wiki edit of the Roman Empire

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Gratia tibi pro sententiam vestram(um;I keep forgetting if I'm suppose to take into account the person's sex)

 

Oh yes, I did forget all about that pope crowning Charlemagne the "legitimate" emperor.

Edited July 17, 2008 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[TaylorS]

IMO The Byzantine Empire was "Roman" in name only. After the Arab conquests it became a pretty much Greek state. I consider the time frame from the death of Justinian to the Arab conquests to mark the break-point between "Roman" and "Byzantine."

 

Yes, the Romans of the east acted more like Greeks. But by then, why wouldn't the Greeks be culturally identified as Romans. Rome was a multi-ethnic empire and so Greeks calling/considering themselves to be real Romans is reasonable.

 

Honestly, why call the "Romaoi" Byzantine when they didn't know of such a concept. Every time I see the word Byzantine, there should be a footnote regarding its western connotation.

Salve, Amici.

Honestly? Because when the "Byzantine" pseudo-historical revisionism was developed, it was the only way to try to justify that incredible distortion that was the name of the "Heiliges R

[ASCLEPIADES]

Well, as Voltaire famously said, the HRE was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire!

Wiser words were hardly ever said on this issue.

[Northern Neil]

Honestly, why call the "Romaoi" Byzantine when they didn't know of such a concept. Every time I see the word Byzantine, there should be a footnote regarding its western connotation.

I completely agree. This has caused more confusion than any other concept I can think of in Early Medieval history. The Roman empire could have been called something entirely different at various points, and on the basis of an equally profound set of changes as those brought about by the Heraclian dynasty.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Northern Neil

[ASCLEPIADES]

Honestly, why call the "Romaoi" Byzantine when they didn't know of such a concept. Every time I see the word Byzantine, there should be a footnote regarding its western connotation.

I completely agree. This has caused more confusion than any other concept I can think of in Early Medieval history. The Roman empire could have been called something entirely different at various points, and on the basis of an equally profound set of changes as those brought about by the Heraclian dynasty.

Salve, Amici.

Here comes an extract from Kelley L Ross, Decadence, Rome and Romania:

 

" "Oh!" you say, "You mean Byzantium! That's not the Roman Empire! That's some horrible medieval thing!" That certainly would have been news to Constantine, or to Zeno, or to Justinian (527-565), or even to Basil II in the 11th century (963-1025). "Byzantium," although the name of the original Greek city where Constantinople was founded, and often used for the City (as by Procopius), was not a word that was ever used to refer to the Empire, or to anything about it, by its rulers, its inhabitants, or even its enemies. The emperor was always of the "Romans," Rh

Edited July 18, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Minerva]

Then you really have to check your sources.

 

Greek colonies (apoikiai at least) weren't excluded from the πόλις definition; the other class (emporia) were just trading posts.

 

And megarian, megarean, megaric among others are alternative demonym forms for both Megara (the city) and Megaris (the district).

 

I wasn't challenging "megarean" I simply used "megarian" brcause that is what I' m used to. Thanks for the part that Apoikia is included in the polis definition. Whichis the point I was doubtful of. (That particular source has proved erroneus before too. I should seriously get rid of it.)

[Emperor Goblinus]

The Roman empire could have been called something entirely different at various points

 

That's very true. Consdering all of the capitals which the later emperors used, the western empire could have been called the Ravennan Empire, the Milanian Empire, or the Parisian Empire, and the eastern empire could at various points have been called the Nicomedian Empire or the Antiochene Empire. Rome the city had minimal hard political significance past the mid-third century.

[TaylorS]

Honestly, why call the "Romaoi" Byzantine when they didn't know of such a concept. Every time I see the word Byzantine, there should be a footnote regarding its western connotation.

I completely agree. This has caused more confusion than any other concept I can think of in Early Medieval history. The Roman empire could have been called something entirely different at various points, and on the basis of an equally profound set of changes as those brought about by the Heraclian dynasty.

Salve, Amici.

Here comes an extract from Kelley L Ross, Decadence, Rome and Romania:

 

" "Oh!" you say, "You mean Byzantium! That's not the Roman Empire! That's some horrible medieval thing!" That certainly would have been news to Constantine, or to Zeno, or to Justinian (527-565), or even to Basil II in the 11th century (963-1025). "Byzantium," although the name of the original Greek city where Constantinople was founded, and often used for the City (as by Procopius), was not a word that was ever used to refer to the Empire, or to anything about it, by its rulers, its inhabitants, or even its enemies. The emperor was always of the "Romans," Rh

[Honorius]

I think the fact that the eastern half of the empire didnt fall until 1453AD gives it the right to continue to call itself Roman, even if it was racially greek, i mean the eastern half never fell until 1204/1453 and up until the sack of 1204 the Empire still maintained Roman traditions and customs.

 

On another note the 'Holy Roman Empire' was only founded on the belief of the Pope that the eastern throne was empty because in it was the Emperor/Emperess Irene (she styled herself as basileos)

[Northern Neil]

Surly if Hadrian were teleported to 9th century Constantinople he would of called them Greeks. Just because they had a centralized state doesn't give their claim to be "Romans" any more legitimacy then that of Charlemagne.

...and if Sulla were teleported to 2nd century Rome, he would be puzzled to see a Spaniard in the position of 'Head Citizen'. Or into the third, various Illyrians and an Arab. Constantine (himself a Pannonian) would have been shocked to see half-German puppet Emperors on the throne a century later. One cannot, with hindsight, rename a nation because it asumes a different lingustic and cultural identity to that of the cultural period we prefer. Medieval westerners agreed about the name of the empire, yet correctly called the inhabitants Greeks. One cannot ignore the fact that the Eastern Roman / Byzantine Empire was the same state as the Classical Roman one, and that there was a direct, unbroken continuity; it has nothing to do with wether or not it was centralised.

 

In addition, depending on perspective, differences between Classical and Eastern Rome may be more apparant than real. A Chinese friend of mine, when I said that Chinese art and architecture looked much the same throughout the entire imperial period, said he felt the same about Roman and Byzantine, and that minor differences are significant when it is your own culture.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Northern Neil

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Just because they called themselves Romans doesn't mean they were Romans. Surly if Hadrian were teleported to 9th century Constantinople he would of called them Greeks. Just because they had a centralized state doesn't give their claim to be "Romans" any more legitimacy then that of Charlemagne.

 

Speakin of actual legitimacy, I believe that during the transition of power to the Constantinople, all the rich Roman politicians, patricians, royal line, et alia moved to the East too. Thus, the imperium in the East was truly Roman even centuries later because the bloodlines of these former Westerners would have married into Greek society.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Just because they called themselves Romans doesn't mean they were Romans.

Again, you must be talking abourt the "Holy Roman Empire". The Empire around Constantinople was the same political entity. uninterrupted at least until 1204. I don't think anyone can argue that.

 

Surly if Hadrian were teleported to 9th century Constantinople he would of called them Greeks. Just because they had a centralized state doesn't give their claim to be "Romans" any more legitimacy then that of Charlemagne.

If Hadrian were teleported to IX century Constantinople he would have to deal with the fact that the city of Rome was effectively ruled by the same Germanic barbarians he had fought against, even if it was technically still a possession of the Roman Empire centred at Constantinople.

 

The Eastern half of Hadrianus

[ASCLEPIADES]

I think the fact that the eastern half of the empire didnt fall until 1453AD gives it the right to continue to call itself Roman, even if it was racially greek, i mean the eastern half never fell until 1204/1453 and up until the sack of 1204 the Empire still maintained Roman traditions and customs.

Neither Romans nor Greeks were ever "races". The Roman "race" was basically made up with freedmen from virtually everywhere from the very beginning.

In fact, the Romans pretended some of their Kings (ie, Numa) and most notorious Gentes to have come from Hellenic ancestors.

 

 

On another note the 'Holy Roman Empire' was only founded on the belief of the Pope that the eastern throne was empty because in it was the Emperor/Emperess Irene (she styled herself as basileos)

That's a good one; the misogyny of Leo III, a mere Bishop, gave him the right to transfer the national identity of the Roman Empire to his favourite barbarian's mixture of countries. It's just hilarious.

 

Of course, being that the case, the all-mighty bishop of Rome would have been able to "restore" the Imperial dignity (the one he supposedly managed) to the undoubtedly male Nikephoros less than two years later.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

All that said, just check ANY dictionary: a country is a political entity; a nation is a cultural entity.

 

On both counts, the Roman Empire around Constantinople, undisputedly up to 1204, and presumably even up to 1453, was the same political and cultural entity than that of Augustus.

 

They spoke mainly Greek and they were widely Hellenized, the same way as the same (and other) territories and populations did and were under and long before the arrival of the Roman Empire; there was no change besides the inevitable evolution of any country. Latin was never the language of the Eastern half of the Roman Empire, not even of Sicily.

 

Needless to say, language by itself is not the criterion that defines a country; present-day India has hundreds of Languages (SIL Ethnologue lists 415), and English is currently a primary and/or official language in more than fifty countries or territories (CIA Factbook), in addition of being an important secondary language in almost any other country.

 

There's no discontinuity on the long Imperial succession line from Octavius aka Augustus to at least Alexius V Ducas; no one of the "Byzantine" promoters has even remotely contend such simple but undeniable fact.

[Fedor]

Did Septimius Severus and Galerius capture Ctesiphon? I found a few sources that they both did. The Persain-Roman war on wiki failed to mention these important facts. If it was the other way around and the Parthian or Sassanid Empire sacked Rome or Constantinople it would of been added by the Persian posters/ editers I would think. http://www.noblemind.com/timeline/Ctesiphon

http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/ctesiphon/ctesiphon.htm

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v6f4/v6f4a030.html

 

I guess the Persian editor does not like facts since he edited it out. Imagine if the Parthians or Sassanid Empire sacked Rome or Constantinople by a king or Emperor and I failed to mention it. That would never happen. I'm trying to find good sources about this. If someone would like to help out that would be appreciated. I also added more facts about Trajan and they edited it out too. I felt the original was just too short on Trajan.

 

This is what I wanted to add about Severus. What I wanted to add is in bold.

 

In 195

Edited September 21, 2008 by Fedor