What Is Your Favorite Era Of Roman History?

[DecimusCaesar]

I seem to skip from one era to the next but for the last two years I have developed a stronger intrest in the Dominate period and the early Byzantine Empire, technically from the reign of Diocletian in 284 to the death of Justinian in 565.

 

I have been reading a lot lately on the social and religious changes that to took place in the Later Roman Empire and how much society had changed since the era of the High Empire at the beginning of the Second Century AD, as well as the development of the army from the Imperial Legion to the Comitatenses and the Limitanei.

[Ursus]

I am pleased we have more people interested in the empire.

[The Augusta]

Well, there isn't a category for Late Republic/Early Principate, but that's me. Or rather, that is where my deeper knowledge lies - I am excessively ignorant about the Dominate onwards. I don't think it is too fanciful to admit that my love of history is motivated by the people who made it happen; therefore, I tend to be attracted to periods of great change, and specifically change made by a group of strong individuals - for better or worse. This is why I lean towards the late Republic and early Principate, but I am currently attempting to broaden my knowledge of the Punic Wars. The regnal period also interests me, because I would love to unravel the myth from the history - if that can ever be done.

[Ursus]

Greetings, Augusta. Welcome to our growing forum.

 

You'll find plenty of people here interested in the late Republic, and a few interested in the Principate. The Principate was my first love, and still is in some ways, if you can't tell by my avatar.

 

I even like your quote from Virgil. :-)

[The Augusta]

Thank you, Ursus - you certainly have a familiar look about you!

[Krackalackin]

I'll answer my own question. I've always seen the Republic as something of a prologue to the Empire.

 

I agree. I don't believe any one form of government (today included) as well as country can last forever.

[Eleftherios Phoebus Anastansios]

I'd have to go with early-mid Republic. The Roman republic seemed to get a lot more done around that time then in the late republic; and It wasn't ruled by just one man then.

[Guest Gaivs Marivs]

It was a toss-up between Early-Middle Republic which produced such individuals as Gaius Marius and Sulla, as well as events like the Jugurthine Wars and the Catiline Conspiracy, and the Late Republic which produced individuals like Julius Caesar, Brutus, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Cassius, as well as events like the conquest of Gaul, the civil war between Pompey and Caesar, and ultimately Caesar's assassination at the hands of Brutus and Cassius and the degeneration of the Republican form of government.

 

I chose the Late Republic as I am more familiar with that period of Roman history.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Gaivs Marivs

[Aphrodite]

I love the decadence of the Byzantine era, when i read i can't help but picture gold, mosiacs, rich fabrics.... I like the transfer of the empires centre and looking at the effects of the rise of a new religion.

 

I must say though that the new and prudish attirude of the religion was somewhat of a turnoff - where was dioyonisus when you needed him!

[vopattes]

TY for the "other" option BTW i'm surprised none use it ...

 

My reasoning :

All of these are why i am visiting these forums.

My knowledge is too limited ... ?

 

PS: Your opinions are useful and encouraging towards learning "eras" that i hadn't identified as such.

 

I am wondering how to define these eras. Is this an "official convention" with start/end dates or marked by specific events/social changes ?

[Ursus]

I am wondering how to define these eras. Is this an "official convention" with start/end dates or marked by specific events/social changes ?

 

 

Well, Roman history is usually divided according to the flavor of the government at the time.

 

Broadly, it is divided into the Regal Period, the Republic, and the Empire.

 

The Regal period is when Rome was ruled by mythological and semi-legendary kings.

 

The Republic is usually subdivided into earlier and later periods. The early period of the Republic - from the overthrow of the Etruscan kings to the sack by the Gauls - is colored by legend. The Middle Republic - from the recovery of the Gaulish sack to roughly the time of the Gracchi - is the area of Rome's expansion through the Mediterranean. The Late Republic - beginning with roughly the Gracchi and ending with Augustus' supremacy - is the most well documented era of Roman history we have - and because of its monumental events and personalities, usually the most popular.

 

The Empire is often divided between the early empire (The Principate), from Augustus to the Severans. After the death of the Severan dynasty begins a period of military anarchy some call the Crisis of the Third Century. After the crisis, the empire became reorganized by Diocletian and Constantine into what became known as the Dominate.

 

The Byzantines are the survival of the Christianized Eastern Empire until their destruction by Turks in 1453.

 

 

The only other possible scheme I have seen for dividing Roman history is using Constantine's reign to separate Pagan Rome from Christian Rome.

[Guest pinghui]

I'd go with late Republic, the time of Caesar

[Maladict]

The Dominate, without a doubt.

[Callaecus]

I like it all; there's always something interesting going on.

[Quintus]

I like the early republic. Everyone was so zealous about the good of the state and so on and so forth. Once you step past the punic wars people become alot more self centered. Mabey I'm just talking nonsense, but that's the generally how I see things from what I've read.