I was wondering whether or not the Roman Empire was supposed to be a great empire. I mean there was 3 civil wars, barbarian invasions followed by weak and corrupt emperors. Whats your opinion?
Printable View
I was wondering whether or not the Roman Empire was supposed to be a great empire. I mean there was 3 civil wars, barbarian invasions followed by weak and corrupt emperors. Whats your opinion?
Nothing is meant to be.
The Roman Empire merely was.
Only three civil wars? If you ask me there were more during Constantius' reign alone.
As for your question, I am on Uesugi Kenshin's side. Empires rise, and fall again when they deplete the resources or lose the circumstances that made them great. It seems to be one of the constants of history.
Yep, Empires wax and wane, although the Romans did have a sense of their own superiority and greatness, especially from the late Republic onwards. They kinda remind me of the British Empire in that regard.
All rulers of empires want them to last. The Roman Emperors grew incompetent and foolish though, and even though they might have wanted a lasting empire, they never did anything about the barbarian threat and ended up reducing the size of the empire's armies, a bad idea seeing that these late Empire soldiers were already getting inexperienced, expensive, and less efficient, due to lack of any generals who had much field experience. Growing corruption and economic problems also made the empire worsen over time.
After Commodus, the Empire was going to fall. The beginning of the end, if you like, with a new trend of useless rulers who appointed useless officials.
The empire lasted pretty long, I think. If you consider a starting date as of Augustus, it preserved itself for a tad more than 1.500 years. One should never forget that there was never a political entity called "Byzantine Empire", it was the Roman Empire alright.
"Byzantium" was not the heir to Rome, it was Rome. The political entity was the same.
An empire lasting 1.500 years is ...well, a very long lasting empire. No state of today can even begin hoping to achieve such longevity.
I would assume the Romans (or "Romans" later) did something right, didn't they?
But even then, in the grand scheme of things, it was almost nothing. If the history of life on earth were represented by a calender with life appearing at 0:00:00 on January 1, humans would not appear until 23:59:00 on December 31, and the Roman Empire would last from 24:59:58 to 24:59:59, about one second.
Isn't that a whole our and one second? Anyway, we're not talking about the grand scale of things. If we talked about the grand scale of things, none of us are significant. Our whole galaxy isn't significant. There are uncountably many galaxies out there, and ours is but one of them.
Roxacrux: The "Roman Empire" centred at Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul wasn't really Roman, though. They ended up as Greek speaking, lost much of Latin, had a different religion and completely different people. They are a different Empire in all but name. They were more of a successor state. Remember, the Western Roman Empire was the 'true' Roman Empire, if you like, as when Valentinianus took over, he gave the Eastern half of the Empire to Valens, re-creating the Eastern Empire. The Byzantines ended up fighting the original Roman Empire, or at the very least funding the aggressors and encouraging them.
Thats 1 Hour and 1 second :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Homo Sapiens
Oops, sorry guys. That kinda wrecked my entire point. But now it's fixed, and we can continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesPanther
What different religion was that then? Rome had been officially Christian since C4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
The Eastern half of the empire had always been predominantly Greek-speaking. The last great 'Roman' historian (before the 'fall of the west') was Ammianus Marcellinus in the C4, a Greek writing in Latin. The capital of the East was Constantinople and continued to be so, unbroken until 1453. They thought of themselves as Romans, they understood themselves to be Roman emperors and Roman citizens, no matter what language they spoke (remember that many languages were spoken in the empire from the very beginning, East and West). 'Byzantine Empire' is a modern concept to help history duffers to understand how the Empire evolved and changed.
In fact, Rosa is being conservative in his time-scale by only counting from the reign of Augustus, because the Roman Imperium, i.e. Empire, as an exercise of power and influence throughout the Mediterranean world, stretches back into the second century BC.
The only problem with the very last phase of the Eastern Empire is that it exercised no real imperium, but they were still the Romaioi, and who are you to deny them that? Some people seem to have a problem with change, and the empire changed considerably throughout its history, it was not an inert monolith.
Nah, I think Emperor Constans I or II changed the capital to Syracuse after attracting the hatred of the people of Constantinople.
The Empire changed so much, it was in effect not the original one anymore. The originals were Italians/Romans, and the Byzantine Empire didn't even speak Latin. Only scholars knew it, for historical or legal purposes. The Byzantines had completely different people. Apart from perhaps a few prestigious Roman families, I doubt many 'Romans' lived in the Byzantine Empire, apart from the short time in which Rome was under Byzantine rule. The originals were pagans. Christianity only became an official religion under Constantinius, if I'm not mistaken, the last emperor of a unified Rome. The Byzantines' religion was only made official in the unified Empire just before it split once again.
Tiberius, as Red Peasant puts it, change is nothing to frown upon. It's a natural evolution of things. The Roman Empire was barely Roman to begin with. I won't go into a "when did the Roman imperium start" type of debate, as I do view (as RP) the early imperium as an empire practically. I'd say that ever since the second punic war Rome was an empire alright. But for simplicity's sake I've picked the "official" starting date of the imperium. But ever since the Romans began absorbing non Romans, they were barely Roman/Italian. There was very early dynasties of non-Italian emperors, the culture of the empire was anyway never Roman (graeco-roman and later greaco-roman-christian would describe it more accurately) so that's not an argument contra the continuation of the eastern empire.
True, the latter evolved (or devolved, any way you like it) and became something completely different. But an empire is not the people that consist it (to put it in perspective the Hapsburgian empire was the same, the Hapsburgian empire, never mind if it was centered in Italy, Spain, Germany or Austria - true, it was a single dynasty, but that's a step back from the Roman concept of an empire, no?).
The Roman entity was discontinued in the West, when the "barbarians" took over, but it kept going in the East. True, the majority of the population spoke Greek and bore a Greek culture, but it was always like that in that part of the world. Most of the "Roman" writers, artists and administrators in the late imperial times, were nothing like Romans - Greek, Gauls, Illyrians and many others, even Goths manned the administration and army for the greater part, the "true Romans" were already a small minority in "their" state.
The eastern Romans, although most tend to call them Greeks, didn't call themselves like that, only to designate their particular ethnic group (and that only after the term "Greek" or "Hellen" correctly, seized to be badmouthing - it equalled "pagan", you know). They called themselves Romans, "Romeoi" (that's Greek for "Romans") or more commonly Romioi. The separation of the Roman empire from the "Byzantine" empire is artificial and invalid - it's the same entity. It had changed over time, that's true... but what doesn't? We ain't talking 100 or 200 years here, we are talking 1.500 + years (if you accept RPs notion, 1700 years).
But if you really want to go down that line... here's some contra argumentation: When did the RE seize to be RE? Is it about Rome? Well, the capital had moved from Rome even before the fall of the West. Is it about the language? Well, Latin kept on being used until 1204 to the least, although only in a narrow part of the whole structure. But even that way, up until the times of Heraclius, the Latin language was used solely as the official language of the empire. Most of the people spoke Greek, of course, but that was the case even in the Roman empire in the 1st century AD. Was it about the Romans and Italians as heads of the state? Well, then 2/3 of the emperors are not "Romans", huh?
Getting back to the question about the empire being "meant" to last: I think the way it was created pretty much undermined it's ability to last. The Romans expanded their territories too quickly and they were too soft in handling the conquered peoples. They would have needed to practice large scale ethnic cleansing everywhere and established Roman (or at least latin Italian) colonies, with a firm policy of never allowing "barbarians" within the empire's borders to outnumber the Romans.
The empire would have grown much slower that way for sure, but it would have had a clearly dominant ethnic and cultural group (not just in terms of political power, but in terms of population). The empire would have been more stable then, although it would still have suffered from internal problems caused by weak economy and incompetent administration.
Note: I am not advocating ethnic cleansing. I am merely saying that for any empire it is vital to have a majority of it's population be of the ruling ethnicity and culture. (Or at the very least to feel that they belong to such group.)
I disagree. The Roman Empires borders were pretty much static for 2-300 years. The problem was they were weakened internally by the endless civil wars and fights for power, and when the Barbarians started pressing them they didn't have the strength to push them back, nor did they produce a man like say another Gaius Marius at the right time who was capable of reversing the tide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conqueror
They expanded incredibly quickly during the Republican period. The obviously didn't expand quickly throughout its whole history, otherwise they'd still be here, and be done with this planet long ago, since they need to expand more.
I wish the Roman empire had lasted tot his day in some form actually :D I don't think anything is meant to do anything though. That the Roman political tradition lasted as long as it did is pretty impressive. The transformations of Rome are similar to those that England has experienced :changes of territory, changes in ruler language, changes in government, changes in religion (though not as drastic as from Helenism to Christianity)
The Roman Empire lasting to this day would mean a superpower that used slaves.
England hasn't really experienced loss of territory much: it conquered colonies and then lost them all in the end. To this day, they only have GB, Northern Ireland, and Falklands (unsure). The Romans actually lost their homeland, Rome itself. The change from Latin to Greek is much more significant than, say, the change from French to English. At least French and English use the same alphabet, for one!
Indeed, they use an advanced form of the euboean one hehQuote:
At least French and English use the same alphabet, for one!
Actually United States Democracy was based off of Roman one. Alphabet thats used today was based off Roman and Greek one. So yes Romes achievments have survived to present day.Quote:
Originally Posted by NodachiSam
Britain controls quite a few islands and other small areas directly. The Queen is also Head of State of quite a few countries (Australia, Canada and New Zealand) The Quen is also head of the commonwealth which is most of the nations Britain controlled at its peak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
That's.. just... so..incorrect. Sure the empire was more than a bit corrupt, but Commodus was not the last good emperor. He wasn't the last useless emperor either. The situation your describing is the crisis of the 5th century. A full 3 centuries after Commodus. And the army reforms of Diocletian and Constantine increased the paper (and actual) strength of the imperial armies. The army created by Augustus was 28 legions, each with a paper strength of 6000. that's 168000 at full strength. But for practical purposes it was probably only 100,000. By the time of Diocletian there were 39 legions. Diocletian doubled or trippled the number of legions when he created the field and border armies. By the time Constantine was finished with what Diocletian had started the field armies alone were the size of the Augustine army. By the mid 4th century there were 3 regional field armie in Gaul, Illyricum, and the east. Then came much smaller armies in other areas like Britain, Thrace, or Africa. The whole she bang was about 400000. And that's not counting the limes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Commodus messed the government up. Once you have useless people appointed at the posts, they get influential. These useless people will support other useless people, making it hard to get the deserving and talented people to get their posts. Commodus wasn't the last good emperor. He was far from good. He wasn't the last useless emperor. I'm saying that he was the first useless emperor in a trend that goes down for centuries. Sure, the late Empire had its share of good emperors, but the empire was in such a mess that they couldn't really get it back to its state, during the time of the five good emperors. Also, don't just look at the numbers. I'm sure the quality of the troops had dropped by that time, and the new barbarian threats were far more dangerous than the Gauls.
EDIT: some major Roman achievements:
-medicine and law use latin
-catholic churches use latin
-christianity is the largest religion
-all the Romance languages are based off Latin, and English
-these languages have spread to the whole of the Americas, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and has become the lingua franca of much of the world
-latin alphabet
-some preservation of earlier Greek texts that would be lost if the Romans didn't copy
That's not true either. Late imperial troops were just a highly trained and decently equipped as Caesar's legions. Morale was the problem, they motivation to defend their homes and conquer new lands was gone. The why is because Diocletian needed a lot more people to man his new much larger army. And the army was manned by citizens, so he made all free men citizens. But that still didn't get enough volunteers. So he made legionary service heriditary. He began forceful recruitment from the veteran colonies around the empire. But especially on the border. Also the situation that existed after Commodus was killed was very similar to the situation after Nero died. Really it happened after most dynastic periods ended. Commodus wasn't the beginning of the end. The crisis of the 3rd century was. That shook the foundations of the Roman state to it's core that caused the fundimental shift in society. It started the march to feudalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Everything is made to last, but then fade away and dissapear. This is the definition of the Roman Empire. :skull:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conqueror
the chinese didn't produce cultural homogeneity through ethnic cleansing yet have 'lasted' far longer than the romans. they used some of the same processes the romans did and absorbed 'barbarians' into the chinese polity the way the italians absorbed 'barbarians' along the mediterranean basin into the roman polity. within the last century the chinese have absorbed the manchus who still had some separate cultural identity as late as the chinese civil war, and there are currently more 'chinese' than tibetans in tibet today. so i don't think ethnic cleansing has been necessary for a long lived empire.
No empire will last. I mean, Rome has lasted through it's memory. It's made it's mark on history and therefore will last forever.
Just like every empire before, every empire now and every empire in the future, Rome was bound to fall.
The only thing that lasts is the marks something has left on society. For example look at Shakespeare, after 400 or so years we are still forced to read the works of that ***** at schools!
I'm sorry if am repeating what everyone else has said, but:
The Roman Empire like all Empires was strong when it was winning and had competition and neighbours to overcome. However, once it had crushed everyone it became complacent and arrogant. It did not recognise the dangers at hand, internal decay and barbarian greed for the riches of the Empire. It acted to late and thus failed in a time of crisis. And has faded into a fond memory and something to base computer games on.
As one man falls another rises to hold the weight of the world.
Probably not. Slavery died and dies out when its not longer economicly practical as occured during and following the Fall of the empire. more likely it would have shifted to fudalism and then to the stage we are now but as Europe as a unified superpower with a singular cultural identity and language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
The fall fo the Empire probably could have been avoided if the Crisis of the third century hadnt occure. Rome would have been in far better economic shape and thus far better military shape....however christianity may not have gained ascendance under these cirucumstances.
Ah, one of those questions that is to be answered with 42? (:book: ) If not: here's my view.
The Romans did have a bit of a problem: money.
You see, when they started the whole thing - I'm talking of the very first Augustus - they had occupied just about every money making part of the Western Hemisphere. In those days modern France, and Spain could pay the little tax that was required to maintain those countries - mostly by slaves. We are talking about an era with 0% inflation for about 100 years, and after that just 0,25% inflation (figures from a BBC show, about how did the Romans, what the EU fails to do?). Italy actually made money in those days.
The trouble began when the whole of Italy didn't make a penny a year - all productivity had moved out of Italy, mostly towards the East. And ever since the Roman state finances system basically boiled down to this: The East (everything East of Italy) pays to keep up the West (Italy and everything West). The West eventually and irrevocably shrank in terms of population, and profit - while the East grew causing famine (as this area was already pushed to the max) and public order trouble.
Seeing this, Emperor Diocletian reorganised the Empire by dividing it into 4 seperate sub-empires. The new administrative centers were: Trier, Mediolanium, Nicomedia, Antioch. After that it was only a matter of time for the Roman Empire to collapse: the single factor that keeped everything together for so long - the fact that everything was turned towards Rome itself - was gone. The 2 Caesars, and the 2 Augustuses weren't driven by a common desire for Roman greatness, whatever Roman thing - they were driven by ambition for their own power, resulting in civil wars and political instability.
Add this to the fact that Rome's income didn't actually grow in all those years: every growth was consumed by larger upkeep costs for their army. Augustus the very first could field about the same amount of usefull (thus active) legions, as the last Emperor ruling the entire Empire.
Add that sum to the new arisen trouble of 'Barbarians' pouring into the Roman world causing social unrest, and new administrative and military difficulties and you have: the Roman Empire was bound not to last.
Ludicrous. Rome never was a Democracy. The United States' Democratic Republic has been built upon the Enlightenment ideals of the Era: the English Whigs, the French philosophes, etc. Even the idea that it was based on the Greek, Athenian to be exact, Democracy was a stretch in and of itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal99
Of course, today's United States is a far cry from what Locke and Montesquieu had dreamed of.
I would say that the USA has some common themes with the roman republic, although it is perhaps more of a fond resemblance. The biggest roman influence i would have to say is the iconography.
It's hard to think of any powerful western nation that hasn't tried to emulate Rome through it's icons. But.. what does US draw upon? Other than perhaps an over use of Eagles, I honestly can't think of anything atm, though I dont doubt that there are more.Quote:
The biggest roman influence i would have to say is the iconography.
Well I believe that if Rome had no republic we wouldnt have one. And besides US democracy is kinda based off Roman one. We have a senate, voters etc. The only thing thats different is they didnt have presidents
Or equal voting rights ... but, they did have corruption, assassination, complete uncaring for their voters, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal99
Democracy is Greek (Athens being the prime example), Rome was never touted as an example of democracy, it was seen primarily as an Empire ... which is why a number of tyrants during history had equated themselves to the Emperors of Rome (such as Napoleon, and Mussolini). Additionally, after the Reneissance, Rome was viewed in a ... less than perfect light ... after all, it was considered that the Pope wasn't necessarily a good guy (quite the opposite), and the Pope claimed Rome.
The use of eagles permeates western culture as a symbol ... dunno why, as an eagle attacks only that which is smaller than itself.
Two fasces appear on either side of the flag of the United States in the United States House of Representatives and im pretty sure its in a few of their state emblems. Other than those i concede that there may not be that many.
The question at hand; was the Roman Empire meant to last? The short answer is yes it was. However as many have said, empires rise and fall with the march of time. I have allowed this thread to continue with hopes it would derail itself back onto topic, sadly that does not appear to be happening..
Thank you all who contributed, but i feel closing this now would be the best course of action. The current road leads to a firey death..