Correct Latin words for Roman Empire?

[dbaezner]

Hi. I was wondering what the correct Latin words are for Roman Empire? I've been using Imperium Romanum, but I see this forum is called Imperium Romanorum. Which is correct?

 

Thank You.

Dirk

 

[GhostOfClayton]

Welcome Dirk.  I've no idea.  I'm not a Latin speaker, but one of the other cognoscenti may be able to help, if we nudge this post now and again.

[Auris Arrectibus]

Hi Dirk and Ghost,

 

The difference between Imperium Romanum and Imperium Romanorum is that

1) in the first the adjective romanus is used

2) and in the latter the noun romanus is used.

 

When using an adjective, the case (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative or vocative and locative) depends on the gender and case of the noun it attributes to.

Imperium is a noun of neuter gender in the singular nominative case and the adjective is also.

E.g. with nouns of other gender:

- masculin noun: "medicus romanus" is a "roman doctor"

- feminin noun: "rosa romana" is a "roman rose".

 

When using a noun, the case of the noun tells how the noun is used in the structure of a sentence. Subjects are in nominative, objects in the accusative, &c.

As a noun, the masculin noun "romanus" means: a roman (man). In plural "romani" means: romans. The feminin noun "romana" means: a roman (woman).

Romanorum is the plural genitive case of the masculin noun romanus. Used in the genitive case it gives the noun a function of possession (in English "of ....").

 

So, Imperium Romanum literally means Roman Empire.

Imperium Romanorum literally means Empire of the Romans.

 

Don't know which of the two was most common in roman times.

 

 

Auris Arrectibus

Edited January 26, 2015 by Auris Arrectibus

[dbaezner]

Wow! I don't even know my English as well as you know Latin. :-)

 

Thank you for the detailed response.

 

Dirk

[Auris Arrectibus]

No problem, Dirk.

 

I used to be a tutor in Latin (and Greek).

Since my little girl is preparing for Highschool with classical education, I re-enjoy my former pastime.

 

Regarding your name, you must be of Dutch origin.

 

Greatings from Amsterdam,

Auris Arrectibus

[caldrail]

Strictly speaking the correct latin for the Roman Empire (historically) was Senatus Populous Que Romanus

[Auris Arrectibus]

Well, I'm not sure about that.

In "roman times" the concept of a land or empire was not the same as nowadays.

 

I 've red somewhere that Cicero used "Senatus Populusque Romanus" (SPQR). And as inscriptions at arches in the city of Rome.

I don't think the Romans ment with SPQR the whole territory they control.

 

Maybe "Orbis terrarum" (also Cicero) is better in this context, but I have to study on that.

 

Auris Arrectibus 

[GhostOfClayton]

 

Maybe "Orbis terrarum" (also Cicero) is better in this context, but I have to study on that.

 

 

I know that the Orbis Terrarum was Agrippa's (I think) map of the known world, but how does 'Orbis' literally translate into English.  I'm guessing it isn't 'map'.

[Auris Arrectibus]

Hi Ghost,

 

[....] but how does 'Orbis' literally translate into English. I'm gessing it isn't map.

 

No, it isn't.

 

The word orbis means 'circle'. In context it's also used for 'The World'.

This figure of speech is called an 'abstractum pro concreto' (metonymy).

 

Like urbs means 'city', but written with a capital also 'The City': Rome.

At Easter and Christmas, every year the pope addresses his blessings in a speech with: Urbi et Orbi:

Meaning: 'To The City and The World.'

 

For those who like grammar: Both words are in de dative singular case (of the 3rd declension).
Dative is to what or who something is given to. In English: "to ....".

 

Still, don't know what the romans themselves used to name the whole territory they controlled (per
historical period).

 

Auris Arrectibus

[Onasander]

The concept of Empire (lands controlled outside of the city) was Rome, but not the city itself in terms of citizenry, it started with a Q. It needs to be remembered Romevwas a conglomerate of different peopkes. We know them as Romans as that was their exterior, not civil persona. There were no Romans in the Roman Senate, as Romans didn't wear Togas.

[caldrail]

Well, I'm not sure about that

I am.

 

In "roman times" the concept of a land or empire was not the same as nowadays

It was more focused on settlement patterns in the Roman mindset. Germania, despite its indigenous population, was still a wilderness because it had little infrastructure or development compared to Rome.

 

I 've red somewhere that Cicero used "Senatus Populusque Romanus" (SPQR). And as inscriptions at arches in the city of Rome.

SPQR was the official abbreviation for the Republic/Empire, much the same way as USA is for America.

 

I don't think the Romans ment with SPQR the whole territory they control.

In a sense you're right, in another you're wrong. Rome was the centre of the empire and all provinces, whether conquered or reorganised territory, owed feality to it. Sol whilst the province had its indigenous leadership, it was plugged in to the Roman system, and in terms of allegiance it definitely was SPQR.

 

There were no Romans in the Roman Senate, as Romans didn't wear Togas.

Officially and by tradition they should have worn togas. In fact, Augustus got quite worked up about the laziness of senatorsa and insisted they wore the toga on public duty. The toga was the same as a formal suit today - it did not in itself delineate who was Roman, and yes, being Roman was extremely important for senmatorial careers - Trajan could laughed at during his first speech in the senate house because he had a provincial accent the senators found hilarious.

[Onasander]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrinus_(Roman)

 

You could be either slave or free under that status. I'm not certain if only Romans were NOT of that status however, towns with close alliances and high autonomy might of had the same status for all I know.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_Latinum

 

Deals With Latin Rights.

 

The Romans themselves split their Identities upon a civil and martial outlook, they didn't know themselves as Romans except to outsiders.

 

I am having a massive brainfreeze on the name, I keep thinking:

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinus

 

Basically, the story as I vaguely remember it, two groups were fighting one another, one called Romans, One Called P/Q (name eludes me) as to who would be able to call the combined community as what.

 

The Roman faction bested in the battle. So, in terms of military and foreign governance, all members of the now combined group would be called Romans, but when at home or in civil garb, walking the streets they would be known by this other name.

 

The Romans as we know them had a dual identity. I remember researching the early cults of Rome, and early roman property law at this time, the Roman property laws had different kinds of rites and contracts, as well as legal status for italic lands over none italic lands, and traditional agrarian property (such as a donkey) vs imports or foreign property. It suggested a rift in concepts of what is foreign, and what is local, but I never could make a systemmatic, unified sense of it.

 

An example, in Cisalpine Gaul, Roman owned farms were apparently nationalized and given to legions, except for toadies who snuggled up or cried to the emperor. It suggests Roman Status was less important if a criteria for protected land rights over say, foreign spacial designations in which Roman and Non Roman identities were lumped together to appease the legions, except when it was politically expedient to make exception.

 

I really feel lost at times at figuring out the inner logic however, other than the Romans would just switch systems from the social wars on when it suited those in power for a quick fix.

 

Caesar marching on Rome seems to me to be the death of this seperation of martial from the civil, where the military kept out of the City.... once the city was marched on, they ceased being citizens and became subjects. The point everyone sees as a highmark of Rome was also a tragedy, as the Romans lost their peaceful alter ego- their self respect and civil ethos, and had to live like barbarians in foreign cities under the point of a sword.

 

I in America, especially as a veteran, feel quite comfortable with the segregation of civil and martial.... military is meant for overseas. Cops and the coastguard potentially blurs this. Justified or not (and it's not), the hysteria at Ferguson, Missouri in viewing the police force as a occupation fits the Roman outlook exactly, as the Romans tried so hard for so long to avoid. They don't share a identity with the police anymore. Heck, here I'm on the line at times,questioning if they are with us or against us. In Rome post Caesar, the armies no longer represented the people as the older draft, democratically controlled middle class army did.

 

After a while, the distinctions completely died, and everyone became a Roman.... for better or worst. This outlook survived the fall of the west.... when Belisarius invaded Libya, he lectured his troops to be kind to the civilians as they were romans living under foreign occupation.

 

This is a far cry from how Romans originally treated the Libyans. Even different, though not completely dissimilar, to how the US approaches populations in countries it "liberates".

[caldrail]

 

 

You could be either slave or free under that status. I'm not certain if only Romans were NOT of that status however, towns with close alliances and high autonomy might of had the same status for all I know.

No. Absolutely not. A Roman town was a Roman town, owing loyalty to the political system and provincial allegiance if necessary. The status of individuals is entirely another matter.

 

The Romans themselves split their Identities upon a civil and martial outlook, they didn't know themselves as Romans except to outsiders.

That's a rather naive outlook. The Romans set stabndards for social inclusion and went to some effort to persude provincial/native leadership to fully engage in the system. Regardless of lifestyle choices, there would have been no doubt who was or wasn't Roman.

 

The Romans as we know them had a dual identity.

It sounds to me more like you're trying to establish one because it suits your opinion. Tradition and law did not establish any such dual identity, it merely complicated daily affairs in which the wealthy were tyrying to find ways to profit and lord it over the great unwashed. Irrespective of how they ordered their society, they still regarded themselves as Roman.