and Europe
Forum Discription: Greece, Macedon, Rome and other cultures such as Celtic and Germanic tribes
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18809
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 22:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: How long did the Roman Empire survive?
Posted By: NeuralDream
Subject: How long did the Roman Empire survive?
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 16:13
| In your opinion. From when to when? |
Replies:
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 16:19
|
From 146 B.C. up to the 5th century. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 17:13
|
How about Roman civilization? How long would you say that lasted....
------------- Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։ |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 20:58
|
Roman civilization? Wouldn't it still be considered going strong? The Western Roman empire lasted up until about...456? 476 AD? And the Eastern Empire survived on until sometime in the mid 1400s, I believe, so you coudl say it lasted over a 1000 years. maybe even pushing 1500? ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 21:50
|
Roman Civilization never ended. It just transformed in other things. Latin language, for example, is still alive in the Romance languages of Southern Europe. Roman rituals are preserved by the Catholic church. Roman literature, engineering and arts become Western.
In the East, become The Bizantine Empire, and then transformed into Russia.
In the West still exists as part of the Roman Catholic church bureocracy and customs. Most Western European countries has a Roman heritage as well.
For example, it is curious that the Roman province of Hispania become Spain and Portugal, and that at the times of the Conquist, those people believed somehow they were the inheritors of the "Romans", with language, art, literature included.
So, in a certain way, Rome never ended. It is part of the mentality in Britain, France, Italy, Iberia, Russia and all other Western countries and it was the model for the Colonialism.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 23:04
|
Rome influenced the West, it still exists today in many ways like Pinguin said. It also has had a good influence on the English language too. I can't imagine what the world would be today without the Roman Empire. Imagine our architecture and language without their influence? It's be a whole new world. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 01:08
|
241BC-476AD
------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 01:15
|
I agree with Pinguin, Roman Civilization never ended, many of Rome's invaders, including Germans, even practiced Roman customs. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 01:28
| 1453AD official fall of the Roman Empire, with the fall of the last capital and the death of the last Emperor. Roman civilization is still there in many ways. |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 04:49
|
In my opinion the Western Roman Empire ended when Odoacer took the throne. At the moment that a person who cosidered himslef to be non-Roman took the throne, the Empire of old came to and end, and a new phase started. On the other hand, rulers and peoples from Clovis to Charlemagne to Otto to Barbarossa considered themselves the worthy sucessors of the Roman Emperors. So there is a gap here between what people themselves saw at the time and the judgements we can now make with hindsight.
As for the Eastern Empire. I am not too well into it, but in my opinion it would be the same. The moment the last Greek/Roman Empreror was replaced by a nongreek/roman. (would that be Sulyman?)
Eh? How?
Personally I do not believe in the Roman Cultural legacy. It was more than 1500 years ago. I am convinced we picked up a lot more essentials in later times than we retained from Roman times. And most of what we do still seem to have is conceived rather than real or realistic. Our perception of what the Romans were, or what we want them to be, washed through 1500 years of history.
edited - to correct my horrible English into understandable sentences (and failure to do so) ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 05:38
When Mehmed II conquered The City, he ended the roman imperial throne in its entirety while the Roman arch-patriarchy survived. |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 08:17
|
hmmm......it depends what you mean by the empire, if you mean a Roman
state ruled by an emperor then it starts with the reign of Augustus in
27BC and goes too the fall of Constantinople in 1453AD or a
little bit further to the collapse of the "empire" of trebizond in 1461
AD, if you go by the collapse of the empire of trebizond then that is
1488 years! if you mean the state of Rome starting with the foundation
of the city, which according to legend took place in 753 BC (historians
are unsure exactly when Rome was founded but date it to the same
century as the myth) and ending again with either 1453AD or 1461AD with
the slightly larger of the two potential time frames bieng 2214
years!!!! If you mean Roman culture then the number is far larger as
others have pointed out that its still going but a culture is not an
empire so the answer has been provided (in some cases approximately) by
this information. Regards, Praetor. ------------- |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 11:25
He proclaimed his self Ceasar remember  but If he took Italy and Rome would he be realy Ceaser? ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2007 at 23:12
| I am taking Henri Pirenne's views and say that not just Rome, but the classical world ended when Islam conquered North Africa and the Near East which has ruptured the Roman mare nostrum |
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 14:51
|
People need to distinguish between empire and culture. They are not one and the same, in fact they can be very mutually exclusive. Empire is physical control, culture is a way of life.
The Roman Empire ended with the deposing of the last emperor(476 and 1453, respectively). As for culture, that is a matter of debate... |
Posted By: NeuralDream
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 12:16
| I would also say 146BC - 1453AD. Just wanted to see what the majority believes. |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 19:02
|
Latin Roman empire 146 B.C. - 476A.D. Greek Roman empire 476 A.D. - 1453 A.D.(especially after 620 A.D. ) ------------- 
|
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 04:27
I would say that after the fall of Constantinople there were in Europe still three entities pretending to be the heirs and somehow the continuators of the Roman Empire: the Habsburgs in Austria, who up to 1800 AD beared the title of Holy Roman Emperor, the Tzars in Russia, who from Peter the Great on called themselves "Imperator" (the Latin way) and the Ottoman Sultans, who beared, amongst others of course, also the title of Qaisar-i-Rum.
These multinational Empires lasted up to WW1, so only after WW1 there were no more heirs of Roman Empire at all. What do you think about?
|
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 04:32
I should have added the Spanish Empire too  .
|
Posted By: olvios
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 04:50
|
And kaiser the german . A great deal of europe continued to have the holy roman empire theme if even partly.
------------- http://www.hoplites.net/ |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 05:06
The German Empire (the Second Reich I mean) lasted too little and it was never a real multinational empire as the other cited were.
|
Posted By: olvios
Date 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/ |
Posted By: zeno
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 05:21
|
5th Century or WW1... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: olvios
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 07:04
|
the ww1 i dont like
------------- http://www.hoplites.net/ |
Posted By: zeno
Date Posted: 01-May-2007 at 07:25
i'd go along with that -------------
|
Posted By: centurion
Date 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 ------------- CIVIS ROMANUS SUM |
Posted By: Larus
Date 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). |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date 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. |
Posted By: Larus
Date Posted: 02-May-2007 at 11:35
Perhaps you are right, but still, that "wishful thinking" was a crucial political agenda of the following era. |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date 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. |
Posted By: Larus
Date 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" |
Posted By: nikodemos
Date 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. |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date 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. "
http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm - http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm
Another interesting stuff (I already posted time ago):
http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/4/4turner.html - http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/4/4turner.html
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 07:11
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.
|
Posted By: nikodemos
Date Posted: 04-May-2007 at 07:03
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. |
Posted By: Balain d Ibelin
Date 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 |
Posted By: zeno
Date 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 -------------
|
Posted By: Ironduke
Date 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 http://www.worldaffairsboard.com - World Affairs Board Geopolitical, Military, & Defense Discussion 351,000 posts - 4,100 members |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-May-2007 at 02:17
| 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. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 09-May-2007 at 02:34
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 09-May-2007 at 02:45
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. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-May-2007 at 20:32
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.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-May-2007 at 20:35
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.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-May-2007 at 22:35
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-May-2007 at 22:41
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-May-2007 at 23:41
|
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.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-May-2007 at 20:54
------------- |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 10-May-2007 at 21:04
Eastern Roman civilization was what the West call middle eastern civilization today, which clearly shows how much alien the West is to the eastern Romans.
Examine The eastern Roman's architecture, literature, music and so forth.
|
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 10-May-2007 at 23:42
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. |