wiki edit of the Roman Empire

[Fedor]

I was sick of people changing the date of the fall of the roman empire to 476AD. I just gave my opinion why it should be 1453AD. It seems someone edited the page and agreed with me. Here is what I said on the wiki page. It's nothing special. I'm just happy someone changed it from 476AD TO 1453AD.

 

Whoever is changing the fall of the Roman empire to 1453 AD please keep it up. No need for the outdated date of 476AD when the eastern side survived for another 1000 years and continued to call themselves ROMAN! Byzantines= Romans. "The people who lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used the word "Byzantine." They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more and absolutely nothing less. By transferring the Imperial capital from Rome on the Tiber to the New Rome on Bosphorus, dubbed Constantinople, the Emperor Constantine I had transferred the actual identity of Rome to the new location. Long before Constantine I, the idea of "Rome" had become dissociated from the Eternal City on the Tiber. For a Roman meant a Roman citizen, whereever he lived."

 

How do I edit the true date of the fall of the Roman Empire?

 

 

Funny that some people here still believe in the myth that the roman empire only lasted 400 years or fell in 476AD. The Eastern Roman empire lasted another 1,000 years but they are not roman when they the people called themselves roman? They continued the roman past and HAD the same borders but we modern people have to invent a new word to describe an empire that they never knew nor used the words byzantine. They called themselves roman and so shall we for the correct history of this empire from 27bc-- 1453AD. I urge the people to change the date from 476AD to the correct date of 1453AD. Enough of the propaganda that the empire fell in 476AD when the eastern roman empire survived for another 1,000 years. I suggest you read the link I gave about the "Byzantines". It is also a joke that the "Holy Roman empire" is even mentioned in this wiki page. They should be removed.

 

http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what...yzantine.01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Empire

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire

 

Fedor=Titus001

Edited May 16, 2008 by Fedor

[Gaius Octavius]

Of course you are correct. By using the term 'Byzantine', writers may have been attempting to distinguish the point at which the eastern emperor's edicts no longer had the force of law in most of the west.

[Fedor]

I just ordered Arthur Ferill's book called The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation.

 

What is your opinion on this book if anyone read it?

[Ursus]

It all depends on how one defines "Roman." I can appreciate the reorganized East is a legal descendant of the Roman Empire proper, but it also seems to have evolved into its own entity.

 

Anyway, I don't think wikipedia should be taken too seriously as a reference tool.

[Kosmo]

Funny that some people here still believe in the myth that the roman empire only lasted 400 years or fell in 476AD.

 

I doubt that many UNRV members believe that.

How did you come to the 400 years number? It does not make sense regardless of the date of the fall.

[DecimusCaesar]

Interestingly many historians are now reverting back to calling the Byzantines Romans. I read a book called 'The Eastern Romans 330-1461' by Raffaele D'Amato a while back (published 2007) and the author had no problems with referring to the Byzantines as Romans.

 

A few others associate the word Byzantine with its negative connotations, seeing as many scholars of the Enlightenment period (especially Edward Gibbon) viewed the Eastern Romans as being second rate to Classical Rome. I think by calling the Byzantines Romans, we can attempt to look at the history of the Eastern Roman Empire in a more impartial light. It's similar to how Medievalists have been attempting to banish the term Dark Ages from pop culture when referring to the period AD 1000-1500.

[sonic]

I've got to admit that I no longer think of the Eastern Empire as ending in 1453. In my opinion, the Roman Empire fell in 1204. Before that it had been shrinking, after the reconquest it was merely a shell of its former greatness. Surely to count as an Empire a political entity needs to rule over more than a few square miles of territory? (Yes, I know, that's simplified - I just don't have the time for detail at the moment!)

 

Without the major trading centre that was Constantinople, the Empire would have been luaghed at for its claims.

[caldrail]

This is also the tendency of human beings to organise and classify - its easier to understand if you teach that Rome fell in AD476. It also carries that moralistic message about decadence and the inevitable falling by the wayside of an 'evil empire' as the christians saw it. It is, therefore, a very victorian perspective.

 

Technically, I agree the roman empire survived until 1453 but isn't that simply reorganising by a different standard?

 

For instance, Mommsen ended his history of Rome with the accession of Augustus, because as far as he was concerned the Empire was unworthy of the democratic principles of the Republic and represented an end to traditional roman culture, as if what followed was merely an appendix in roman history after the decline of a culture which he admired for its founding principles.

 

Also, if you regard christianity as the protector of roman culture (and you can - latin would be a forgotten language without it), then the roman world has never gone away, and its empire survives under new management very succesfully thank you.

[Fedor]

Funny that some people here still believe in the myth that the roman empire only lasted 400 years or fell in 476AD.

 

I doubt that many UNRV members believe that.

How did you come to the 400 years number? It does not make sense regardless of the date of the fall.

 

I was talking about the people that edit the wiki page of the roman empire. That post was basically directed to the wiki people under the talk section. It was not directed to the good people of unrv.

 

 

My post came from the wiki talk page when I wanted to voice my opinion that the Roman Empire lasted from 27BC-1453AD instead of the 476AD date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Empire

Edited May 17, 2008 by Fedor

[docoflove1974]

I think there are two different dates to consider:

 

1. Early-Mid 5th century (depending on which date you wish to use): Rome is continuously sacked, and is no longer viewed as a central/important city in the Empire (regardless of the fact that Constantinople was the 'capital'). To me this is the end of Rome, but not of the 'Roman Empire'

 

2. 1453 CE: Constantinople is sacked, end of the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire.

 

I tend to use 410 for #1 above, with the sack of Rome...for me, this is the beginning of the very last chapter of Rome (the city) as a 'great city'. After continuous sacking, rampaging, etc., the city of Rome is quite disorderly and chaotic, and one can see the beginning of the 'Dark Ages' or 'Medieval' period in the 5th century. Certainly for my research, this makes sense; after the Roman centralizing stability has faded into the proverbial sunset, Western and Central Europe move away from the traditional Roman way of life into one which resembles a hodge-podge of Roman, Germanic, and 'native' culture, government, and the like. The Christian Church (can we call it Catholic by this point?) becomes the 'beacon of light' (even if it's a self-placed moniker) for the local communities, and what is considered to be feudal state starts to take root. To be sure, much of this could be placed during the decline of the (Western) Empire, but the 5th century is a crucial time.

 

However, as others have stated above, this does not diminish the next 1000 or so of the Roman Empire; it simply means that Western and Central Europe were not part of the Empire.

Edited May 17, 2008 by docoflove1974

[Gaius Octavius]

Rome, as a territorial power, surely fell at some point. Yet, it has yet to Fall, thanks in part due to their conquerors, and the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It's culture is still alive and doing quite nicely. Lest I misbeget, Latin is not the only ancient language the unworthy R.C.C. has preserved.

[Northern Neil]

Rome, as a territorial power, surely fell at some point. Yet, it has yet to Fall, thanks in part due to their conquerors, and the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It's culture is still alive and doing quite nicely. Lest I misbeget, Latin is not the only ancient language the unworthy R.C.C. has preserved.

Maybe the Wikipedia people should state that there are several dates given for the end of the Roman Empire, all equally valid in some sense, but for differing reasons? 625 and 1204 are also given, for sound logical reasons.

[caldrail]

AD476 is traditionally given because that was the end of roman emperors - Romulus Augustulus was ordered off his seat by Odoacer and sent into retirement at a young age.

[Julius Ratus]

The Republic, Empire, Regal Period, Byzantine Empire, etc. are all constructs made by historians. I doubt that Augustus saw himself as ending the Republic and replacing it with the Empire. He probably though he was preserving the Republic. Also, Rome had an empire well before Augustus.

 

I tend to use the 476 AD date because it is commonly considered to be the end of the period we call the Empire.

[caldrail]

I think Augustus thought he was going to run the show for himself. Preserving the republic wasn't his motivation, and if he could have gotten away with it, I'm sure he would have swept much of republican institutions away to make his rule stronger.