Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 17th, 2014, 12:13 PM   #21
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Breakdancing on the Moon.
Posts: 616

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodoric View Post
I am not sure I understand your argument. The Orthodox Church branched off in 1054, and was anti-Latin and anti-Rome branch in its inception. If you are simply going to argue that they didn't originally call the Church the Roman Catholic Church, you are just arguing semantics.
You have a very, very, flawed idea of what the church was pre schism. Rome was just one bishopric, and not even the most important one. It broke off some time in the 8th century by suborning the Franks against the Lombards and then claiming secular and temporal power for itself. There's nothing Roman about it other than it's location. The *actual* Roman church, as in the church of the Roman empire, has its closest descendent in the Orthodox church. It's not at all semantics.
World Focker is online now  
Remove Ads
Old April 19th, 2014, 05:04 AM   #22
DPP
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Scotland
Posts: 18

I would also say 1453 was the end of the Roman Empire when Constantinople fell to the Ottomans.

Some would argue that the Empire resembled nothing like it did in 476 when Romulus Augustulus was deposed and of course that is correct but then you have to ask whether Julius Caesar would have recognized the Roman state if he was transported on a time machine to the 5th century or what about the early Roman kings - what would they have made of the state under Caesar?

Take the Kingdom of England for example, it was founded around the 10th century by people who are said to have been Saxons, Angles and Jutes from the heartland of present day Northern Germany and Denmark. The language they spoke (known as Old English) was very different to the language that developed centuries after the Norman Conquest. Then of course during Elizabeth I's reign, a Protestant form of Christianity finally replaced Roman Catholicism as the main religion. By the early 1700s, the culture of the land had changed enormously but it is still accepted as being called the Kingdom of England and not the Anglo-Franco Londonian Kingdom.

The fact is culture evolves or changes over time, including language, politics, religion, social habits etc. The Byzantine Empire to me is still the Eastern Roman Empire as it was formed back in the 4th and 5th centuries to better manage the whole Roman entity. Of course in a 1,000 years a lot can happen so that even if Heraclius or his early successors had been taken to the Palaeologian period, they would have probably found civilization in Constantinople largely unrecognizable.
DPP is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2014, 09:15 AM   #23

The Black Knight's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: USA
Posts: 440

I like some of the answers put foreward in this topic.

If I had to pick dates, i'd need to sort them out first by group. Sociologically and politically.

Well, many other have already commented on the first one. Kirialax maintains a collapse in material and economic sturctures throughout the Seventh C. Especially in Anatolia. I'd also like to comment on the decline in that system throughout the Mediterranean, and apparently Mesopotamia as well. So you could say, the world that Rome was born into and forged into its Empire, had disintegrated by 700.

Politically speaking? The Empire itself lived on; Constantinople still existed as it had before. Sassanid Persia for example disappeared and was absorbed into the new Islamic Civilization. But what was once the Capital of a great Empire still held sway and clung to life.

So of I had to pick a date, it'd be 1204. Then again, even that's extremely non-black and white. The Roman Empire clung on in Christian name and prestoge of the Emperors of Constantinople until it's fall in 1453.
The Black Knight is online now  
Old July 3rd, 2014, 09:32 AM   #24

Kirialax's Avatar
Megas Domestikos
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 3,521
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Knight View Post
I like some of the answers put foreward in this topic.

If I had to pick dates, i'd need to sort them out first by group. Sociologically and politically.

Well, many other have already commented on the first one. Kirialax maintains a collapse in material and economic sturctures throughout the Seventh C. Especially in Anatolia. I'd also like to comment on the decline in that system throughout the Mediterranean, and apparently Mesopotamia as well. So you could say, the world that Rome was born into and forged into its Empire, had disintegrated by 700.

Politically speaking? The Empire itself lived on; Constantinople still existed as it had before. Sassanid Persia for example disappeared and was absorbed into the new Islamic Civilization. But what was once the Capital of a great Empire still held sway and clung to life.

So of I had to pick a date, it'd be 1204. Then again, even that's extremely non-black and white. The Roman Empire clung on in Christian name and prestoge of the Emperors of Constantinople until it's fall in 1453.
I'm quoting this post in full because it's a succinct and excellent example of the problem that we face in trying to name a date for the fall of Rome. What Black Knight is saying about my opinion is essentially that it's materialistic: the traditional economic structures that underpinned the Roman world had largely vanished from the Mediterranean by the end of the seventh century. However, Black Knight also hits the nail on the head when he talks about the idea of civilizational continuity. Any answer of the fall of Rome needs to consider both the ideological and material aspects of the world that was Rome. We cannot exclude one in favour of the other: too much emphasis on the materialist changes fail to observe the continuity of belief and of a political system in the east Roman Empire. Too much emphasis on the ideology fails to take into account the drastic changes to the organization of the state and its social make up that took place during the seventh century.
Kirialax is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2014, 01:28 PM   #25

EmperorTigerstar's Avatar
The Kaiser of Maps
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: USA
Posts: 2,855
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by bunnyman987 View Post
When do you think the Roman Empire fell? Thanks.
Roman Empire as a whole: technically AD 395 when it permanently split.
Western Roman Empire: AD 476, if you don't count the states in Illyria and the one owned by Syagrius.
Eastern Roman Empire: Depends, some say 1204 as the new Byzantine Empire afterwards was merely Nicaea posing as the Byzantines. Otherwise, 1453.

I don't usually count breakaway states claiming to be Rome like Trebizond because that's like assuming that modern day Germany can call itself the Frankish Empire.
EmperorTigerstar is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2014, 02:59 PM   #26

RoyalHill1987's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 984

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperorTigerstar View Post
Roman Empire as a whole: technically AD 395 when it permanently split.
Western Roman Empire: AD 476, if you don't count the states in Illyria and the one owned by Syagrius.
Eastern Roman Empire: Depends, some say 1204 as the new Byzantine Empire afterwards was merely Nicaea posing as the Byzantines. Otherwise, 1453.

I don't usually count breakaway states claiming to be Rome like Trebizond because that's like assuming that modern day Germany can call itself the Frankish Empire.
Or like 'New England' claiming to be a continuation of the old one.
RoyalHill1987 is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2014, 03:05 PM   #27

Salah's Avatar
Unchained
Blog of the Year
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Baltimorean-in-exile
Posts: 20,551
Blog Entries: 177

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalHill1987 View Post
Or like 'New England' claiming to be a continuation of the old one.
I believe it was the Englishman John Smith who decided to christen New England as a continuation of the old one, and the other English settlers, and the English government, decided that was good enough for them
Salah is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2014, 03:11 PM   #28

Salah's Avatar
Unchained
Blog of the Year
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Baltimorean-in-exile
Posts: 20,551
Blog Entries: 177

One thing I've never understood is why people speak of the 'western' and 'eastern' empires as if they were separate states. The Empire had been informally divided on a number of occasions before 395. By that date, it just seems to have been commonly accepted that the entire Empire could not or should not be ruled by one man. That doesn't mean that the two halves magically became different 'countries'.

Perhaps I've just missed something. I just think the division of the Empire was a much more informal matter than how its usually depicted.
Salah is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2014, 04:20 PM   #29

EmperorTigerstar's Avatar
The Kaiser of Maps
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: USA
Posts: 2,855
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salah View Post
One thing I've never understood is why people speak of the 'western' and 'eastern' empires as if they were separate states. The Empire had been informally divided on a number of occasions before 395. By that date, it just seems to have been commonly accepted that the entire Empire could not or should not be ruled by one man. That doesn't mean that the two halves magically became different 'countries'.

Perhaps I've just missed something. I just think the division of the Empire was a much more informal matter than how its usually depicted.
They were two separate countries but just in a heavy alliance. It had different capitals and rulers.
EmperorTigerstar is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2014, 04:56 PM   #30

Kirialax's Avatar
Megas Domestikos
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 3,521
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salah View Post
One thing I've never understood is why people speak of the 'western' and 'eastern' empires as if they were separate states. The Empire had been informally divided on a number of occasions before 395. By that date, it just seems to have been commonly accepted that the entire Empire could not or should not be ruled by one man. That doesn't mean that the two halves magically became different 'countries'.

Perhaps I've just missed something. I just think the division of the Empire was a much more informal matter than how its usually depicted.
Indeed, if we talk about two different empires after 395, then we have to talk about three different empires after 327, or about Theodosius conquering the western empire only to split it off again from Constantinople. It all gets a bit ridiculous. The idea of a single capital and single ruler controlling a single state is a modern notion that we need to abandon. The later Roman Empire had multiple capitals and sometimes as many as four or more effective rulers. That Arcadius and Honorius issued all their laws in each other's names also strongly suggests that the state remained together. I tend to agree that this idea of a split is a bit silly. Just as "legitimate" emperors, usurpers established their own capitals, bureaucracies, and mints, and we don't talk about secession. We talk about rebellion and unrest.
Kirialax is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
empire, fall, roman


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did the Roman Empire ever really fall? Jomsvikingr Ancient History 50 January 9th, 2013 12:56 PM
The Fall of the Roman Empire / The Fall of the Eurozone Caracalla European History 4 May 25th, 2012 03:37 AM
The Fall of the Roman Empire Salah Ancient History 93 February 18th, 2011 11:27 AM
Was the Fall of the Roman Empire inevitable ? tomar Ancient History 77 February 16th, 2011 10:01 PM
Fall of the Roman Empire Ulmo Medieval and Byzantine History 13 May 17th, 2009 10:47 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.