IMPORTANT!!!....... ROME EMPIRE

[fenir]

Some of you seem to be confused as to when the Roman Empire fell.

So to help, I will post it here.

The Roman Empire Finally fell in 29th of May 1453AD, to the turks, after the latins, (western Europeans), and their Crusades, (with no little help from the popes), had finally all but destoryed it.

The Roman Empire DID NOT fall in 410AD with the sacking of Rome.
As that was only the Western half of the Empire.


Hope this has been helpful.

fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Alrowan]

lol.. i was wondering how long it would be till someone picked this up

[CleverClothe]

Depends on what you mean by the Roman Empire. The later empire that is called the Byzantine Empire did not speak latin. Infact, I think its only ties to Rome are in its basic government structure. So I think they are very much a different empire all together.

Would you call America the English Empire?

[MacGregor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bzyantine's didn't call themselves the Bzyantines, they still considered themselves Romans right? or Eastern Romans?

[CleverClothe]

Hmmm... I think they called their capital New Rome (at least orginially and officially). I don't know what the exact title that the emperor took was.

I don't think it was related to Rome though (as that was part of the western empire and continues to show up upon various western kings).

[YunDog]

Quote[/b] (CleverClothe @ Jan. 03 2003,10:03)]Would you call America the English Empire?
[/QUOTE]

Yes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[CleverClothe]

Quote[/b] (YunDog @ Jan. 02 2003,22:53)]
Quote[/b] (YunDog @ Jan. 02 2003,22:53)]Yes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Quote[/b] (YunDog @ Jan. 02 2003,22:53)]Yes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[rasoforos]

ok the byzantines caller themselves 'romaioi' , the title of their religious leader, patriarch, included 'new rome' , BUT the population was not latin at all , and religiously they were different than the mainly pagan rome based roman empire not to mention their cultural differences from the latin roman empire. i have a racidal view of things , i believe that from the moment konstantinus moved the capital to byzantion it was the beginning of the end for rome and thus the empire shifted into something completelly different ( especially after konstantinus started slaughtering non-christians like flies)

[CleverClothe]

Constantine didn't make the eastern capital. But he did move it to Byzantium (I think renaming it New Rome, but also being called Constantinople or Constantine's City(?)).

[Grifman]

Politically it was the same empire. You can trace the line of Byzantine emperors back in an unbroken line to the first Roman Emperor, Caesar Augustus, unless you count the break after the Fourth Crusade. Politically it was the direct descendant of what we call ancient Rome. However, culturally it had divurged - Latin was no longer the lingua franca, being replaced by Greek, territorially it was much more constricted, and it's population (largely Greek) and religion (Orthodox) was much more homogeneous than the old Roman empire.

However, had the Eastern Empire held on to it's non-Greek areas - Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and North Africa, I think it would be thought of as more directly the Roman Empire. In fact some scholars would not say the empire stopped being Roman until the lose of most of those territories in the 630s-640s - you see some scholars referring to it as the Romano-Byzantine Empire up to that time. But after those losses, the empire was clearly more Greek than Roman in culture, religion, and language. In fact, I think most westerners in the Middle Ages referred to it as the Greek Empire, or the Empire of Constantinople.

The American/English parallel isn't http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif England still exists today, so you can't say America is the English empire. A better parallel would be if England had been conquered by Germany or France while it controlled North America, with North America remaining independent and with the new capital of the British Empire being set up in Washington. Would you call it the British/English Empire if it didn't control Britain/England? That's the parallel, not the one that was given.

Grifman

[fenir]

Oh For Gods Sake.

Don't make me give you a history lesson

The Byzantine Empire, came about though ignorance, and jelousy, by the latins (The Western Europeans).
The Where the Roman Empire. And are still refered to as the Roman Empire.
We call it Byzantine now to distingush it as a period of it's history, and because of laziness. And it is this that causes confusion.
It's Offical, and Real name, is the Roman Empire.

Saying otherwise, is like saying the US government is not the US government because it has a democratic President rather than a Republican, or Vice versa.
Or that the german Government is not the same because they moved from Bonn to Berlin.

The Roman Empire had long included Hellenes in it's Empire, hell it was with Hellenic help that it got built in the First place, considering that half of Italys towns on the coast where Hellenic. The Romans where very heavliy influenced by Hellenic culture. We an see that everywhere.

And they didn't stop using latin until roughly about the 12th century, Offically.
The Language of Court was even latin.

fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[khurjan]

erm you forgetting that roman empire was divided officially into western and eastern half so technically they were called eastern roman empire and their laws and customs were reformed under justinian under the codex called justinian laws...this brought them more close to the way greeks thought than romans. so they were romans only in name...and technically speaking rarely any byzantine emperor stayed on the throne till they died naturally and there were quite few different dynasties which ruled byzantine empire not a unbroken line.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[fenir]

Actually khurjan, you are wrong.

The division, did not change the name. So technically you are....ummm wrong?

Justinian, did not change the customs, ffs where the hell did you come up with that one?????

Justinian did reform the Jurisprudence of law, (perhaps you should read some Roman law, you might understand this). But you claim after that, of bringing them to a hellenic outcome rather than a Roman?? They where Roman Romans where latin's, guals, germanics, hellenics, assyrians, Egyptians, Berbers, Arabs, Persians, Slavs.
So what you are saying is Apache aren't Amercians? Mexicians aren't Americans?
SO WHY WHERE THEY NOT ROMAN???

I don't remember Julius Ceasar lasting on the throne either? Or for that matter many others.
I would say that alot of late Roman Emporers 330AD to 1453AD did infact stay on the throne.
How many other Roman Emporers never died on the throne??? Lots. Even the Consuls never stayed.

The Dynasties that you bring up, as almost a point of relevance that you garnished from TV.

Are in fact the related families and sometimes the direct families of earlier Nobles of Rome.
Constantine did in fact take alot of the nobles to the new Capital, Which included the earlier Hellenic noble families.

All these families roots are in the families we can read about in the late Roman empire.
So what was said before, is that there is an unbroken line between the families. Which is correct.

Please read some history before making statements, as yours are false.
If however you have a question?? I am quite prepared to answer it.

fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Lehesu]

Well, you might as well say the Scots are Vikings or Picts I think that the difference between the two Romes are like the difference between the Northern and Southern states during the American Civil War. Barring the fact that the Southern States did rejoin the Union, the two had a similar structure but different ideas for those structures. I think there is enough of a cultural difference between the two, Rome and Byzantium, to state that they are, in fact, separate realms. You might as well say the Romans were Greek, as that is what they took and improved upon. Also, one cannot bar the fact that Byzantium's taking of the Roman mantle was as much for morale as anything. They gain all the benefits of the history of Rome and can use the glory days of the ancient Roman Empire to fuel military and economic wealth. This is much like an usurper to a throne; he takes the throne and declares himself king to gain the support of the people and military. If you want to play semantics and technicalities, fine, Byzantium was Rome. However, the reality is that Byzantium took many of the precepts of Roman government structure and improved and changed upon it to fit their own cultural identity.

[CleverClothe]

Grifman: I was pointing out that you CAN'T call America the English Empire BECAUSE it is not in England. Even though it has mostly the same customs, religion, language, were apart of the same empire and have very similar forms of governement. The fact remains that America is not England.

Likewise, Byzantium is not Rome. It was called the Roman Empire because it was an Empire ruled by the city of Rome (not dependant of the form of government). After the split up of the empire, the take over of the western empire and the collapse of the western empire, we are left with something new. An empire ruled by the city of Byzantium/Constantinople/New Rome. The center of government is NOT the city of Rome. So it can not rightly be called the Roman Empire.

Though it can be called a Roman like empire (Romanesque?).

As to the examples of governments changing capitals... in those cases the governments were of COUNTRIES. In both examples the governments did not leave their namesake and homeland. The German government was still in Germany.

[Vlad The Impaler]

LOL..roman empire fall in 146.. or whatever

[f1tifosi27]

We can argue all day about whether they were the historical continuation of the Roman Empire or Gibbon's interpretation as an unworthy successor, the fact remains that they believed themselves to Romans. Maybe not in the same vein as Constantine or Marcus Aurelius, but their understanding of the world was not as regimented as ours with hard and distinct titles. They saw no problems with calling themselves Romans, while speaking and writing in Greek.

[Knight_Yellow]

The romans never fell their civilisation lives on in my back garden muhahahahaha.

Im ceaser the 45th.

Muhaha muhahahahah muhahahah muyhahaahah

[khurjan]

fenfir i suggest to you not to get too personal about stuff...let me ask you two simple question are you a historian and second have you ever spent 8 yrs of your life in history and archeology field as i have? please if you havent than i suggest you refrain from been immature and downright rude here.....what i posted was a condensed little para about it in nut shell...if i got to write everything about the changes brought about by justinian into the eastern roman empire than i can fill more pages than his server can hold....let me ask you something did you read about legacy left by constantius or diolcetian? i suggest you you find some original latin documents which details the information and go and translate and read...like i had to for my thesis paper. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

[khurjan]

Quote[/b] (fenir @ Jan. 03 2003,10:06)]Actually khurjan, you are wrong.

The division, did not change the name. So technically you are....ummm wrong?

Justinian, did not change the customs, ffs where the hell did you come up with that one?????

Justinian did reform the Jurisprudence of law, (perhaps you should read some Roman law, you might understand this). But you claim after that, of bringing them to a hellenic outcome rather than a Roman?? They where Roman Romans where latin's, guals, germanics, hellenics, assyrians, Egyptians, Berbers, Arabs, Persians, Slavs.
So what you are saying is Apache aren't Amercians? Mexicians aren't Americans?
SO WHY WHERE THEY NOT ROMAN???

I don't remember Julius Ceasar lasting on the throne either? Or for that matter many others.
I would say that alot of late Roman Emporers 330AD to 1453AD did infact stay on the throne.
How many other Roman Emporers never died on the throne??? Lots. Even the Consuls never stayed.

The Dynasties that you bring up, as almost a point of relevance that you garnished from TV.

Are in fact the related families and sometimes the direct families of earlier Nobles of Rome.
Constantine did in fact take alot of the nobles to the new Capital, Which included the earlier Hellenic noble families.

All these families roots are in the families we can read about in the late Roman empire.
So what was said before, is that there is an unbroken line between the families. Which is correct.

Please read some history before making statements, as yours are false.
If however you have a question?? I am quite prepared to answer it.

fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
two words read history you will find that isturian emperors starting from leon were not descendents of old consular families or roman they were natives of asia minor so it already contradicts your own self assesment, secondly most of old roman families had died out they had a custom of adoption of male heirs to prolongue their lines that itself tells you that families might have same names but werent related look at claudius-julian line die out and yet we had differant ceasers claiming descend from that line on throne when infact alot of them came from spain..remember trajan or gaul or even balkans and even a arab...i suggest you read your history before taking it out on others your BS

[Gregoshi]

AHEM http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

This discussion has changed from an intellectual dialog to an pseudo-intellectual sticking-your-tongues-out-at-each-other. And it has gone far enough.

If you think you can focus on the points of disagreement instead of trying to prove who's the biggest moron, I'll let the discussion continue. If not, the discussion will end. Remember, focus on the issue not the person.

Furthermore, when such a discussion begins to degenerate into I say vs You say, it is time to start providing some references to support your argument. Obviously, the best references would be via links to a web page but book references could suffice. If you can't back up your side of an issue with references, then don't argue about it, because that's what the discussion turns into - an useless arguement. You may also have to face the fact that some historical events have more than one interpretation and therefore no one is wrong or right.

Now, here are some do's and don't's when discussing differing opinions in these forums:

#1
Do: I disagree with your point about...because...
Don't: You are wrong.
Usually the person saying this is really the wrong one.

#2
Do: Why do you think that is correct?
Don't: Everyone knows...
Don't: You do know that..., don't you?
These Don'ts have an implied , you moron attached to the end of the sentence.

#3
Do: I disagree with your interpretation of that because...
Don't: You immature, pimplely-faced 15 year olds are so ignorant.
This Don't usually occurs between two 30-40 year old patrons.

#4
Do: What is your source for that information?
Don't: Did you read that on the back of a ceral box?

#5
Do: John Smith's book There's No Place Like Rome states...
Don't: Why don't you stop playing The Sims 24x7 and read some books for a change?

You do understand what I'm getting at, don't you? (See #2 above http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif )

Lecture over. Please continue in a more civil manner and we all might learn something. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[khurjan]

erm agreeded boss i am going not to blame anyone or say anyone is wrong as long as peeps discuss this in civilised way http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[fenir]

ummm yeah I think I was way out of line.

Khurjan, my apolegies, In my drunk stupidity i let my fingers be lead astray. If it's any conselation, I had a wicked hangover.

Gregoshi, Sorry.

Khurjan, I have little training in Archeology, love it, but no training, I do however have alittle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif experiance studying the Roman Empire.

If you may, I will try again.
Emporer Justinian,
Imperator Ceasar Flavius Iustinianus, Alemannicus, Gothicus, Francicus, Germanicus, Anticus, Vandalicus, Africanus, Pius, Felix, Inclytus, Victor ac Triumphator Semper Augustus, Cupidae Legum Iuventuti.

It is correct he reformed the Jurisprudence of Roman Law, (IusRomanum). Which lasted for almost 300 years, before being reformed again in any depth.
NOTE: It was Written in Latin, for those that don't know.
This was actually called Corpus Iuris Civilis.
Which should be included the Institutiones of Gaius which was written 300 years priror to the Corpus iuris Civilis.
These where laid down by Emporer Justinian (Iustinianus) in the 6th century.
Of Course these where all based upon the earlier writings of Roman law, written within the classical period, but you will know that.
Of the main three incorporated,
Institutiones.....Copied from the Institutiones of Gaius.
Digesta or Pandectae.....Legal opinions.
Codex.......Collection of Imperial statues
These form the Corpus Iuris Civilis.

List of helpful IusRomanum.
Fontes et Iurisconsultorum vitea.
1. Biblica Sacra: Testamentum vetus
2. Codex Theodosiani
3. Institutiones Iustiniani
4. Digesta
5. Codex Iustiniani
6. Glossa ordinaria


The one he did not complete, or get around to doing, was the novellae constitutiones. Which was new Legislation.
However, the Corpus Iuris Civilis, as you will know is the most important Roman law that we have, and helped constitute the revival of Roman law in the Middle ages. And all modern roman law study comes from this.
It also became a powerfull ally of later Kings and Emporers.

I have found these related sources on the net, hope they help anyone interested, as the book are expensive.
On a side note, German Civil Code is Heavily Roman law(IusRomanum).
Corpus Iruis Civilis (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/corpus1.html)

An introduction to the history of Justinian's codes by Peter Quinton.

The Law of Actions by Prof. Dr. Ernest Metzger, University of Aberdeen

Cours de Droit romain, Prof. Dr. R. Vigneron, Université de Liège

A translation of the Institutes:
J.A.C Thomas: The Institutes of Justinian, Text, Translation, Commentary, 1975

A translation of the Digest:
A. Watson: The Digest of Justinian, text and translation, Philadelphia 1985.

A textbook for beginners:
J.A.C. Thomas: Textbook of Roman Law, 1976.

However I did take exception to your changed Customs.
For as all the power of the Emporers, how can they change the Customs of the people? Diocletian did try to do this, but mainly as imperial prestige. All of which was carried over to the late Roman Empire, what we know as Byzantine.
I would be Interested to see you expand upon this point, if you would.

The other area I notice that you have mentioned, involving the Families of Rome.
Most Families by blood had died out, this is true.
And at certian points in the history of the Empire, whole stratas of nobles where wiped out.

But when Constantine built the new capital, as the Romans of the High period called it, (New Rome), he also moved a government there, with all the Roman ideas and accepted practises. Helped in no small part that Diocletian had aready moved alot of Nobles etc... to Nicemedia in ~284AD.
Anyway, he was also accompanied by Nobles from the old Roman families, and newer Roman families. But because the hellenic peoples had Roman Citizenship, they where also Romans. As atested to the Emporer that was Born in Thrace to a lowly farming family. He rose to power after revolting in the Dunabe provinces.

Where I see, If I am understanding this correctly, you disagree, with the actual adoption being a continuation of the family line.
The unbroken lines, came about due to the practise of adpotion. Hence this is why we have adoption today, old Roman law.
I do agree however that while the apdotion is not a blood relation(in some cases it was), they still legally adopted them into the families. Therefore they became members of that family. And recongised as such.

To give an Example, in ~1074AD the Comnena adopted a long time Slave into it's family, and as such was recongised as being a member of the Comnena Family. This was done using the laws of adoption as laid down under Roman law.
Or the adoption of Amminia over the the Son of the Emporer, Brittanius.

While we ourselves may say that they are not a member of the family, in Roman times it was very much a legal and honourable act.
It was actually a practise continued into the Holy Roman Empire as well. Right up to the 18th Century in Germany.

I also note that you have said earlier...

Quote[/b] ]there were quite few different dynasties which ruled byzantine empire not a unbroken line.

If I remember correctly, there where alot of families that ruled the Roman Empire before it's division. But it is true, lots of interralated Families Ruled the late Roman Empire just as they had done in the high Roman Empire.

Julio-Claudian, is the House of Flavion. To which the last is that of Emporer Domitian. The Claims is though minor heirs and females, as always tenious at best.

By the Hispanic Emporers i would take it you are looking at the Trajanus?

Marcus Ulpius Trajanus was born on ~18 September 52AD, Italica near Seville.
His Spanish origin made him the first emperor not to come from Italy. Although the family was old Umbrian from Tuder in northern Italy which had chosen to settle in Spain. So his family was not a provincial one.
His father, also called Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, was the first of the family to reach the office of senator, commanded the Tenth Legion 'Fretensis' in the Jewish War of AD 67-68, and became consul in about ~AD 70. And in about AD 75, he became governor of Syria, one of the key military provinces in the empire. Later he was to be governor of the provinces of Baetica and Asia.

Also of note, the Emporer Diocletian (Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus), Son of a poor Scribe.
Who ruled for twenty one years, 20th November 286AD till 305AD, actually ruled from Nicomedia in Bithynia, which is about 100km's South East of what was to become Constantinople. And as you will know, he is actually the one who spereated the Roman Empire into two.
In AD 293 Diocletian founded the 'Tetrarchy', the rule of four.
This came into being with the new idea of imperial government.
Meaning that four emperors should rule the empire. Two Augusti would rule as major emperors, one in the east, one in the west.
Each Augustus would adopt as his son a junior emperor, a Caesar, who would help rule his half of the empire with him and who be his appointed successor.
The two men who were appointed to these positions were Constantius and Galerius, both military men of Danubian origin/fame.

Each of the tetrarchs had his own capital city, and a territory under his control. The idea was to create a system by which heirs to the throne were appointed by merit and would be ruling as Caesars long before the place of Augustus would become vacant.
They would then be the heir to the throne and would appoint the next Caesar, hopefully by merit.
So in theory at least, this system would assure that the best men got the job. The tetrarchy did not officially split the empire into east and west. It remained one unit, but was ruled by four men.
As put down in Roman law by Diocletian. Codex.

Anyway that enough from me, I am going to and lie down, as I feel ill.

PS: My Latin Sucks, as does my Hellenic, So if Ihave made mistakes, i don't care http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif


fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[khurjan]

hey bro this is what i love the way you devastatingly replied back http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif ...i find your reading pretty good too bad i registered late on here or i could have found good material people to work with me on few roman games been developed...can you tell me how strong you in ancient mesopotamian history? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[Xiahou]

Just wondering... isnt it also technically incorrect to say that the Western Empire fell after Rome was sacked in 410AD? It was surely its death knell, as it quickly began to disintigrate immediately after... but I believe that the senate continued to exist and there were even several more emperors (although neither had anything near the power they once enjoyed). If I remember correctly, the last emperor was told, finally, to essentially take a hike when they grew weary of him- at which point he retired to a villa somewhere by the sea.

I don't pretend to know all of the dates and names, because I don't. If anyone can shed anymore light on this, either to reinforce or disprove my statements I'd appreciate it.

[Theodoret]

There were a number of emperors ruling in the West after 410 AD. The capital was moved to Ravenna due to its defensive position, although the Senate stayed in Rome I believe. The last Emperor of the West was Romulus Augustulus who died, no doubt to much rejoicing, in 476. After that the remains of the Western Roman Empire were ruled by Exarchs apointed by the Emperor of the East.

[Theodoret]

Oops, my mistake, Romulus Augustulus wasn't killed in 476. Odoacer merely sent him into exile, although I think the feckless idiot deserved to die.

[Gregoshi]

I knew you folks wouldn't disappoint me. Thanks. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[nokhor]

the byzantine empire in my opinion was the roman empire. the romans made a conscious decision to hold on to the more important part of their empire which was the east. The east was more urbanized, and more importantly had greater revenue. as the empire was attacked again and again the romans held on to the parts more valuable to them.

it is interesting to note that most of the barbarian invaders came from the east and when they couldn't be defeated, were fended off towards the western less important part of the empire.

politically, culturally, and territiorially, the roman state changed drastically from the days of the roman empire to the byzantine, but it was still the same system. just as politically, culturally, and territorially the roman state changed drastically from the days of the roman republic to that of the empire but i think we would all agree its the same state.

in a similar vein, when washington d.c. was chosen as the capital of the u.s. it was in the geographic center. women and blacks could not vote and most respectable men wore white powdered wigs. if you brought george washington to our times, he would not recognized the country he helped found but we would argue that its the same state.

[King David]

The Roman Empire fell when Julius Caesar was murdered by cicero and his backstabing senator friends. If Julius Caesar would have been allowed to continue with his plans to conquier the East (What later became constantinople) Constantine would have been just another nobody in history. and things would have been way different.

[Theodoret]

Some would argue that Caesar killed the Roman empire, at least in its form as the Roman Republic, others would argue that Marius did the dirty deed. Most of these historians tend to hold a rather romantic view of the Roman Republic, or alternatively of Julius Caesar. I think Augustus was more than the equal of his uncle so I'm afraid I don't think the death of Caesar was such a great loss for Rome. Whilst it is fun to play alternative history games I honestly cannot see how Caesar becoming king would have changed things much. After all, his nephew was king in all but name, and the Triumvirate prior to that were effectively functioning as a 2+1 co-regency.

[fenir]

Gregoshi, khurjan

I am sorry, i don't often drink, but like all men of the world i have my follys.
Unfortunately I tend to get a little agressive when, well how can i put this....when I have had more than my fill?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Then my fingers tend to wander and talk rather than my Head.


Quote[/b] ]khurjan
can you tell me how strong you in ancient mesopotamian history?

I am sorry to say, i really do lack any great knowledge about mesopotamian.
Other than some dealings with Roman, Perisa and Egypt, and some minor details here and there.
Therefore I would not say i am one who could shed light on anything in particular.
Why do you ask?

Xiahou
It would actually be more technically correct to say that the Western 'half' of the Empire fell after Rome was sacked in 410AD, and again some 16years later, and again about 8 years after, which was truely it's death.
However, Theodoret pointed out that Odoacer, the Goth King. had taken over, he actually asked the Emperor to grant him the Title King of Italy, and to join the empire.
Of course anyone would be silly not to. SO the Emperor said why Sure http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

nokhor
Yes you are quite correct, the Roman State (both republic and Empire), changed greatly over time, and almost continously. Politically, culturally, and territiorially.
For they accepted Gods of the Hellenes, and laws of such and others. Also they where greatly read in Hellenic teachings. And knew much of Alexander the Great, from the Hellenic Macedonia.



Quote[/b] ]King David
The Roman Empire fell when Julius Caesar was murdered by cicero and his backstabing senator friends. If Julius Caesar would have been allowed to continue with his plans to conquier the East (What later became constantinople) Constantine would have been just another nobody in history. and things would have been way different.

Well thats really just your opinion, we could also say that if the USA had not had French help in 1774AD the Americans would still be English.
But anyway that is beside the point.

Julius Caesar
Gaius Julius Caesar was born on 12 July 100 BC in Rome, son of Gaius Caesar and Aurelia. Governor of Gaul 58-49 BC. Appointed dictator for ten years in 47 B, for life on 14 February 44 BC. Married initially to Cornelia (one daughter, Julia), then to Pompeia, alas to Calpurnia. Assassinated on 15 March 44 BC. Deified in 42 BC

Now if I understand you here, as you have not clearly made out what you are pointing at, so to speak.
Now, if i am not mistaken, All of Modern Greece, Albainia and Macedonia were Roman, and lots of Roman Citizens by 146BC, almost 46 years before his birth.
And Asia, (the Province) was taken in 133BC That is the Area Directly opposite modern Greece today, in Turkey.
Also Crete was annexed about 67BC if I remember, And Cyprus in 58BC
Phrygia 116BC, Cilicia 102BC and again in 67BC, Syria 64BC Bithynia 74BC,
hmmmmm Ok that is over half of modern Turkey, So if was mostly done before Julius Caesar was out of his military Iussed nappies. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

In the West we know him so well because he was the western Consul, the Commander that took Modern France etc...

But do you know who took the East?

But anyway, you say that he would have conquered the east? Which east? as the East was all but won. In fact much of the east stayed (A Roman, Roughly) the same for over 200 years if I am not mistaken.
In 44BC the Roman republic Controled the whole Mare Internum, or Mediterranean in todays language.
And those that Where not Roman Territory, were Client states. The only one that wasn't was the Parthian Empire, And they had no access to the mare Internum.
Hence is why the sacked Syria when they felt like fighting someone.

And since Julius Caesar was dead for over 300 Years before Diocletian founded the Tetrarchy, and 350 years before Constantinople was founded, I can't honestly see how he could have changed things.

Julius Caesar was also not an Emporer, he was actually a Dictator. As from memory he would not accept the position in name. But he was the Destoryer of the Republic, for that is true.
But I still am not sure if he did it willingly. I think he was loath to destory the old Republic.




fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Gregoshi]

Don worry about it fenir, we all have bad days. You've recovered splendidly. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[lolik4]

what are you all talking about, when Rome fell so the Roman empire did.
Byzantium was a totally different empire, greatly influenced by Roman world and culture and ways of life, even by ways of fighting battle and war, but like i said its totally diff Empire.
there's nothing here make me believe its the opposite.
at least try maybe i ll listen

[Theodoret]

Diocletian divided the Empire into two parts, East and West, each ruled by its own Augustus and his Caesar. In the intervening years things changed (for example the Emperor Constantius ruled both East and West and was loath to apoint a Caesar, with good reason as both Gaius and Julien rebelled against him) but the basic division remained.

The Eastern Roman Empire persisted after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and it is this Empire which modern scholars refer to as the 'Byzantine' Empire. So the Byzantine Empire is not 'totally different' to the Roman Empire, it is the Eastern half of the Roman Empire which persisted with its own Augustus (later called Basileus) for some one thousand years after the Western Empire fell.

The only way one could say that the Byzantine Empire was not the Roman Empire would be to play semantics, and claim that the Roman Empire cannot be Roman unless Rome is its capital. I very much doubt the Emperors in Constantinople would have agreed with you though.

[A.Saturnus]

How about that one:
The Roman Empire ended in 1918

Not only the Byzantines have seen themselves as Romans but also the German Emperors, who declared themselves as the rightfull heirs of the Roman Emperors. Of course the HRE lost its union and with that its political strength, but there was still a Emperor. The final dynasty was the Habsburgs, and they ruled Austria till 1918.
Of course no one considered the Austrian Emperor as Roman. All I want to say is that it`s more or less arbitrary what you call the End of the Roman Empire, it`s a matter of definition.

[ZIM!]

yeah I belive there were several emerrors after it fell but they were Barbaian emporers( there goes the neighborhood)

[Suppiluliumas]

And then of course, there was the Sultanate of Rhum. They also saw themselves as successors, if in name only, of the Roman Empire.

[fenir]

lolik4
Please read up on the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire as is called today is simply a modern reference name. It is not the real name, as such it was the Roman Empire.
Many historians even complain today about this, because people then tend to think that the empire is a different one. However, we know it is not so.

I think I have given enough evidence to support these facts, and nearly all modern historians agree without a shadow of a doubt. Byzantine is the late Roman Empire.
I would also refer you to Theodoret's posting giving a quick reference and understanding to the Roman situation.

You must also remember Rome was not always the Capital of the Roman Republic or the Roman Empire.
For example, Julius Caesar was Stab to death in Pompey(not Rome as many believe), where the Roman Government had been moved due to repairs to the Roman Senate in Rome. Hence the Government was in Pompey, therefore the capital had moved, as it had at one stage been in Modern Germany, and then Nicomedia, then Constantinpole.
Or the Kingdom of England, moved it's capital to London, or the Holy Roman Empire/ Germany Empire moved it's capital to Berlin in the 1800's.
A simple Capital is not the End of a Empire, Perisans and Russians have also moved their Capitals, so have the Egyptians many times. I do not know of any nation/faction/people that has not atleast in some time moved there Government/Capital.
That however did not change the status of the faction/Country/people.

A.Saturnus
That is not the Roman Empire, and never was.
It was the Holy Roman Empire, eg: that of the latins, it was made by the Pope out of jealously. And did not have much control over most of it's so called territory.
And the title was renounced in 1806AD not 1918AD, and there after became a relic, never to be used in 200 years.
1918AD was also the last of the Hapsburg-Lorthingen House rule over the Austrian Empire. Not however the Holy Roman Empire.
And the Emporer of the Holy Roman Empire (Henry IV) even Acknowledge the Roman State, because the Roman Emporer (Alexius I KOMNHNHS) Married the Holy Roman Emporers Daugther, Irene.
Hope I have the Right Emporer on fact one? hmmmm might have to check that later. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif


Quote[/b] ]All I want to say is that it`s more or less arbitrary what you call the End of the Roman Empire, it`s a matter of definition.

Nope, sorry, it's a matter of Law, and Continuation.
Law and government in the Late Roman Empire/byzantine was Roman law and Government before it. And the people where also the same, and had Roman Citizenship, not all where Hellenic also.


Quote[/b] ]it`s more or less arbitrary

Definition; based on or derived from uninformed opinion or random choice. capricious despotic. Comes from latin Aribitrarious

So you are saying that myself, and all others are basing the Roman Empire upon our opinions that are uninformed?
Thank you, that is most helpful to the discussion.

Even though i have given historical evidence of my writings in this very thread.
Therefore I cannot be said to give my opinion upon uninformed information.
If however I had not provided the information to back up my statements, (like in my disgusting reply to khurjun), I would be guilty of historical geneocide. And not to mention lieing to you.
But because I have, you post is proved moot.

Suppiluliumas
Actually, the Sultanate of Rum, was supposed to be tributary to the Roman Empire.
They also could not claim the Roman Throne, as the needed the linage to do it, and/or Roman Law.
They had neither, and therefore have no claim to it.
Besides they would have needed to become Christians to claim it.
While the Sultanate of Rum ruled a large christian (Hellenic/Armenian) population, they where themselves where not christians, but muslims.


fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[CleverClothe]

fenir: What exactly do you mean by real name?

Or, more to the point, how do you think the proper name should be decided?

[Suppiluliumas]

Quote[/b] (fenir @ Jan. 07 2003,19:42)]Suppiluliumas
Actually, the Sultanate of Rum, was supposed to be tributary to the Roman Empire.
They also could not claim the Roman Throne, as the needed the linage to do it, and/or Roman Law.
They had neither, and therefore have no claim to it.
Besides they would have needed to become Christians to claim it.
While the Sultanate of Rum ruled a large christian (Hellenic/Armenian) population, they where themselves where not christians, but muslims.
Fenir, while what you say about their religion and ancestry is true, whether or not you feel their claims were justified, the Sultanate of Rum did indeed claim to be successors to the Romans as signified by the name they used for their kingdom. And that is all that I claimed in my post.

[Grifman]

Quote[/b] (King David @ Jan. 05 2003,14:50)]The Roman Empire fell when Julius Caesar was murdered by cicero and his backstabing senator friends. If Julius Caesar would have been allowed to continue with his plans to conquier the East (What later became constantinople) Constantine would have been just another nobody in history. and things would have been way different.
Your history is a bit strange. Rome already controlled the city of Byzantium (which later became Constantinople) by the time of Julius Caesar. The East Caesar wished to conquer was the Parthian Empire - Rome already effectively controlled much of the Eastern Med - Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, etc. Only Egypt was left to be conquered after the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra. To say the Roman Empire fell before the first emperor ever ruled (Augustus Caesar) is more than a bit silly. And since Constantine ruled 300 years after Julius Caesar it's hard to way what the impact of Caesar's death would have had had it been postponed. You need to learn more history before posting such silliness.

Grifman

[Grifman]

Quote[/b] (khurjan @ Jan. 03 2003,12:10)]erm you forgetting that roman empire was divided officially into western and eastern half so technically they were called eastern roman empire and their laws and customs were reformed under justinian under the codex called justinian laws...this brought them more close to the way greeks thought than romans. so they were romans only in name...and technically speaking rarely any byzantine emperor stayed on the throne till they died naturally and there were quite few different dynasties which ruled byzantine empire not a unbroken line.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
You misunderstand. When I said unbroken line I don't mean that they descended directly from one another. My point is that there was an unbroken line of emperors back to Augustus, the first emperor - there was not a conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire by outside forces. It was a continuous govt by under the emperors, whether you choose to call them Roman or Byzantine. It was like the US being controlled by different political parties during it's history - you don't change the name of the country just because another political party gains power. So on what basis do you change the name of the empire from Roman to Byzantine?

Grifman

[fenir]

CleverClothe

It really is not up to me how they are named, it is more to do with the name they where given/gave themselves.

Since the Laws, Language and Government, and to a large degree the people, nobles and Imperial Family espeically where the same, they where/are the Roman Empire.
Abit the later Roman Empire in historical terms.

Simply put, they only changed the way in which the Roman Empire was Goverorned. And lost alot of territory, most of which was later regained.

Nothing else was changed.

Suppiluliumas

Quote[/b] ]whether or not you feel their claims were justified, the Sultanate of Rum did indeed claim to be successors to the Romans as signified by the name they used for their kingdom

Well it is true, there claim cannot be even remotely true, if there was such a claim.
But my point was, that they named it the Sultanate of Rum, because they where a tributary state to the Roman Emporer.
And the Sultanate of Rum ceased to exist, over 100 years before the Seljuk Turks paid the Italians to take them across to Europe. ~1361AD.
Since the Roman Empire never Fell until 29th of May 1453AD, they could not claim something that already existed.
And I have never read of any such claim being made by the Sultans, or by the Ottoman Turks.

Anyway, a name does not mean there is a claim upon a title or territory.
A claim only happens when the leader or claimate, makes a formal declaration.
Their name actually describes that they where part of the Empire for a short while. And owed tribute.
This helped to keep others from encroachment.


fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Surak-nar]

Wow, very nice , informative and well researched discussion indeed. I am really glad to read all the posts

And, additionally to what has been said, I would like to add a few more from another perspective.

Yes the Roman Empire was divided and ruled as Western and Eastern Roman Empire, yes many of its political and military roots are Roman, however, and first of all.

Lets not forget that the Late Roman empire was not the one that we usually all refer too, invisioning Julius Caesar Conquering the Gauls, or the Fight for Egypt, Carthage, or Conquests of the East. By that time Romans had adopted a way of assimilation by granting Roman Citizenship to everyone they Conquered, which in turn, granted the rights of many different nationalities to be part of the Pax Romana, and prosper the very same way as anyone else, were they Roman? yes in a sence, they were Roman Citizens, were they really Romans? Some would argue that not, and also argue that all these people even thought part of the same Empire retained their roots and contributed to the Fall of the Empire.

Did the Empire fell in the 400's yes, as the Roman Empire was known in that time, some part of it did continue to exists but the Roman Empire fell. And what remained came down to be known as Byzantine Empire, sprung from the ashes of the Roman Empire yes, yet a different all together Empire with different Goals and Peopls and eventually Customs.

Most Importantly however, what contributed to the shism of East and West, was Religion, which surprisingly was not tackled in this Discussion.

And it was the most Important factor.

Constantine established a new Roman Capital near the small town of Byzantium, (which gave its name later on to the Empire that was to be). But most of all, he established a center of Christianism.

Goths, Vandales, and all the other Invaders from the North and East that caused the fall of the Western Part were Pagan, not Christian. When established in the former Roman Empire's Territories and formed little Kingdoms, these were not Christian.

So what was the world Like? We had a Church, which survived as the Orthodox Church, from it sprung the Catholic Church which was based in Rome, and both Churches excomunicated eachother, the East was strong, it had held, the West was weak and devided, but when the Churches Separated, then the Western part based in Rome sought to grow its strength and thus appealed to the western Pagan Kingdoms, Popes started declaring Holy Roman Empires, in a sence, in relation to Rome the City but reminescent of the Rome the Empire. Which apealed to many Kings including Charlemagne.

It is why the Holy Roman Empire changed Locations and People so many times, as Royal Families intermaried their descendants claimed The Ultimate Title one after another.

Politics in that time where an integral part of the Popes of that time, they influenced, created or destroyed many Kingdoms. And when the Crusades to free the Holy lands came upon the world that Military Might, had to march its way there. Byzantium as a Christian (even thought Rival Church) Empire, let these armies march within its territories, as far as Faith was conserned it had same goals as any other Christian, Pushing back the Infidel from the Holy lands...However, it is also due to that that the Crusading Armies Sacked constantinopole, after all, the Catholic interests dictated such an act. Effectivelly shaking and weakening Byzantine Infrastructure which inadvertently led to its fall.

Was it a good or bad act, we are not here to judge we can however observe and learn from the past, the judgement must come from the beholder. I just find it interesting to Inform you however how Pope Jean-Paul II officially apologised to the Greek Orthodox Church for having Sacked Constantinopole back in the Crusades, during his last visit to Greece, a couple of years ago I beleive.

In any case the Religion Factor was the Bigest one, above Politics, Economics, and Social Structure.

Just Thought to bring that perspective in to the table, I recognize, I do not give hard facts, or presise dates, it is a Fly over of Historical accounts, but overal it is what transpired back in those days.

And might I add, what the designers, in my humble opinion, sought to simulate in MTW. Up to a certain degree, pixels, 1's and 0's sparkled with the creativity of the designers, this goal is portraiyed, even thought subtly, in MTW.

Thank you.

[Elwe]

I agree that the Catholic/Orthodox Schism had a large impact on the fall of the Roman Empire. I would differ with one point you made:


Quote[/b] ]Byzantium as a Christian (even thought Rival Church) Empire, let these armies march within its territories, as far as Faith was conserned it had same goals as any other Christian, Pushing back the Infidel from the Holy lands...However, it is also due to that that the Crusading Armies Sacked constantinopole, after all, the Catholic interests dictated such an act.

Pushing back the 'Infidel' from the Holy Lands was not a major consideration of the Byzantine Emperor of the time (Alexius). He saw the muslim nations on his eastern border as a threat to the Empire, and as such had the idea of calling on the western Christian nations for help, via the Pope. He was actually horrified when the Pope called for the Crusade, but by this stage there was nothing he could do.

The Byzantine provinces in Asia Minor actually contained a large number of muslims, and having such a proximity to the muslim nations for so many centuries, the Byzantines were tolerant of their faith - something reciprocated by the muslim nations themselves.

The 'save the Holy Lands from the Infidel' was merely a catch-cry for the Westerners to gather troops to their banners. The Byzantines (at least originally) merely wanted to regain their own territory.


Quote[/b] ]In any case the Religion Factor was the Bigest one, above Politics, Economics, and Social Structure.

Big? yes. Biggest? I'm not so sure. The greed of the Norman adventurer nobles attempting to increase their holdings is what I would possibly put down as the biggest factor, using religion as an excuse.

[Theodoret]

Yes, the Sicilian Normans were not very happy when Alexius tried to get them to swap Antioch for provinces adjoining the 'infidel'. Many of the crusaders were more interested in land than God, as was Alexius. As for the sack of Constantinople, the Fourth Crusade was disowned by the Pope, Innocent III, he actually excommunicated its leaders, including the Doge of Venice after they attacked the city of Zara, recently captured from Venice by the Hungarians. It was apparent to Innocent III that the 'crusade' was nothing of the sort. Originally its leaders had said they were going to invade Egypt and progress north to the Holy Land, but they soon decided they would rather destroy the last significant outpost of Christianity in the East. It was only later Popes who recognised the Latin 'Emperors', I think.

[Gregoshi]

I'm moving this fascinating topic to the Monastery forum for the regulars there to participate if they so wish. I believe most all particpants here are able to post there now, so please continue it there.

Thanks to all for contributing their knowledge for the benefit of those in the Entrance Hall. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[A.Saturnus]

Fenir, maybe I should have placed a http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif behind my post. I wrote it to take some seriousness out of the discussion and not to make a historic statement.
It would lead to much into philosophical fields to explain why law and continuation are arbitrary, but I could post a new thread in the tavern if you want to hear it. However, "Roman Empire" is a name, and for all names counts that they need a definition - implicit or explicit - to be meaningfull, so how do you define "Roman Empire"? It depends on that definition if the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire. If it`s usefull to historician to see it as such, than they can do it, but it may also have advantages to separate them.

[Rosacrux]

Suraknar

Very interesting post, I would like to discuss a couple of points of it with you.


Quote[/b] ] Most Importantly however, what contributed to the shism of East and West, was Religion, which surprisingly was not tackled in this Discussion.

And it was the most Important factor.

Interesting remark and indeed left out of the conversation, but at the time Church was a political authority, not a religious one. In the East, head of the Orthodox church was the Emperor of New Rome, in the West, the Popes established themselves among the invading populations as a local authority, the bearer of the light for the late Roman empire, in a way. And when Christianity prevailed, it was only a child’s play to make every authority in the medieval world a subject of the “greater authority”, which was the church.

It would be off topic to try and explain why the church rose to such strength in the western Europe during the dark ages and why progress was possible only after the church was weakened significantly.

The church, though, was not a religious authority, but a purely political entity, both in the East and the West. In Byzantium the emperors managed to hold the Orthodox church under a relatively strong rule, bonding the religious and state authorities into one. In the West, things were kind different, as the Catholic church has rise to become itself a state authority, and a very strong one indeed, by having the right to grand royal rights throughout the continent.

So, religion as per se was not the main factor behind the crusades, it was just a force that provided with an alibi for the political, territorial, dynastic aims and claims of the established ruling classes of the vivid and strong (but with many internal problems and weaknesses) medieval kingdoms.

So this statement of yours


Quote[/b] ]In any case the Religion Factor was the Bigest one, above Politics, Economics, and Social Structure.

would only make sense if taken into consideration that politics, economics and religion at the times were so closely bond together, one could hardly separate them.

But overall, good thinking. *thumbs up*

[fenir]

Suraknar


Quote[/b] ]Lets not forget that the Late Roman empire was not the one that we usually all refer too, invisioning Julius Caesar

Envision/envisage (your Invisioning) is not the same as fact, and has never been apart of history.
It is perhaps the same as, "what we want to be true", As oppossed to what is true.

Whether we see something, or envision, it need not be fact.
Strictly speaking the definition of envision or envisage is that of prescribing, or seeing a mental picture of a future event.
What we 'usually refer' to as the Roman Empire, does that make it right? By that Statement you have placed the right of the masses, however un-learned of the facts, over the learning of the few that have truely studied the history. EG: Opinion as opposed to Facts.
If you needed medical help, would you go to a mechanic?
Julius Caesar, lived for about 66 years, a small part of the existance of the Empire/Republic.
By the time he was Born the Roman Republic had been going for about 400 years. And Julius Caesar was only acitve for the last ~30years of his life.


Quote[/b] ]were they Roman? yes in a sence, they were Roman Citizens, were they really Romans? Some would argue that not, and also argue that all these people even thought part of the same Empire retained their roots and contributed to the Fall of the Empire.

Where the citizens of Rome, Roman? How many and who? What is a Roman citizen? By your standards? or by Roman law?
So this begs the question, how long do you have to be an accepted member of a society to become citizen of it.
Are you a citizen, when the Law tells you? Or when your neighbour says so?
By your statement you would have us believe that the people who did not arrive in say... Canada before say 1879AD, and not of British origin, are not citizens of Canada today?

Even though like the Hellenes and the other peoples of the Roman Empire, there sons and Daughters, etc... shed there blood, sweat and tears for it, both to defend it and build it.
This of course brings another question to the fore, that of the Indians of Canada. Are they not citizens, or are they too, just another outcast of hangers on?
By your reasoning, you should ask yourself, are you really Canadian? Some would argue not. If you are Dark skinned, should you be a citizen? Some would argue not.
It is the same logic that you suppose in your assumption.

Whether a people retain their roots or not, i doubt greatly in my mind that this was a main reason for the fall of the Empire. And has neve been a factor for most historians, and the reasons are well documented. The USA is built upon the same reasoning.
History itself has shown more the great movements of peoples against its borders to have been of greater concern, and one factor contributing to the fall.


Quote[/b] ]Did the Empire fell in the 400's yes, as the Roman Empire was known in that time

No, sorry http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I have already showen this and given it's referrences. Please make note and read the facts them before giving such a statement of your belief.
It would be more correct to say that the Western half fell. Though not all of the West, as not all of southern Italy fell to the Gothic, German tribes.
This however is the Interesting part. as the Roman Empire was known in that time
As it was known? Then the answer was most differently no it didn't fall.
Under Roman law 'codex' if the Emporer of either east or West fell, then the remaining emperor took control, such was the 'Rule of Four'.
However, your entire arguement is built on the premises of Rome falling, as to being the Roman Empire falling. Which is hardly historical fact or reasoning. And the easiest of this to refute this, is becuase an Emperor still existed. Hence the government still existed, citizens still existed, etc...This was exactly why the 'Rule of Four' was setup.
But what of the other times Rome has been Sacked? By your reasoning then the Roman republic fell 100's of years before.


Quote[/b] ]Most Importantly however, what contributed to the shism of East and West, was Religion, which surprisingly was not tackled in this Discussion.

This has already been delt with, and quite well.
As this was simply put, greed, jealousy, Power. The usual suspects as we call them, (or politics). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


Quote[/b] ]Constantine established a new Roman Capital near the small town of Byzantium, (which gave its name later on to the Empire that was to be). But most of all, he established a center of Christianism.
Byzantium did not give it's name at all, it came about by a Frenchman, whom at present, his name escapes me. And was not so, until about the ~17th or 18th Century. About 200years after the fall.
And the Empire was never called the Byzantine Empire, never, not ever. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The pope, and others, referred to them as the Roman Empire, some used the name Empire of the Greeks.

We now use it (unfortunately) to describe the late Rome Empire, after the Classical period of the Roman Empire. As I have previously pointed out. Hence the confusion for many.

The Empire to be? The Empire already Existed, how did it not Exist? When was it not the Empire?
Please expand upon, and please use facts.


Quote[/b] ]Just Thought to bring that perspective in to the table, I recognize, I do not give hard facts, or presise dates, it is a Fly over of Historical accounts, but overal it is what transpired back in those days.
ummmmm it is historical you say? Really?

I would like to see you provided facts if you would.

A.Saturnus
First of all, my apolegies for taking it to seriously.
philosophy? Hmmm I hate modern philosophy. Mathematics? Now there is a most excellent subject http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

however, I understand your point, but perhaps it needs to be changed back to its' real name. After all a Frenchman has miss named an empire upon whos tradition the westerrn world is built, that and the Classical Hellenic world.
Shouldn't we now change to what we know is true?

Would we call the British Empire anything other than the British Empire? What would be said if we called it the English Empire. Lots of upset people. And it wouldn't be true.
Espeically in light of the Scots, Welsh, and Irish who where just as much a part of Building, defending, and taking part in it, as where the English.
What would happen if the French came to London in 1890AD, and said "hello Great Emperor of the people in red coats"? (hmmmm war?).

Anyway I am tried, so i am going to bed.

fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[fenir]

Before I go, it seems that every arguement is built upon the idea that if Rome fell, the the Roman Empire fell.

Yet this same idea is not passed on to other Factions/Peoples/Countries.


Why?




fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[A.Saturnus]

Most Roman emperors got emperors by just killing everyone who said otherwise. So, if I declare myself Roman emperor and kill everyone who doesn`t believe it, I am Roman emperor. The emperor of Austria did`t say he`s Roman emperor, but his title was "Kaiser" which comes from Ceasar, so he was - somehow - in Roman tradition. What actually makes the rulers in Constantinople the "rightful" owner of the title Roman emperor? Constantinople wasn`t Rome, the dynasty has changed, the language has changed, the culture has changed, the laws have (partly) changed, the people has changed, the land has changed. So nothing was the same except the name and everything can be called "Roman empire" even the darkest spots under my bed where I never clean.

[Theodoret]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Jan. 15 2003,08:45)]Most Roman emperors got emperors by just killing everyone who said otherwise. So, if I declare myself Roman emperor and kill everyone who doesn`t believe it, I am Roman emperor.
How does that distinguish them from other monarchs? Henry VII became King of England because he declared himself the rightful king and killed everyone who disagreed with him. A whole host of other monarchs have behaved in a similiar manner.

According to your line of reasoning, we should think up a lot of different names for England, after all 'England' seems to have been 'conquered' rather a lot. Perhaps it was only 'really' England when the Angles held the key positions of power. The same line of reasoning would have us arguing over whether France can truly be called France and Germany truly Germany, nevermind Russia, China and the United States. Heroclitus might find the argument interesting, but no-one else would. The Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire because its laws, customs, political authority and very existance are directly derived from those of Octavian's Empire. Nor are such laws and institutions merely copied from another state as is the case for Charlemane's Empire. As for rulers calling themselves 'Tsar' 'Kaiser' or even 'Imperator'; as Emperor Romanus remarked after Symeon, King of Bulgaria proclaimed himself 'Emperor of the Romans' "..he can call himself Caliph of Bagdad.."

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Here is a semi-unrelated but mabye related question pertaining to some research I have been doing regarding the Holy Roman Empire:

Why do the Austrians go around calling themselves "the King of the Romans"?

Other than trying to recreate the boundaries of the old Western Empire -was there any kind of linear contact back to the Byz or Romans?

I think it was just a marketing ploy on their part, "hey - we got the same boundaries - check us out"

~BW

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Jan. 15 2003,08:45)]The emperor of Austria did`t say he`s Roman emperor, but his title was "Kaiser" which comes from Ceasar, so he was - somehow - in Roman tradition.
Yes, but for example, the word "Duke" comes to us from the Roman title of "dux". Was the Duke of Wellington a Roman?

Remnants of a language does not mean you are of the people.

[Theodoret]

Count, constable and probably a whole load of other titles are Roman in origin as well. People in the early middle ages took Roman titles in order to adopt some of the majesty and authority of Rome. So a number of rulers declared themselves Caesar (or Tsar or Kaiser) and some declared themselves Augustus. But as the Emperor Romanus says, you can call yourself anything you like. (For instance I could call myself 'Doctor Tee', but as I don't have PhD or an MD I would have no right to such a title and other people could, rightly, refuse to refer to me by it). Rulers of Austria, Russia or Bulgaria calling themselves 'Emperor of the Romans' is just as bogus as if they called themselves 'Professor of Lucasian Mathematics'.

[fenir]

A.Saturnus
If you moved house, and brought a new one.
It would still be your home? Wouldn't it?

Nothing much changed in the first 500 years of the capital moving to Constaninople. It only really changed in the middle ages. And they still spoke latin right up to the 12th century. Same as everyone else, Latin was the Linga franca, as they say.


fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Teutonic Knight]

bravo fenir, bravo
jolly good show m8

[nokhor]

by an edict of the roman emperor caracalla 200s A.D. all subjects of the empire were granted citizenship. it was done primarily for conscription purposes.

that is when some historians argue that 'romaness' had changed from being a italian prerogative and there were spaniards, n. africans, illyrians, and and arab who were all roman emperors way before constantine moved the capital to byzantium.

the capital of the western half of the empire was moved to milan and ravenna on occasions again way before constantine so rome had lost its mystique as THE capital way before byzantium was refounded.

Whenever the empire was divided, as in under theodosius I, diocletian, and constantine himself, the senior emperor or eldest son invariably recieved the more important, eastern part of the empire, and the juniors were relegated to the west.

most importantly, the barbarian invaders that caused the collapse of the western empire came from the east. why is it that the visigoths, ostrogoths, vandals etc. did not settle in the far richer, more valuable eastern part of the empire? they tried and tried hard. they would defeat roman armies and aim for constantinople and fail. some even managed to settle in the eastern part of the empire for a number of years but they could never do so permanently becasue of constant pressure by the romans who fought tenaciously to hold on to their core eastern provinces and push off the barbarians towards the hinterlands of the west that were held less securely.

over time the heartland of the empire shifted eastward and what it meant to be roman became less exclusive. just as over the course of the republic 'romanness' expanded from just being a citizen of the city of rome, to include the greeks poleis in southern italy and the northern italians of cisalpine gaul.

[Hakonarson]

Ah - the joys of pedantry.

Just to add another can of gas to teh fire - romans were not Latins, although Latins weer occasionally granted Roman citizenship and were inducted en-masse at various times - the earliest known being tusculum in 381BC, and many others were absorbed after the Latin war of 340-338BC.

Many more Latins became "Roman" by accepting land in Roman colonies.

thereafter "Latin rights" were a class of less-than-citizenship rights granted to various peoples who would often progress to full Roman citizenship after a few generations or centuries.

[fenir]

SPQR

Senatus Populusque Romanus - The Senate and the Roman People.

Romans where in the east, the senate was in the east. ROME was in the east http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif



Anyway people, this is me bowing out.

I have enjoyed these boards and the people that grace them, but now it's time for me to take my leave of you all.

I will hopefully see many of you again in 9 months time.
All the best.


fenir http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
"Discamus et Delectemus". "Let us learn and let us enjoy"

[Whitey]

you'll be back Fenir...'they always come back' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

good luck,

Whitey