When did the Roman empire cease to be? In YOUR opinion...

Personally i think the Roman empire began dying when the old gods were swept aside and Christianity became the official religion, and then finally died in 476AD when the last emperor was deposed by Odocer(sp).

I don't think the eastern Roman empire can still be considered a continuation of Rome simply because the western empire had dissolved and the city of Rome was ruled by barbarians with no senate and no powers in the hands of the old Romans. After that the eastern empire was just an empire that had broken off from the old Roman empire.

Also the Holy Roman Empire is a joke, everybody knows the old saying... Neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Other peoples tried to be the new Rome but without the city and the actual Roman people that's just not possible.

What's everybody elses opinion on it? Do you think the Roman empire died when the Byzantine empire died, etc. etc? If so, why?

I vote for the deposition of Romulus Augustalus (476), but an arguement can be made for the 'fall' being the splitting of the Empire by Constantine in 330s.

True, but at least when the empire was split it was agreed upon by all parties (all parties with power, anyhow) and the west was still united and ruled from Rome.

1453. The western Roman Empire immediately prior to 476 AD was completely different from Republican Rome, just like even the late Byzantines; so it's hard to say either of these were more "real". The Holy Roman Empire was not in political continuity with the Roman Empire, so that doesn't count for me.

But 476 is still a very reasonable alternative, especially if you focus on Rome itself as a defining character of the Roman Empire.

I would say 476, IMO you can't call yourself the Roman empire if you lose the city of Rome. And I'm not going to say anymore because I had a heated debate with one of the members on this exact topic a few months ago.

I would not focus on Rome itself.. It was sacked by Alaric I as early as 410 I think. And the Rome wasn't the capital of anythink after Constantine the Great.. I remember that one Emperor transferred the capital of the Western Roman Empire from Milan to Ravenna in early 400 AD - before Rome was sacked for the first time and It was scked two times again in the next until 476... But yes.. Rome is Rome.. It is iteresting that during the Caesars in some period before Constantine moved the capital in the Tharakia... That Rome had nearly 2500000 people.. and after 3 big sacks and miggrations to the East Empire.. It's population fell to 5000-15000 during the Papal State and even then then the Inckusition burned 2000 a year ... Untill 20 years ago and betwean all the period before 200 AD - Rome never had even near 100 000 of population.. While Constantinopolis had sbout 200 000 - 500 000 in the 'dark ages'

So I would say that the end of A Roman Empire in 'Cosmopolitan' meanings.. And in this case in the words and reality of that period - was.. By my opinion... Either 1051 - when East Roman Empire started to give the crown's to Land-owners and Angel familly (after wich Byzantine Empire as called in Rome started to colaps)...

But, no It was 1204! When inter fights of famillies for Roman Throne in Constantinopolis became so strong that one pretendent called upon Crusaiders (after a siege of Zadar) to take the city and make his captured father Emperor again.. 1204 was the real end of all Latin in Roman world..

Because 60 years later when Kingdom of Nicaea reclaimed the Roman Empire with Constantinopolis - it was too late ... well I won't go into details

(the end of Roman Empire was at the battle in 1071 when Emperor, Romanos IV, is defeated by the Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Manzikert, losing his position in most of Asia Minor. In the same year, the last Roman outpost in Italy (Bari) is conquered by the Normans... )

Here is a link to the spam war between me and a couple of other people [ I feel so unloved :-( ] on if the Byzantines is considered a continuation of the original Roman civilization or not...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=89517&page=2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

Here is a link to the spam war between me and a couple of other people [ I feel so unloved :-( ] on if the Byzantines is considered a continuation of the original Roman civilization or not...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=89517&page=2

---

Relax.. I know what you mean.. I study geostrategy and economy of EU and Euroasia.. so.. I know that EVERYONE wants to 'take' Roman legacy as their own - it's a political interest.. Did you know that the one of the last princesses of East Roman Empire - fled to Russia that was under Mongols - that meant that after the downfall of Constantinople in 1453, Moscow claimed succession to the legacy of the Eastern Roman Empire...

That was called the III Rome - during the reign of Ivan III, Grand Duke of Moscow who had married Sophia Paleologue that was alive. Sophia was a niece of Constantine XI (and Constantine XI was a son of a Serbian Noblewoman that was daughter of one very strong Serbian nobelman ''Dragaš''..), the last Eastern Roman Emperor and Ivan could claim to be the heir of the fallen Eastern Roman Empire... That is just one example!..

But you see Russia was trying along with Greece and Ortodox nations to reclaim Constantinopolis for centuries after 1453 - But then the other successors to the Roman Legacy come in !
So France and Britain and Turks together fight the Crimean War (1853–1856) against the other successors - the Russians.. And then there is another attempt to retake the Istanbul in 1918 with bad planed action From Winston C. (along with France forces) to take Constantinolopis!
And after Greeks retake Constantinopolis in Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) they are betrayed by the West just because they could reclaim the 'Megali Idea' (the reclaim of The Roman Empire)... so

It all goes around and around.. and around (and today Greece has 25% of their public expenses in military along with US and Israel that is top of the world..)

Just relax!:yes:

I'd have to say the sack by Alaric in 410, I think after the capital was moved from Rome the western empire was so clearly diseased that it became clear that things were falling apart

Susan Wise Baur, in her History of the Ancient World puts the fall of Rome at the point when Constantine converted. I think this is a valid stopping point. The empire quickly declined after that point and it makes a convinient end point for antiquity and beginning point for the middle ages. The Byzantine emprire was Roman by inheritance but not in culture or custom, as others have pointed out.

I would say the Roman Empire died with the death of Commodus. Marcus Aurelius was the last true Emperor and Commodus killed the Empire. It just never recovered after him.

wiki says 27 BC – 476 CE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire
and it was Byzantine Empire that existed 330 – 1453
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

The end of Rome's political legacy? 1918.

Thats simple, it ended with Augustus. It just took everyone 400 plus years to figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Thats simple, it ended with Augustus. It just took everyone 400 plus years to figure it out.

---

Oh come on, it wasn't ALL downhill after Augustus... there were some pretty impressive conquests and victories after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

Oh come on, it wasn't ALL downhill after Augustus... there were some pretty impressive conquests and victories after.

---

But, you do get my point, right?

Everyone assumes the decline and fall was an 'inside job.' However, I think there may have been forces at work here, far greater than just the Romans themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

I would say the Roman Empire died with the death of Commodus. Marcus Aurelius was the last true Emperor and Commodus killed the Empire. It just never recovered after him.

---

and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmdq

Thats simple, it ended with Augustus. It just took everyone 400 plus years to figure it out..

---

1. IMO it began with Octavian, the downfall I mean. Of course, there are arguments for the measures he took at that time. But still he did one big mistake, he deprived the Senate of his powers. Right?
2. After the period of "the five good emperors" wich ends with Marcus Aurelius, Rome becomes weaker and weaker, always in retreat. Instead of continuing choosing who he though that was better for the imperial seat, like his predecessors, Aurelius choses Commodus. Wrong.
3. Another argument for the downfall of any empire is centralization. Others had the same fate - Ottomans for example, China, etc. A centralized system is dependent of its center, wich is the capital and the ruler. And some rulers aren't always that capable. Well it's more complex than this.
4. Constatine's conversion to Christianity is the tombstone in my opinion. The christian doctrine simply doesn't suffice for Rome. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" - come on.
5. Another important aspect of the downfall of Rome IMHO, is this: richness. It gives you bad traits. What I mean is that in every empire, after it's apogee, there comes a period when people have pretty much everything. And like in a rich family, in a rich empire, gifted people are rare. As they appear mostly in harsh conditions or "when they are needed".

There are of course many other aspects. Wich we are aware of more or less. Barbarians, the length of it's borders, corruption, etc.

So, to conclude, I would say: Rome's downfall began with Octavian, continues with Marcus Aurelius decision of chousing Commodus as his heir, and ends with Constatine's conversion to christianity.

Furthering my efforts to trivalize the complex and complicate the mundane. So, the question would be; did they, the Romans, actually call their state 'Empire,' or is that term a more recent construct? The logic here is of course; 'I know they called it empire cause I've seen and heard them do that in the movies,' and Gladiator pops to mind? Yet, based on the modern usage, the Roman state became an Empire only after their first conquest of a non-Latin community within Italy itself. If one were to dispute this point we can move the bar up a little, but the conclusion will basically remain the same.

If one applies the term to signify a significant change in the structure of the state's government, then that's another issue. I think the modern use of the term 'Empire' was designed to sell more books and in this case it's frankly, irrelevant. As Emperor Burakuku so apply observed, Octavian, (aka Augustus) deprived the Senate of nearly all its authority. What followed was some sort of mafioso styled monarchy that managed to survive like a Dawn of the Dead zombie, feeding off the remains of other failed states. Thus, if one wishes to call this a continuation of empire, so be it, and then technically it never ends?

Still, I think there was one factor, that was entirely out of the control of the Romans, that initiated sometime in the reign of Augustus, that changed everything. However, this is just a theory. Nonetheless, I like Burakuku's answer, he's got all the bases covered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Nonetheless, I like Burakuku's answer, he's got all the bases covered.

---

Far from it dude, but thanks for being polite. Who the heck knows what contribuited more to the fall of Rome? It's a matter so complex for us, simple mortals. I just consider as yourself and Marcus (sorry don't remember the whole nick, Antonius I think), that it was somewhere between Augustus and Constantine... can't say exactly where. And that Marcus Aurelius' decision took all hope away.

OK, I think the weather changed.

My personal opinion is that "Roma" as an empire which started by Augustus, ended at 1453, or 1204. There has never been a "western/eastern empire". It was the same empire, just that it took its best and brightest and send them to the part that was more likely to survive "a hostile takeover". :laugh4:

It did. Konstantinos (Constantinus) didn't only transfer the capital in "Nova Roma" he also transported, senators, bureaucrats, artists, EVERYTHING that was good in "old rome".

The residents of the eastern part of the empire, never once considered themselves anything but Roman. Even when the western part fell, the eastern still thrived. Maybe it could survive the Turks if the "western barbarians" :laugh4: (Hey this is EB) that KO'ed the western part didn't return to finish the job. Konstantinoupolis was the heart and soul of the empire. Twice the empire was just one city (prior to 1204). First during the Arabian blitzkrieg of the 700's. Second during the reign of Alexios Komnenos with Normans occupying the balkans and Turks reaching the Bosporos.

The empire held because it had possibly the best fortified base available. Behind Konstantinoupolis walls it repaired, regrouped healed its wounds, used the riches of the cities to buy the best mercs available and fought back. Under emperors like the Komnenoi who weren't afraid to fight it excelled. Weak emperors, however after them and the "byzantine" bickering of who would become an emperor, led to the "Fall" of 1204.

Upon losing Konstatninoupolis, the Empire splintered. 3 parts fighting eachother and the invading latins and the Turks. Even when one of them emerged as the succesor of the empire, the city was just a hulk. Efforts to regroup failed as the ressurging Turks under Osman and his descendants created an empire out of parts of former ERE, by a blitzkrieg of their own.

The third time that the empire was just a city (among enemy held lands)or "polis" as we Greeks called it, would be the last.

I consider Russia as the upholder of the tradition of Roma, but in a very distant way. It wasn't the same people anymore, there wasn't a hippodrome, a sense of continuity. However, many greeks did flee to Moscow, ERE emperor's last niece did marry the Czar, and if there is any one state that deserved to be called successor to "Byzantium" or the Empire of the Romanoi as they called themselves, it would be Russia. In that sense, and only that, it can be argued that the "Romanov" were the last descendants of the "Romanoi", who started being an empire in Roma after Actium.

No you were right, that I was right. Sorry I wanted to be polite but I managed not to be. Sorry :2thumbsup:

Rome was a funny old thing. I think that it did survive until the fall of the Eastern Empire, because even though the West was overrun by barbarians, even though the Eternal City was sacked time and time again, the Easterners continued to march for the 'senate and people of Rome' for another 1000 years. And considering the ties between Greece and Rome (military designs, architecture, etc) I think it's fair to say that the Greeks could call themselves Romans.
That point besides, they were conquered by Rome and that's that really. Of course you can point to other factors such as change in bloodline and administration, but if a country changes how it's run its not considered "destroyed" or anything.
Gentlemen! i wash my hands of this weirdness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long lost Caesar

Rome was a funny old thing. I think that it did survive until the fall of the Eastern Empire, because even though the West was overrun by barbarians, even though the Eternal City was sacked time and time again, the Easterners continued to march for the 'senate and people of Rome' for another 1000 years. And considering the ties between Greece and Rome (military designs, architecture, etc) I think it's fair to say that the Greeks could call themselves Romans.
That point besides, they were conquered by Rome and that's that really. Of course you can point to other factors such as change in bloodline and administration, but if a country changes how it's run its not considered "destroyed" or anything.
Gentlemen! i wash my hands of this weirdness

---

And I would have to agree. Byzantines were Romans. Is just that I think that Roma (not the city, the whole thing) was doomed long before the split of the empire. The system itself I mean. And I explaine why I think that. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Thats simple, it ended with Augustus. It just took everyone 400 plus years to figure it out.

---

Isn't that a bit unfair? Ultimately you could argue that every empire fell with its creator, because they're all doomed to fall anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

Isn't that a bit unfair? Ultimately you could argue that every empire fell with its creator, because they're all doomed to fall anyway.

---

Well, that's not true, just look at the British... the Briti... well, I'll be. When did THAT happen?

Very good idea for a thread btw Dayve. Congrats :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrtwisties

Well, that's not true, just look at the British... the Briti... well, I'll be. When did THAT happen?

---

Well, 1946/47, I suppose. Damn nazis, if it wasn't from them we'd still be rulling the world. :furious3:

In all seriousness, though, I think the British Empire can be usefully compared to the Roman one. In both cases, the civilisation continued (after a fashion) long after the political unit crumbled.

True, and they're both red.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

True, and they're both red.

---

:laugh4:

If you got to pick the colour used to represent your empire, it'd be hard to go past "lucky red".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

True, and they're both red.

---

good god hes right! and im british-italian...something spooky there :sweatdrop:

It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames.

apart from informing us how ants can be blown to pieces...did that have any significance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HFox

It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames.

---

Man that was really funny. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Death of Marcus Aurelius. Even if the Empire in the West had survived the invasions, it would have continued in a state of internal struggle between generals trying to seize the purple every other decade.

I will say that the "political" Rome ends after the treaty of Verdun, in 843 P.C.N; the "classical" in 31 A.C.N
And the influence of the roman state after the WW2

(posting here, cause that tread already dead)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

No, the Byzantines were a mishmash culture of Middle Eastern, Greek, and Roman influence. They are not Roman because:
...
3. Were Greek Orthodox instead of Catholic (later periods)

---

Dear Intranetusa, without any intent to offend you I'd like to point that you were using a wrong argument.
Catholic Rome is even less likely to be named successor to the Ancient Roman Empire than Byzantines.
BTW, Greek Orthodox-Catholic nature of relations was pretty much like Catholic-Protestant connection and not vice-versa. Roman patriarch was just one of the five (Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Roma) back in the good old days before he claimed himself to be the one and only.

My opinion about Byzantines (perhaps, stated in a slightly irritating overenthusiastic manner):
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83097

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

I would say the Roman Empire died with the death of Commodus. Marcus Aurelius was the last true Emperor and Commodus killed the Empire. It just never recovered after him.

---

So true... I adore him... to bad that his death concluded the end of Pax Romana...:shame:
https://img164.imageshack.us/img164/...usbust2rz7.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiniMe

(posting here, cause that tread already dead)

Dear Intranetusa, without any intent to offend you I'd like to point that you were using a wrong argument.
Catholic Rome is even less likely to be named successor to the Ancient Roman Empire than Byzantines.
BTW, Greek Orthodox-Catholic nature of relations was pretty much like Catholic-Protestant connection and not vice-versa. Roman patriarch was just one of the five (Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Roma) back in the good old days before he claimed himself to be the one and only.

My opinion about Byzantines (perhaps, stated in a slightly irritating overenthusiastic manner):
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83097

---

Dear Minime, no offense intended, but if you had finished reading the topic, you would've seen that that specific statement had already been addressed.

So true...
Mea culpa :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiniMe

So true...
Mea culpa :shame:

---

No problem. :D

This topic is still fairly debatable so it's pretty much up for grabs.

:book:

Well every one said his views, and I agreed with most. The downfall of the Roman Empire began with Commodus, and he was a very popular emperor especially with the military, in fact the Pretorians killed his asassins. After his death there was chaos, an almost hundred years of civil war that continued to weaken the empire. Dioclesianus did try to move towards the wright path, but after he abdicated civil war returned. As a christian, I thing that christianity was not to blame, Constantine simply used the growing religion for his political ambitions:thumbsdown: , he needed the support of a mayor group in the empire, and after much suffering they wanted revenge, not so christian at all:shame: At that time christianity was a growing religion, and even after the prosecutions of Dioclesianus and Maxentius they did not give in, their numbers increased.The final nail in the coffen was when Theodosius the Great divided the empire between Honorius and Zeno. The weaker western part could not withstand the pressure on the Rhine. To add salt to the wound, at that time Stilicho the Vandal, Magister Militum of the west was also fighting Alaric the Visighot for his own personal gain. What was behind the fight betwenn these two man we shall never know, but when Stilicho was murdered Alaric was unopposed in the west, the military machine of the west collapsed, Honorius was too weak to react, and there was no way that Zeno could help his brother, the fall of the limes on the Rhine simply did not affect the Eastern part. The struggle between Stilicho and Alaric was a civil war between two barbarians that faught for power within the empire, Alaric had won, he would had himself crowned emperor, instead he sacked Rome and tied. The fall of Constantinople to the turks is in my opinion the true end of the Roman Empire.

And whats wrong with ' YOU SHALL NOT KILL', is there someone out there who is ready to die for the greed and ambitions of others. If people of all races and religions decided to put those words in practice, we would be living in a much better society than we are.

Cheers.

Hey dude don't worry I agree . I'm an atheist and I find the people who said Christianity causing the fall of the Empire laughable . Notice the Eastern Half lasted till 1453 and if you want to get technical 1918 and if you REALLY want to get technical the Roman blood is still around (aren't there some surviving Romanov's ?)

I find the notion interesting about what sort of influence 'Rome' had even after 1453, and if you accept the notion that the last heirs of Rome died in the Russian Revolution, the legacy of Rome has lasted for close to 3000 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reno Melitensis

If people of all races and religions decided to put those words in practice, we would be living in a much better society than we are.

---

That i would absolutely have to disagree with. Europe was ruled by Christianity for a thousand years, there was nothing but war, suppression, murder and suffering. Thou shalt not kill applies only to certain people. It seemed to be perfectly alright for a Christian following the "Thou shalt not kill" rule to massacre untold millions of muslims and take their daughters as sex slaves.

I think Christianity was the begginning of the end for the Roman empire, the final end being when the last emperor was deposed. After that there were just successor kingdoms claiming to be the true continuors of the Roman legacy, the main successor kingdom being the Byzantine empire. Without Rome, there was no Roman empire. Rome was the city where it all started, the city with the Roman people and the senate. Once Rome had been sacked like 3 times in a century and the last emperor had been deposed, that was that. Rome no longer existed, only successor kingdoms.

I have to second Dayve.

Religion itself isn't a thing that will pave the way for mordure, torture, rape, etc.

At the moment it starts being organized religion, it's going the wrong way. It is a way of domination of one's mind.

This is why paganism is the best religon, and is the oldest. Thought I'm an aethisist, not a paganist.

Either in 1204 or 1453.

Although the western half had started disintegrating already earlier the Eastern Roman Empire, or, later, "Byzantine Empire" (I time the change the early 700s when they adopted Greek as official language etc) was the eastern half of Rome, and not a "successor state".

The roman rule did not break there, until perhaps 1204 when Constantinople was captured temporarily which lead to the breakdown of the empire into three successor states.

Also, the "Greeks" called themselves Romaioi, their country Romania, and the germanic states during medieval times referred to the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire as "emperor", as opposed to "king" (which was the title they used for their position, and sometimes were granted by the emperor).

And, the claim that Eastern Roman Empire was a "successor state" because it didn't control Rome is silly. They did conquer Rome back, but, simply, Rome wasn't just worthy to be an imperial capital anymore. Constantinople was by far more powerful, richer and populous, all-in-all, "imperial" (hell, the capital was moved to Constantinople/New Rome already earlier because the city of Rome and the western half had started declining even before 476, far earlier...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elphir

I have to second Dayve.

Religion itself isn't a thing that will pave the way for mordure, torture, rape, etc.

At the moment it starts being organized religion, it's going the wrong way. It is a way of domination of one's mind.

---

All religions are not created equal. The problem with the three Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is that their holy text contains a diety that in some cases encourages violence and has a history that is bathed in blood. They've still got a long way to go (especially Islam).

Well, it's good to see that although the 'Empire' is dead, the Propaganda of empire still lives, and lives quite well, I may add. Long live the Propaganda, and those that create it.

In archaeology there is a dirty word that is often used; its 'normitive.'

Deconstruct people, deconstruct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elphir

I have to second Dayve.

Religion itself isn't a thing that will pave the way for mordure, torture, rape, etc.

At the moment it starts being organized religion, it's going the wrong way. It is a way of domination of one's mind.

---

Maybe this is forced but here I go. A sword can be used to kill right? But it can also be part of a great collection. It depends on the owner. Is that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reno Melitensis

Well every one said his views, and I agreed with most. The downfall of the Roman Empire began with Commodus, and he was a very popular emperor especially with the military, in fact the Pretorians killed his asassins. After his death there was chaos, an almost hundred years of civil war that continued to weaken the empire.

---

no there wasn't. Septimius Severus was one of the most able emperors of all, actually the Severan period was very stable. and the 3rd century was not as "dark" as it has been painted in the 19th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reno Melitensis

Constantine simply used the growing religion for his political ambitions , he needed the support of a mayor group in the empire,

---

I wouldn't call 10% a majority....

Cinna I get this vibe that by then Christians had extremely rich patrons that could provide Constantine with mad capital .

After the death of Attilla and the rapid collapse of the Hunnic Empire. After then, the WRE finally lost the ability to play one "barbarian" group off against another. For example, how Aetius used Hunnic mercenaries to deal with the Visigoths in the 430s, and then how Aetius used the Visigoths to help deal with the Huns in 451

Hey does the term Terranitup ring a bell?

You mean the arrogant college kid doing an Arts Degree, who thinks he knows everything and that anyone that doesn't support his socialist drivel, is a neo con surburbanite?

Damn the world is getting smaller. Your the 4th person from gfaqs I've ran into on here .

I think it ended with Caesar, whih means when the republic fell.

In my opinion, Rome was built to be republic, not an empire. And Caesar wanted to change that too rapidly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commilitone

I think it ended with Caesar, whih means when the republic fell.

In my opinion, Rome was built to be republic, not an empire. And Caesar wanted to change that too rapidly.

---

Which Caesar?

There's a world of Caesars? Strange, a story about an all powerful empire made long, long ago, in a place far, far away, conceived for empire builders far more recent and near at hand? Is it the Imperium Romanum (ancient Latin term for Roman legal authority) or the Roman Empire (a modern abstract construct)?

This is just an outline, so bare with me, please. The Mos Maiorum was the unwritten Roman constitution or the design of Roman legal authority. While flexible the one base principle of the Mos Maiorum was simply 'Cum potestas in populo auctoritas in senatu sit;' or 'with power in the people, authority rests in the Senate.' This was embodied in three governmental branches; the senate, the legislative (assemblies and consols), and the executive (magistrates). However, all authority stemmed from the senate with its Senatus Consultum checks on the other branches.

Augustus claimed the Auctoritas as Princeps (or Princeps Senatus/Princeps Civitatis; first senator/first citizen or president). I belive the Princeps was an absorption of the Princeps Senatus office. As a legal term, Auctoritas applied to the Senate's authority, or Auctoritas Patrum (authority of elders). This form of legal authority was considered superior to that of Potestas or Imperium powers.

By the time of his death Augustus had assumed all the powers of the Auctorictas Principis (supreme authority), the Imperium, and the Potestas. This included all military, judiciary and administrative legal powers of the Roman state. The senate may have retained the offices of Consul Praetor Urbanus, Consul, and Proconsul, however these functioned not as instruments of legal Roman authority. Rather, they served as lieutenants of the Princeps. This was a direct assault on the Mos Maiorum.

So my point is...

the acts of Augustus didn't just end the Republic, it ended the legal authority of the Roman state as inferred by their constitution. I propose that what followed was no more than a felonious apparition that was later glorified by emerging nation states to somehow justify their own somewhat dubious machinations.

I know its a Stretch, but what the hell, in for a dime? Hell, sometimes I'm not even sure if I believe what I'm saying...

...until I'm done talking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commilitone

I think it ended with Caesar, whih means when the republic fell.

In my opinion, Rome was built to be republic, not an empire. And Caesar wanted to change that too rapidly.

---

But it was pretty obvious that Rome as a republic didn't work either. Either the lazy, corrupt senators mishandled various wars, or it all devolved into civil wars. Concentration of power was the only way to achieve stability, but with the expanding borders of the empire, stability became a problem again despite that improvement. It was just too easy for general X waay over in the other end of the empire to achieve some victories defending the empire, then use his loyal legions to march on Rome to get a bigger slice of the power while the Caesar was far away defending the empire on some other border.

The basic problem was never really solved, but just circumvented by subdividing the empire. But the divisions of the empire (tetrarchy and whatnot) just meant that the empire evolved toward splitting into autonomous parts, eventually becoming two separate states.

When the barbarians managed to get process_rq working

:viking: + cheats = :smg:

Who were the Romans?

The Romans claimed their ethnos or nation was composed of 35 clans and/or societies.

These were the:
Aemilia also called Flaminia; a suburb of Rome
Aniensis (Juniorum) named after the Anio, a tributary to the Tiber, which in turn was named after Anius, a king of Etruria who allegedly drowned there.
Arniensis possibly from Arne, a town destroyed by Hercules.
Camilia clan and priestly society dedicated to the service of the national gods.
Claudia from Appius Claudius, descendant of the Sabine chieftain Atta Clausus. Appius Claudius settled with a large retinue near Rome. This patrician Claudian clan later members formed the first dynasty of Post-Republic Period.
Clustumina have no idea?
Collina One of the four original urban tribes of Rome, and followers of the Roman goddess that presided over the local hills.
Cornelia major patrician clan with several distinct steps, the Lentuli, Scipiones and the Balbi.
Esquilina one of the four original urban tribes of Rome.
Fabia major patrician clan whose name was derived from the word faba or bean. Also associated with the Fabaria and the goddess Ceres.
Falerna/Falerina a clan at Rome, possibly from Falerii, from Etruria near the mouth of the Tiber.
Galeria possibly a pre-Latin Roman clan?

no time now...
others were
Horatia
Lemonia
Maecia
Menenia
Oufentina/Oufetina
Palatina
Papiria
Poblilia
Pollia
Pomptina/Pontina
Quirina
Romilia
Sabatia/Sabatina
Scaptia
Sergia
Stellatina
Suburana
Teretina
Tromentina
Velina
Voltinia/Votinia
Voturia

So, the point here is...

by the time of Augustus, the ethnic Romans accounted for only about 10% (possibly less) of the overall population controlled by the leardership of the Claudian clan. Holy Roman Batman! I suppose for Gibbons, 'The Decline and Fall of the Claudian Polyglotistic Cosmopolitan Intercontinental Chiefdom,' just wouldn't do?

[QUOTE=Dayve]That i would absolutely have to disagree with. Europe was ruled by Christianity for a thousand years, there was nothing but war, suppression, murder and suffering. Thou shalt not kill applies only to certain people. It seemed to be perfectly alright for a Christian following the "Thou shalt not kill" rule to massacre untold millions of muslims and take their daughters as sex slaves.

If you had read my post properly, that was exactly what I said, that Christians did not behave as good christians have, but the opposite, and with the pope blessing as in the Crusades, as you correctly noted.

Pharnakes siad 'This is why paganism is the best religon, and is the oldest. Thought I'm an aethisist, not a paganist.'. Even if I am a christian I totally agree with you, i respect aetheism , and fully understand why people decide to be so. The great three religions, Judaism Christianity and Islam only brought useless suffering to many people in the four corners of the earth.


Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrtwisties

In all seriousness, though, I think the British Empire can be usefully compared to the Roman one. In both cases, the civilisation continued (after a fashion) long after the political unit crumbled.

---

But whereas the Roman Empire was taken from them by force, the British Empire was given back peacefully in most cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

This is why paganism is the best religon, and is the oldest. Thought I'm an aethisist, not a paganist.

---

I had would have to disagree with that. No one religion is better than any other. Religion in all it's different guises is just a reason to kill someone else because the lies they believe are different from the lies you believe. Atheism is the way forward! Think of how many conflicts and wars could've have been avoided if we all refused to play along with their deceitful game and just got along!

:focus:

In my opinion, the Roman Empire ceased to be in 1453. However way you look at it, the Eastern Empire was still Roman, it had just adapted to suit the times in which it "lived".

Meh, religion is like any other artifact. It is only what people for their own reasons make out of it, no more and no less.

The Christians started playing collective monkey business with the Thou Shalt Not Kill decree around three hours after they heard the Empire had gone Christian, for example, and looking at the religious-right moonbats in the US these days (or merely the office of chaplain quite ubiquitous in militaries, even those of the most thoroughly secularised Western states) one can conclude people haven't changed too much.

I think the following are the things that stood out most from the markings of the fall of Rome.

The foolish emperor Valens welcomed barbarians (and the Visigoths) into Rome and allowed them to fight for Rome, for a price. This cost Rome a lot, the tax rates increased and riots broke out all over the empire, the barbarians weren't loyal and demanded more and more to be paid. All that plus the attacking factions and barbarian hordes who came from nowhere.

The Romans employed barbarian foederati for the pretty simple reason they had about two choices - let the buggers settle in Roman territory in return of thereafter defending it from other incursions, or watch the buggers carve themselves a new home out of Roman territory as they were kind of short of armies to do too much about it. Their whole system was basically falling apart between a growing inability to pay for the armies needed to defend their tax base, with due constant reductions in that base and still greater difficulties in footing the bills...

As they AFAIK were actually kind of short of population too in many places (owing, among other things, to what may have been the entry of smallpox and several other virulent diseases into western Eurasia around the time), it's kinda obvious why they tended to be willing to negotiate.

I know it is kindda off topic, but

I think it was crucial factor that caused the empire to be over when the Legion system declined: quality of training decreased, Rome started to use Germanic soldiers, etc.:inquisitive:

Eh, I don't really see how that would work out. Once the citizen-soldier system collapsed the Roman armies were filled with whatever could be scraped together (ie. whoever was assed out enough that the "three hots and a cot" plus reasonably regular pay and potential for some social mountaineering an army career offered were a sufficient attraction), to a large degree from the slums of the cities and dirt-poor rural hinterlands. Barbarian volunteers from over the border probably made superior soldier material really, since coming from a highly pugnacious and rather sylvan culture most of them probably had considerably better basic combat skills than the flotsam and jetsam available from the Empire itself.

And drill is something you can teach to even horses.

Right, candies and cream-puffs have a tenancy to become the killed, rather than the killer.

Three hots and a cot?

"Steady meals and a roof over your head." Been a pretty strong lure for the famished rag-proletariat to follow the recruiter's drum since quite long ago.
Dying under banners sort of beats starving in the gutter, basically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

"Steady meals and a roof over your head."

---

I thought that '3hot&cot' was largely an unfrequented, US American military Idiom?

What can I say ? I read a lot. :beam:

What is Empire?

From wiki, as I am lazy.

An empire (from the Latin "imperium", denoting military command within the ancient Roman government) is a state that extends dominion over populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power. Empire contrasts with the example of a federation, where a large or small multi-ethnic state - or even an ethnically homogeneous one — relies on mutual agreement amongst its component political units which retain a high degree of autonomy. Additionally, one can compare physical empires with potentially more abstract or less formally structured hegemonies in which the sphere of influence of a single political unit (such as a city-state) dominates a culturally unified area politically or militarily.

The modern term "empire" derives from the Latin word imperium, a word coined in what became possibly the most famous example of this sort of political structure, the Roman Empire. For many centuries, the term "Empire" in the West applied exclusively to states which considered themselves to be successors to the Roman Empire.

The discovery of the New World provided an opportunity for many European states to embark upon programs of imperialism on a model equal to the Roman and Carthaginian colonization. Under this model (previously tried in the Old World in the Canary Islands and in Ireland), subject states became de jure subordinate to the imperial state, rather than de facto as in earlier empires. This led to a good deal of resentment in the client states, and therefore probably to the demise of this system by the early- to mid-twentieth century.

The 19th century saw the birth or strength of many European colonial empires, all of them dismembered by the 20th century. One problem with the European imperial model came from arbitrary boundaries. In the interest of expediency, an imperial power tended to carve out a client state based solely on convenience of geography, while ignoring extreme cultural differences in the resulting area. An example of the attendant problems occurred in the Indian sub-continent. Formerly part of the British Empire, when the sub-continent gained its independence it split along cultural/religious lines, producing modern India and the two-part country of Pakistan, which later split yet again resulting in the independence of Bangladesh [3]. In other areas, like Africa, those borders still shape present days countries, and the African Union made its explicit policy to preserve them in order to avoid war and political instability.


The point here is...

that due to the modern usage of the word, Rome was technically an Empire while it only held authority within Italy (in the Early Republic Period).