Talk:New Rome

Untitled
What is the first sentence of this article trying to say? ... Someone should copyedit this. &mdash; Timwi 08:34, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

''The Tsars ruled until November 2, 1721. The last Tsar Peter I abandoded his title in favor of the title "Emperor"''.

That, of course, never happened. They were still "Tsars of Poland and blah, blah, blah...". But "Emperors and Autocrats of All Russia". I have corrected it. Gaidash 7 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)

Fascist link
I have linked to a Mussolini speech since its relevant to the section. However I had to use the Internet Archive (thanks) since the site seems sequestered by an Asti or Pordenone court. I hope it's not a problem. --Error 01:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

what about Washington, D.C.?
Isn't Washington D.C. worth mentioning? i'm making this suggestion in light of all those buildings in the D.C. Area that were based on roman architecture. Oren neu dag 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reputable references that call WDC New Rome? `'Miikka 03:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think Washington D.C, or the United States of America for that matter have any rightful claim to the Roman Empire. America has no claims to the Roman Translatio imperii. Just because some buildings in D.C are based on Roman architecture doesn't mean anything. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio 07:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually there is a belief amongn the european left and christian patriot groups that since england was ruled by the Normans in the 11th century and were also claimants to the throne of france, than by a continuation of the rule of charlemagne (from the translatio imperii), the english (and later the british) are succesors to the roman empire, and after the decline of the british empire in the post WW2 era the Americans (who lead the free world at the time) became the succesors of the british and by that also the succesors of the roman empire. (more about that in Translatio_imperii). Oren neu dag 12:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The abovementioned "Miscellaneous" are deleted as unreferenced dubious speculations. `'Míkka 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would mention Washington DC as well. It's no coincidence that the U.S. system was partly based on the Roman republic and that is why there is so much roman architecture in DC (Capitol, named after the hill in Rome, etc.) Gryffindor  11:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Granted, my source isn't a scholarly reference (which is why I don't change the article myself) but in The Lost Symbol, Dan Brown argues that the founding fathers originally called DC "New Rome." Does anyone if there's any truth to this? David Youngberg (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorely lacking references
I have just added a cn to each of the unreferenced claims in this article. All these claims require references if they are to remain in the article. – ukexpat (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)