When Did Rome Fall?

[Zardnaar]

What are real ties to Rome?

Some sort of tie in to the Roman state apparatus.

Things that claimed the title due to conquest ir whatever don't really count.

So no Sultanate of Rum, Holy Roman Empire Moscow as Third Rome etc.

I think there's multiple dayes one could claim personally I go with Byzantine as it was a political continuation of Rome, were Roman citizens and saw themselves as Roman.

The Byzantine fragments are somewhat plausible as a state while the last Romans are somewhat plausible as late as the 19th century when inhabitants of the last areas of the Byzantine state still saw themselves as Romans over Hellenes.

 

[dragoner]

Some sort of tie in to the Roman state apparatus.

Things that claimed the title due to conquest ir whatever don't really count.

So no Sultanate of Rum, Holy Roman Empire Moscow as Third Rome etc.

I think there's multiple dayes one could claim personally I go with Byzantine as it was a political continuation of Rome, were Roman citizens and saw themselves as Roman.

The Byzantine fragments are somewhat plausible as a state while the last Romans are somewhat plausible as late as the 19th century when inhabitants of the last areas of the Byzantine state still saw themselves as Romans over Hellenes.

I don't know, I think the Scipios would take a dim view of a bunch of Greeks, putting the Greek Bible on a throne, and calling it Rome. The Sultanate, and later Ottoman Rumelia were named for it being Romans in Roman lands. I think if one were to say Constantinople inherited the mantle of the Imperial city, the Frankokratia ended that, it had been sacked worse than Rome ever had until Charles V's Landskneckt. None of it really matters, though the irony of westerners defending the east is funny, because the 1204 date puts the east's reign about 2x the time of Rome in antiquity.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't know, I think the Scipios would take a dim view of a bunch of Greeks, putting the Greek Bible on a throne, and calling it Rome. The Sultanate, and later Ottoman Rumelia were named for it being Romans in Roman lands. I think if one were to say Constantinople inherited the mantle of the Imperial city, the Frankokratia ended that, it had been sacked worse than Rome ever had until Charles V's Landskneckt. None of it really matters, though the irony of westerners defending the east is funny, because the 1204 date puts the east's reign about 2x the time of Rome in antiquity.

By the time though that the empire became Greek to be Roman was citizenship.

Say if the USA had dual capitals LA and Washington. They lose Washington, then LA then they get it LA back before being wiped 200 years later.

Still the American state yes? If they got invaded and wiped out by Canada or Mexico the rulers of those nations are a different political entity entirely.

And then someone writes a book 1000 years later renaming the USA minus Washington regardless that the remain US political entity still sees themselves as American and is a political continuation of that state (just smaller).

Replace America with any other nation just the example I used.

 

[dragoner]

By the time though that the empire became Greek to be Roman was citizenship.

Say if the USA had dual capitals LA and Washington. They lose Washington, then LA then they get it LA back before being wiped 200 years later.

Still the American state yes? If they got invaded and wiped out by Canada or Mexico the rulers of those nations are a different political entity entirely.

And then someone writes a book 1000 years later renaming the USA minus Washington regardless that the remain US political entity still sees themselves as American and is a political continuation of that state (just smaller).

Replace America with any other nation just the example I used.

I don't think Americans would consider that America, and in particular, if the government had changed from the old forms, to a dictatorship, with a different language, and new religion. Plus upholding this new religion as the "law of the land" with even more lurid punishments, such as being strapped under a donkey, after your eyes gouged out. If someone wrote a book a thousand years later, separating, or conflating the two, that is fine in its own way. A lot of history is just invention for propaganda purposes, iirc it's Napoleon that says history is a lie agreed upon. I listened to an interview with a historian as well that said even if institutions bear the same name, really 200 years later they are completely different, and it is people liking to think they are similar, that is more important.

I recently helped a young women with her history work, about the Ukraine in 1945, and she had a translated work by an American, of documents from the main archives in Podolsk. They also had the originals published, and some, due to being hand copied, or whatever, except the translation was filled with errors, for a variety of reasons, from lazy writing, to lack of understanding due to context. I can very much see a similarity, where one would mix Russia with the Soviets, as the same as with Rome, and Byzantium; while they are similar, there are also crucial differences.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think Americans would consider that America, and in particular, if the government had changed from the old forms, to a dictatorship, with a different language, and new religion. Plus upholding this new religion as the "law of the land" with even more lurid punishments, such as being strapped under a donkey, after your eyes gouged out. If someone wrote a book a thousand years later, separating, or conflating the two, that is fine in its own way. A lot of history is just invention for propaganda purposes, iirc it's Napoleon that says history is a lie agreed upon. I listened to an interview with a historian as well that said even if institutions bear the same name, really 200 years later they are completely different, and it is people liking to think they are similar, that is more important.

I recently helped a young women with her history work, about the Ukraine in 1945, and she had a translated work by an American, of documents from the main archives in Podolsk. They also had the originals published, and some, due to being hand copied, or whatever, except the translation was filled with errors, for a variety of reasons, from lazy writing, to lack of understanding due to context. I can very much see a similarity, where one would mix Russia with the Soviets, as the same as with Rome, and Byzantium; while they are similar, there are also crucial differences.

Things change over time. Same polity though over that 1000+ years. There's a direct political line of succession from Constantine I to XI.

England's been a political entity for over 1000 years and things are a bit different now vs Alfred yes?

In our hypothetical American Byzantine replacement if that state changed government by it's own government (eg not via invasion,revolt, coup etc) and the religion changed it's still the same political entity is it not?

 

[S'mon]

England's been a political entity for over 1000 years and things are a bit different now vs Alfred yes?

Official (ie State Narrative) England starts in 1066. Hence I learned in undergrad Land Law that the Crown claims to own all our land 'by right of Conquest'. So a bit under 1000 years.

 

[dragoner]

Things change over time. Same polity though over that 1000+ years. There's a direct political line of succession from Constantine I to XI.

England's been a political entity for over 1000 years and things are a bit different now vs Alfred yes?

In our hypothetical American Byzantine replacement if that state changed government by it's own government (eg not via invasion,revolt, coup etc) and the religion changed it's still the same political entity is it not?

I think it is fine either way, say it is, or it isn't, as a case could be made for either, with the hypothetical or in reality. I mean Byzantium is a very poetic form of saying the Eastern Roman Empire, and most who had studied the subject, that is the first thing they learn. There is not exactly a direct lineage between Constantine I and Constantine XI, some Basileus, gained the throne by right of assassination, the situation was highly chaotic. Seems a bit of a stretch to call it a 'direct political line of succession'. Nobody is arguing there is not continuity; though it almost could be argued the Ottomans were the same, as they adopted much of what was the Byzantine way into their own, such as the Cataphract, become the Sipahi. I would say not in a lot of ways, except to mention the similarity was there.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I think the one thing we can all agree is Rome fell....just not when. lmao

 

[Zardnaar]

I think it is fine either way, say it is, or it isn't, as a case could be made for either, with the hypothetical or in reality. I mean Byzantium is a very poetic form of saying the Eastern Roman Empire, and most who had studied the subject, that is the first thing they learn. There is not exactly a direct lineage between Constantine I and Constantine XI, some Basileus, gained the throne by right of assassination, the situation was highly chaotic. Seems a bit of a stretch to call it a 'direct political line of succession'. Nobody is arguing there is not continuity; though it almost could be argued the Ottomans were the same, as they adopted much of what was the Byzantine way into their own, such as the Cataphract, become the Sipahi. I would say not in a lot of ways, except to mention the similarity was there.

I said political line not bloodline.

You can draw a line from the republic to Constantine XI. You could argue that line splite in 1204 with Trebizond.

I can't recall if those rulers of Trebizond claimed to be rulers of the empire so they were a successor state I suppose. I don't think they did but I can't recall


The west downplayed it both by renaming the empire later and calling it the empire if the Greeks.


Hell until Charlemagne there was only one pire in Christiandom.

 

[dragoner]

I said political line not bloodline.

You can draw a line from the republic to Constantine XI. You could argue that line splite in 1204 with Trebizond.

I can't recall if those rulers of Trebizond claimed to be rulers of the empire so they were a successor state I suppose. I don't think they did but I can't recall


The west downplayed it both by renaming the empire later and calling it the empire if the Greeks.


Hell until Charlemagne there was only one pire in Christiandom.

Yes, I meant it for others to read, so that they would not think of the Emperors of having one bloodline, some were of quite humble origins. I mean, also, being a Slav, the Byzantines are more culturally relevant to me, and westerners, the western Empire, being more relevant to them, are going to have more focus on it. Seen it from both sides too, my Father used to say there were only three European peoples: Slavs, Greeks (ie Mediterranean), and Germans.