Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 4

Greek influence
i think that the greek influence on the romans should be stated, i.e., most of their army tactics and what the romans used in every day life was invented by a greek or anotherWillgfass2 21:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)willgfass

Right sure, we all know how well the Romans used the Greek phalanx and the Companion cavalary to expand the republic, NOT. Flamarande 00:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Very true the Romans did take many things from the Greeks, (hence Greco-Roman civilization), but that was all based on culture, the Romans focused on mobile heavy infantry units, their infantry was their main bulk they never really expanded on their calvery, it has historically been considered their weak point in their army, but it was nontheless trained. My point is is that Roman culture was basically the same as Greek culture, such as the ideas of Democracy and Law. However, the Romans never used the Greek's miltary formations or tactics that I am well aware of, i believe thier military derived from the other latin cultures such as the Etruscans. Cmatos1991 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Etruscan aren't a Latin culture, their origin is shrouded in mystery. The Romans copied miltary tactics and formations from many cultures, but also invented many of them (perhaps event the more important ones). Ancient Greek Democracy did not have a great influence upon the Roman republic. As far as I know, the diffrent Roman tribes/classes (you belonged to one by birth) were consulted on some major decisions but it always began with the richest and if the richest classes agreed the poorest ones were not consulted anymore. You can even argue that the Roman republic was a aristocratic Oligarcy. About Law I must confess that I'm ignorant if the Romans invented many of our modern legal notions or copied them (I guess a little of both). But to defend that Roman culture was the same as Greek culture is a bit exagerated; the Romans copied many things (from the Greeks among others), but they also invented many things which influence us even today. Flamarande 18:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande most scholars wouldn't agree with you. Not only democracy but also the very concept of polis was adapted from the Greeks. Constitution and military were probably the only domains where Rome made its own innovations, although their origins were there too the Athenian constitution and the Greek phalanx. Miskin 17:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ancient Roman republic wasn't an Athens-inspired democracy, simple as that. The origin of the Roman city-state, and culture was Etruscan. The original Roman army in which the diffrent sorts of infantry were based upon the class/wealth seems indeed to be somewhat copied from Greek models. However these were quickly cast aside and the Roman army developed its own Roman identity (legions, manipules, centuries, etc). This new army who managed to conquer Italy, and later the known world wasn't based upon any Greek model. The legions smashed the phalanaxes again and again, exactly because they were trained, equiped, and organized under a original and far superior Roman model. Flamarande 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The polis was a concept that all Italic peoples adapted from the Italian Greeks. As I said before the Roman Republic did come up with remarkable innovations in the fields of military and state formation. But do not forget the Greek influence in all fields of culture from science to letters. But for someone who believes that Byzantines were just 'Romans' and not Greeks who got potically assimilated to the Roman ecumenical state, this makes quite a contradiction. If we assume that Byzantines were just Romans, then it means that the Roman Empire got finally assimilated into Greek culture and retained nothing from its past, except its very name (and that in Greek). So what you claim about "Roman culture" becomes moot by your own logic. Miskin 18:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said that the Byzantines where only Roman (at least that I remember, but if you are able to find such a statement please let me know). I have read (and defend) that Greek and Latin were official languages at the beginning of the Byzantine Empire (as far as something like 'official language' existed at that time). I personaly think that the Byzantine Empire had a strong Roman and Ancient Greek legacy and with the passing of time and the loss of territory re-grouped more and more around ancient Greek culture and language. It also gradually lost many of its early Latin elements, like the language itself (and the territories, gained by Justinian). It isn't the only successor to the "old" Roman Empire but without a doubt the most important one. However it also had many other elements/cultures inside of it so it isn't solely a 'Greek nation' (which seems to me your POV - simply being honest). Flamarande 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never used the term "Greek nation", I said "Greek monarchy" which is a mainstream connotation for post-Manzikert Byzantium. Greek-speakers were never a nation in the modern sense before 1821. I think the answer to who is the most important successor of Rome is an abjective one. It depends on someone's criteria on defining "Roman" and the "Romans". For example Byzantium was the only real political successor of the Roman Empire, but as Charlesmagne correcly emphasised the Greeks were neither speakers of the "Roman language" nor possessors of the Roman land, and the city of Rome itself chose the German Emperor as the legimate inheritor of the Empire. Both Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire started off as Roman Imperial states which imported Latin as their official languages, but soon thereafter they both became Greek and German states respectively. This is only natural if you consider the evolution of civilisation over the centuries. However I brought this up because I think that the Eastern Roman Empire (meaning Byzantium even before the fall of the Western Empire and while it had Latin as an official language) proves the important position of Greek culture in the Roman Empire. In the West all subjected peoples were assimilated and Latinized, but in the East even when Latin was imported for official purposes, it never gained popularity and didn't manage to survive. Miskin 22:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way many Greeks are of the opinion that there is one and only Roman Empire which ends in 1453, and would never accept to call it 'Greek monarchy' at any point, clearly a view which doesn't meet consensus. I'm of the realistic view that a culture is not defined only by means of political continuity, and that when it comes to editing articles wikipedia should always stick to mainstream terminology and should not try to decide between right and wrong. Miskin 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dubious assertion
Rome dominated Western Eurasia, comprising the majority of its population. This isn't correct. Rome was a city. It was the empire which comprised the majority of the population in Western Eurasia. Rintrah 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Another comment: some of this article is written like a high school essay. Why is this in the article: ''Who was the first emperor? is one of the never ending questions about the Roman Empire.''? I am too tired to edit this myself. Perhaps someone else can attend to improving the quality of writing.

I was going to read the whole article, but the First Emperor section thoroughly discouraged me. Rintrah 19:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rome was simply the original city-state and the power was concentrated there. We speak about the Romans and not the Roman Imperials; unlike today where we speak of a capital e.g. "Paris" and of the country "France", and the ppl, "French". We also speak of "the greatness and glory of Rome" and not of "the greatness and glory of the Roman Empire" (well sometimes we do, but the first is more commonly used). You might think that the point about the 1st emperor is too easy, bu there are plent of ppl who are unsure about it. Flamarande 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Rome" is very commonly used as shorthand for "the Roman Empire" in multiple sources ranging from academic works to TV, movies and fiction - I don't think we need to change that. The section on the first emperor is an important debate, but still (despite revision) not quite accurate - the title of "Imperator" really referred to generalship and has only assumed the "imperialist" connotation via centuries of subsequent history. Roman emperors themselves were in modern terms essentially military dictators and the "imperial" system a sort of aristocratic militarised slave-owning universal culture with some local and regional liberties and religious tolerance, that evolved slowly in stages from "alleged democratic republic" to "alleged universal empire". So the whole debate is slightly flawed and anachronistic and user Rintrah is right to raise it - however, it does seem worth discussing it as to the modern mind the obvious query is "when did the empire start?" MarkThomas 10:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Alot of this article seems to have been directly copied from various subject textbooks. I myself have wikified the sentence "Our major primary sources include the:" to "Primary sources for this include:" or something similar. A fine tooth comb is needed to clean this article, many parts of it are contradictory to Wiki standards. Bigbrisco 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Autocratic
Apologies if this has already been discussed, did a quick check of the archives. I'm wondering if the word "autocratic" in the opener is quite right - most modern experts tend to speak of Rome as an aristocratic society - not that autocracy is wholly wrong, but it tends to imply that all power is in one person, but in many periods of the empire and at different times, that was not completely the case; senators had real power, as did governers, other members of the imperial family, particular generals and so on. It is certainly true under some emperors but I think classical scholars viewed that sort of absolutism as defective and more enlightened emperors ruled slightly more collaboratively. Opinions please? I think it should say either aristocratic or aristocratic and (sometimes) autocratic. MarkThomas 09:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Roman society was surely aristocratic, but the goverment was autocratic during the empire. That means that real power was in the hands of the Emperor. Some might have been more powerful than others, and Senators and Generals certainly also had some power, but in final analysis they served the emperor. The emperor himself was not controlled by any institution at all and could (and many did) order the execution or forced suicide of many Senators and generals. Still it wasn't a monarchy, because most of the time there wasn't any Imperial dinasty with clear lines of succession. Senators and generals could certainly make a coup or a rebellion but this means that the goverment is overthrown and that the system is put out of comission. Compare it to todays time: General MacArthur certainly had power until Truman sacked him. Flamarande 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As explained in the article on Autocracy, "The autocrat needs some kind of power structure to rule. Only a boss of a street gang or a barbarian chieftain can truly rule with only his personal charisma and his fighting skills. Most historical autocrats depended on their nobles, the military, the priesthood or others, who could turn against the ruler and depose or murder him." "Autocracy" doesn't need that only one person holds power; it means that essentially, all power *derives* from one person (or one institution), or is dependent on that one person. In Rome, all power ultimately rests with the Emperor - maybe not de iure, but de facto. Of course, he does need other people to exercise his power, and as the Roman emperors used the old aristocracy for many of those duties, they had to respect certain traditions of that aristocracy. That doesn't mean, however, that senators, governors or (least of them) generals had power *of their own*. The case could be made in a certain respect for governors, as officially, "senatorial" provinces during the early Empire were not directly ruled by the emperor. Regarding the military, however, the emperor was technically the only commander-in-chief (as shown by the fact that only he could celebrate a triumph, even if it was his generals who won). That senatorial "autonomy" was, however, on paper only - threats to the reigning emperor came from rebellious generals; senatorial governours had no power to actually work against the emperor's wishes. With time, the distinction faded, and even from early on, senatorial governors deferred many decisions to the emperor, or ruled according to how imperial provinces were run.
 * Emperors could exercise their absolute power more openly, or more veiled, trying to gain the support of the aristocracy. It always was absolute power, though. Varana 16:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all this Varana, I do very much agree with your and others' views above about power deriving from the Emperor. I guess I feel suitably corrected. :-) Maybe I was thinking though that Senators had slightly more power sometimes than is implied in your comments above - true that dictatorial emperors treated them as comical or suppressed them, but some emperors seem to have treated them actively as a parliament. Also the tetrarchy and vicarius periods post-Diocletian I think distributed power more, although quite right, it derived from the emperor(s).

I see from your own page that you do maps sometimes, what do you think of the map issue below I raised, are you able to edit that map? I tried contacting the author but with no response. It is certainly wrong to show Dacia as under Roman rule in AD 14. MarkThomas 16:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the impression that the senate was a kind of "parliament" during the Empire is misleading. We should keep in mind that most literary sources from the early and high empire were written by members of the senatorial class, reflecting their views. Though I grant that I'm maybe stressing one particular direction here. :)
 * The tetrarchy, otoh, is a direct consequence of autocratic rule. Everythin relied on the emperor; and if the emperor was not present, the empire couldn't be ruled effectively. It wasn't enough to have governors, generals, prefects or other magistrates around - it had to be an emperor in every area of crisis. The tetrarchy's solution was not to wait until the respective area (province, army) chose an emperor if the "real" one wasn't available, but to choose them beforehand, securing their loyalty to the "central" government. Rome had become a real autocracy by then - everything depended on the emperor personally, and the four emperors of the tetrarchy were an attempt to solve the geographical and logistic problems resulting from that requirement of the emperor's personal presence.
 * Regarding the map: I'll see if I can come up with a similar, but more accurate map, though it will take some days. The problem with the map is imho not that it is wrong in itself, but that it is a bit rough, or imprecise: the Dacian conquests of Trajan are that green area protruding north, while the yellow area next to it is Pannonia/Moesia. Varana 18:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Varana. I've just been browsing the Roman_Empire/reorganization mentioned above - this I see has some stage maps in green, but not the multi-coloured integrated map we are discussing - does that mean in effect we need no longer bother what's on this page but should instead focus on the reorg page? Thanks for any guidance. MarkThomas 21:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Map error?
The map (which is nice and generally very good) seems to show Dacia (modern-day Romania and part of Bulgaria) as being Roman in 14AD, which is wrong - Trajan conquered Dacia in 101-6 - contrast with the map below, also on Wikipedia, showing the supposed extent of the empire in 50AD. How do we go about getting the map re-drawn? I really like it, the colour scheme and simplicity is really good. Mark Thomas 10:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This map is wrong in several aspects as there are many territories that were part of the empire at the time such as northern Spain and do not appear in this map.--RafaelG 12:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right RafaelG, and I did not mean to imply the above map should be our only source; merely that it is correct not to show Dacia as part of the empire at that time. Here is the map I am talking about, just to be completely clear. I think this is a great map. Just that Dacia is wrongly colour-coded. MarkThomas 12:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)




 * Any objections to replacing the left map with this one on the right?


 * If anyone feels that there's something wrong (in various areas, sources differ on when they were conquered), please say so; I still can shuffle things around.
 * Else, I'll be switching the maps in a few days. Varana 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a beautiful new map, thanks for all your efforts with it Varana! Couple of things I noticed - is it just my browser/PC, or is the colour in your key box for 218BC not the same as the one on the map? One other thing - I've often seen empire maps that show parts of the region north of the Black Sea (including part of the Crimea) as Roman - did you leave these off or is it that they were occupied later when other parts of the empire were smaller? MarkThomas 20:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good catches. :) Which regions north of the Black Sea actually belonged to Rome, is a bit unclear; unfortunately, I couldn't access specialized literature. Cherson probably had a Roman garrison under Nero, but the Bosporan Kingdom in general seems to have remained a vassal state throughout (until Byzantine times). I have altered the map to reflect this, i.e. coloured the southern Crimea green ("after 14"). Until I get more information, it'll have to do as an approximation.
 * The colour was wrong, yes. Corrected. (The update may need Reload in the browser to show.) Varana 09:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the muted colours on the new map but it seems strangely squished, north to south. Is this some Wikipedia image rendering flaw, or is it the map??  12.64.72.51 15:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very nice Varana. As to the Squished look, that's a Map projection difference, cartographers usualy use the Mercator projection, this one uses soemthing else, most likely Gall-Peters projection.--Dryzen 14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) It's simple plate carrée projection. Varana 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the conquests of Trajan in Orient should be explained as temporary conquest then lost, as the conquest of Germania by Augustus (wich isn't showed in the map) and present Scotland invaded succesfully by Agrícola who then retreat quickly. -Fco

Roman Empire Began In 31 BC?
How is that even possible if the Roman Republic didn't dissolve until four years later, in 27 BC? --MosheA 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think it's wrong in the article - a lot of sources show the republic ending effectively at the same time as Augustus assumed supreme power in 31, or else when Ceasar had himself declared Dictator and Imperator in 49BC. MarkThomas 09:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Sigh". There isn't a single date for the transformation of the republic into the empire. There are several dates of great importance but it was a gradual process. Mark is unsure between two dates, and MosheA merely wants to replace one date with another. It is a basic flaw on the approach and question: we want to determine a single date for a process which took several years and then we get amazed that don't find an appropiate date. It began slowly with Marius and Sulla; at the end of Sulla it might appear that the republic had beeen saved but the idea of a single ruler had beeen launched. Then we a have a military junta of three mighty men (is that a true republic?), then one of them dies and the other two slug it out. One emerges victorious to be slain by republicans (a dying breed). In the mess that follows other three mighty men finish the rebellious republicans at Philipae off, and order the execution of hundereds of political opponents. Then one of them loses all his power and the other two slug it out (hello deja vu). The victor, giving a great show of humility and honour, offers to return all his powers to a Senate mostly composed by his loyal followers and frightened persons, and everbody knew what they were supposed to do. Not a single one believes the lie (do you know of a single senator who said: "Ok, we accept your generous offer, now give us our power back?") and they beg the continuation of rule of the victor for "the security and wellfare of the republic". A couple of years later they offer him a new title. Then he chooses a succesor for himself (where was the authorithy of the Senate here?), and it goes on and on. In theory and officially the republic continues throughout this entire time. There is never a official proclamation of the Roman Empire with an official date. You will find out this is the same problem in many things: When began the Renessance?, the Age of Discovery, etc? There isn't a single precise date for these events it was always gradual developments. I personally don't agree with the battle of Actium for the war between Octavian and Markus continued, I would prefer to replace it with "unclear; several dates advanced but in reality it was a gradual process." Flamarande 11:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Very entertaining and well-argued piece, thanks Flamarande. :-) I was really just querying the use of the 27BC date as one of the choices, but having checked more extensively and looked in one or two of my own books, I now accept that it is sometimes used. The entry appears to cover the ground pretty well, as does your piece above! MarkThomas 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph -- Fall of Byzantine Empire
"...it maintained Roman legal and cultural traditions within a distinctly Greek Orthodox form for another thousand years until it finally succumbed to Latins in 1204, and then the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453." This sentence is probably a bit confusing to those unfamilar with Byzantine history -- how can an empire be eradicated twice? Perhaps there should be a brief mention of the greek reconquest, or else leave out the referance to the fourth crusade (as it wasn't the true endpoint). --141.157.74.8 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your obviously losing grips with fact. The initial church of Jesus Christ and God was started by what is distinctly today the Greek Orthodox CHurch. The Papacy and the Germanics following the Papal Heresy called Catholism were responsible for teh damage and destruction of the Eastern Empire through the blatant mis use of their powers and through the blasphemous and hell bound condemnation of their satanic actions that called men to aid in wars for their own political agendas.

Ephestion 14:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User User:Armodios is making a series of fairly extreme and unsupported edits to the lead in connection with the above, having already reverted twice I would be grateful if other editors could also review. Thanks. MarkThomas 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The debt that Rome owed to Greece and the Trojan foundation legend are interesting and important, but belong at Ancient Rome, not in an article specifically about the Imperial period. The transition between the Roman Imperial and Byzantian periods deserves notice here, but not in such detail in the introduction. All the material added, I should point out, needs to be coherently written, argued and sourced, not unilaterally asserted like it has been. --Nicknack009 19:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no "imperial" period! Think about it. Are you are talking about the imperial period of an empire? Does this makes sense? And how do you call the rest period of thus empire? Non imperial? There is neither east nor west roman empire, nor "byzantine" empire, which is an awfull neologism. There is only a pagan and a christian period, of one and single empire, the Roman empire, which fell 1453. Armodios 09:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article does not use the phrase "imperial period". "Western" and "Eastern" empires are terms so widely used that it would be anti-reader not to repeat and explain them in Wikipedia. "Byzantine" is also a very widely used term throughout the academic history of study of the classical period and again we have a duty to illuminate to the casual reader of Wikipedia the meaning, context and development of "Byzantium", "Byzantine" and "Byzantine Empire". If people who lived in those periods and places described themselves differently, we should also say how. Finally, your comment that there is "only a pagan and a christian period" is an absurd over-simplification and no significant academic working in this area would agree with your other over-simplification that the Roman Empire "fell" in "1453" - clearly the polity originally generally known as the Roman Empire evolved in different ways, divided into two main parts with separate histories, changed, fought many wars, developed culturally and religiously and so on. Your 1453 date is about the capture of Constantinople by Mehmed_II, which conquered the tiny rump state which was all that was left of what had once been the Eastern half of the Roman Empire. MarkThomas 09:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It was my comment that used the phrase "Imperial period". This article is about the Ancient Roman civilisation after it becomes conventionally known as the Roman Empire, sometime between the dictatorship of Julius Caesar and the principate of Augustus. Before that it is known as the Roman Republic, even though, for a lot of that period, it ruled foreign territories and had what we would call an "empire". This is a retrospective judgement but is an established convention because marks an important distinction, just as the transition from "Roman" (ruled from Rome) to "Byzantine" (ruled from Constantinople) Empire does. This article is not about the entirety of Roman civilisation, it's about the period during which it is conventionally known as the Roman Empire. Hence, I used the informal coining "Imperial period". Armodios, If the only change you can see in ancient Roman civilisation over the long centuries of its existence is a change from pagan to Christian, you obviously haven't read enough about the subject. --Nicknack009 12:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is not about roman civilisation. It is about roman empire. An empire is defined as a state ruled by an emperor. Roman republic is a different state, it is not Roman empire. The so called "byzantine" empire is actually a direct descendant of the roman empire, it was also ruled by an emperor, and the main difference between them was the christian religion. At least call it "constatinople" empire or "New Rome" empire (because new rome was the official name of constantinople). What has the term "byzantine" to do with constatinople empire? Its a term some people invented three hundred years after the fall of the roman empire. Its a wrong term and shouldnt be used. Listen to the citizens and to the emperors of the roman empire. How they always identified themselves during the 1500 years life of their empire? Did they ever used the "byzantine" nickname? Why do you call them with a name most of them they didnt even know? Is it maybe because the descendants of the german tribes, who, after destroying the western roman empire and gaining over the roman name (similar to what the nowdays slavs are dong with macedonia name) convinced you with their anhistorical arguments? Armodios 11:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Armodios, you've already made it very clear you have strong views on this, but the article uses terms that are widely used elsewhere and any casual reader of Wikipedia deserves a chance to read good quality information on this important subject using words and phrases that are familiar and also explored further and deeper on other pages. "Byzantine" is a very commonly used terminology not just here in Wikipedia but everywhere in both academic and popular literature, on TV, internet sites, etc. It's a very common phenomenon that the modern names for historical movements, nations, cultures, peoples and events are different in various ways to those that were originally used. This too can be explained in Wikipedia but it does not mean that we must use them generally in articles now, since it would be confusing. This is why I and other editors reverted (and will continue to revert if they don't make sense given the above) your recent changes. MarkThomas 11:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What kind of encyclopedia are your trying to create? an encyclopedia based on popular majoritarian views and rumors or an encyclopedia based on accuracy and on sources? Armodios 12:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See Naming conventions (common names). Whether you like it or not, the convention in all scholarly historical literature is to call it the Byzantine Empire after the move to Constantinople. It should of course be made clear that the Byzantine Empire is a term conventionally used for the continuation of the Roman Empire after the move to Constantinople, and this article and the Byzantine Empire article already make this clear. It is a useful way of subdividing information and making articles like this more manageable. You're raging against a useful historical convention which is universally used and not an invention of Wikipedia. I see you're also still persisting in trying to push the notion that the Roman Empire was merely a continuation of the Greek colony at Naples. This is false. The Roman Empire was, as you must understand, the continuation of the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic was influenced by Greek Naples, but was not the same thing at all. The fact that the Romans had foundation legends that claimed they were descended from Trojans is irrelevant, as Trojans were not Greek. Please stop pushing this tendentious POV material. --Nicknack009 12:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again you are using unhistorical majoritarian popular views and naming conventions! In Homer's Iliad, "Danaans" and "Argives" designate the forces opposed to the Trojans, not Greeks! You claim that Trojans were not greeks. Then how do you explain the fact that they spoke the same language and had the same religion? Armodios 13:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They didn't. Homer is not history. --Nicknack009 13:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I know. Homer is not history, you (after 3000 years) are. *sigh* Armodios 13:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nicknack009, very accurately put. By the way, the Lead of Byzantine Empire also goes to some lengths to explain to the layman the various naming conventions and how the peoples of that empire thought of themselves as well. MarkThomas 12:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A minor bit of Googling also tracks down the Heraclides reference. It's from Plutarch, Camillus 22.2-3, regarding the sack of Rome by Brennus and the Gauls: "However, it would seem that some vague tidings of the calamity and capture of the city made their way at once to Greece. For Heracleides Ponticus, who lived not long after that time, in his treatise "On the soul," says that out of the West a story prevailed, how an army of Hyperboreans had come from afar and captured a Greek city called Rome, situated somewhere on the shores of the Great Sea. Now I cannot wonder that so fabulous and fictitious a writer as Heracleides should deck out the true story of the capture of Rome with his "Hyperboreans" and his "Great Sea." But Aristotle the philosopher clearly had accurate tidings of the capture of the city by the Gauls, and yet he says that its saviour was Lucius, although the forename of Camillus was not Lucius, but Marcus. However, these details were matters of conjecture." I think that goves a bit of context and shows how reliable Heraclides should be taken to be. --Nicknack009 13:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not only Heraclides. We have plenty of evidences showing that the early days Romans were "almost" greeks. The participation of Romans to the olympic games dates 228, before they conquer mediteranian sea. And above all, it is their religion which shows greek influance on romans. Can you give us a reasonable explanation why all romans gods originated from greece?. Is it maybe because Olympus mountain is taller than Alps? *sigh* Armodios 13:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Armodius, your discussion belongs in the page Talk:Founding of Rome, as it is about the origin myths of Rome, of which there are many, the "Trojan origin" being just one (and as with many such myths, no actual evidence whatever to back it up). Thanks. MarkThomas 13:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Please dont use the term "byzantine" empire. It is tottaly unistorical." says Armodios in his latest edit summary. What, you think you can overturn centuries of historical consensus just because you don't happen to like it? Give it up, you arrogant twit. Should we stop using the term "Middle Ages" as well? What about "Stone Age", "Bronze Age" or "Iron Age"? For that matter, what about "Greek", which the Greeks don't call themselves? --Nicknack009 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Behave yourself! At the middle ages, when the german tribes gain over the roman name (similar to what the slav tribes are doing nowdays with macedonia), it was because german tribes had no civilisation at all, so the roman glory was the glue that united them, and gave to their people the faith to create their state. But now we are not in the middle ages. Nowdays the germans tribes (including german, france, north italy and the anglosaxons) have create a great civilisation, even better than the roman one, so the dont need the "roman" glue. It is time for the germans to return the roman name back to their owners, and the real owners of the roman name are the italiotes and the romioi. Armodios 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mehmet the Conqueror
There is a section about the successor states and there are couple of mistakes about the Turkish claim for the throne of the Roman Empire. The Turkish invasion of Italy stopped in 1481 (with the death of Mehmet II) not in 1480. Also it was more like a retreat than a defeat for Ottomans. Ottoman historians argue that Mehmet decided to use Otranto as the base of his invasion but when he died (some argues that he was poisoned) his plans were not carried on mostly because of the conflict between his sons, Cem Bey and Bayezid (later Bayezid II). Otranto was lost to western powers during this power struggle. With respect, Deliogul 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't you have any counter claims? I will wait for one more day and then I will make the changes that I mentioned above. With respect, Deliogul 22:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, you are not supossed to wait for the anyone's approval (the above "you" - there is no such person) to improve a article. Read first the Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages aka Be Bold (in particular the but don't be reckless section) guildline and then improve the article. If your improvements meet with opposition someone will either revert them and/or put the issue here for proper factfinding/checkup. Don't forget to include your sources (references) at the correct location. Flamarande 16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization
The project Roman Empire/reorganization lost its momentum half a year ago. Rewriting the whole Roman Empire article is probably to big a task for the small ancient history community on Wikipedia. I think we might as well remove the talk-box at the top of this page, and declare the project defunct. I guess improving the present article step-by-step is a more realistic endeavor. Any thoughts?--Hippalus
 * Removed the text box. As nobody gave a reaction on above comment, hopefully nobody will mind - or even notice.--Hippalus 06:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Late Roman Empire sections
I've reorganised the levels of the headings of the historical sections relating to the period between Constantine and Theodosius, and added a couple of sentences on the Western Empire between 395 and 474. These are there just to provide some continuity until something better can be added - I hope to do so in a few days but (of course) if anyone else feels like doing so meanwhile, please step in. PWilkinson 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

West Eurasia ??
this article line 9 at 5.40PM 4 Feb 2007: "From the time of Augustus to the Fall of the Western Empire, Rome dominated Western Eurasia, comprising the majority of its population."

Not really. Firstly domination is almost better known as occupation. Rome was South of the Baltic, and didn't often include much West of the Rhine in Europe. For majority of Population to be a majority it has to actually be there, and here it is simply not there. It is stretching things a bit to say Rome dominated Europe-you might as well say that the USA dominated the Western Hemisphere, good concept, but wishfull thinking. Sure, Rome wanted to dominate Europe, but who was Herman the German?? He's the guy who says to Rome that it is only wishful thinking, and yes, there is a place for saying that Rome wanted to do this, but history won't hold the rest of this, and Europe is kind of clearly the bulk of the West end of Eurasia as it seems to have been known since the 19th Century in everyplace that I have seen it until just yesterday. Why West Eurasia ? The term is not helping here. Are you trying to form a link to support the current expansions of NATO beyond the Atlantic or of the EU beyond Europe ? There may be better ways to do that, and the placement of this term is confusing.

Rome dominated the Mediteranean and controlled all of the islands and coastal areas and clearly dominated Southwestern Europe. Find a way to say that, because it is the truth. John5Russell3Finley 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What type of jobs did women and men hold in ancient Rome?

Infobox
Hi everyone. Just wanted to say this is very nice page in my opinion. I specialize in African history and wanted to make a similar table for the Mali Empire article. I'm having trouble getting the table to look right. Does anyone have the template for this info box, cuz its not showing up in the edits. Thnx in advance and keep up the good work.

Scott Free 23:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicomedia was the eastern capital city of Diocletian during the Tetrarchy System
Nicomedia (Izmit in modern Turkey, located east of Istanbul, on the Marmara Sea) was the eastern capital of the Roman Empire between 286-324 (until Licinius was defeated by Constantine the Great in 324) during the Tetrarchy system of Diocletian. Constantine also resided in Nicomedia between 324 and 330, until he established Constantinople as the new capital.

Diocletian chose Nicomedia for himself as the capital city of the senior Augustus.

Therefore, Nicomedia should also be added on the capital cities graph at the top of the page. KeremTuncay 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps
At least one of the two maps should show that the Roman Empire held territory up to the Oder River, before the barbarians drove them out, and especially that what is now a large part of the Netherlands (west of the Rhine River) was part of the Roman Empire, even if only for a few decades.  Chiss Boy 15:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. we should have a map like that ¥→WikiDragon295 20:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

POV
This article seems to be written from pro-Asian POV. Chiefly the reference to the Roman Empire being a co-superpower with Han China. The Roman Empire encompassed multiple cultures and civilizations, from Egypt to Gaul, from the Carthaginians to Mesopotamians. Han China ruled over a comparable area and population, but ruled over a single ethnicity (cultural ethnicity) and yet was not as unified as the Roman Empire (more a collection of autonomous states rather than Rome's unified government). Also, the reference to the Roman Empire's rule in western Eurasia. The Roman Empire held territory from southern to northern (though not far-northern) Europe, parts of southwestern and Central Asia, and A LOT OF NORTHERN AND EASTERN AFRICA.  Chiss Boy 14:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Romans in Denmark
According to the article Bay of Kiel, it says that the Romans kept a military presense in Denmark!? This is not cited at all. If it is true, then someone should put a map of the empire with Denmark in its borders.

Kiel and Pliny There is a tantalizing piece of possible evidence of the use of the name in antiquity. Pliny (Book IV.97) is describing the Kattegat and the large number of islands in it, the most famous being Scandinavia. Then,

”quidam haec … tradunt sinum Cylipenum vocari, et in ostio insulam Latrim, mox alterum sinum Lagnum conterminum Cimbris.” ”Some report that there is a bay called Cylipenus and an island, Latris, at its mouth, followed by another bay, Lagnus, coterminous with the Cimbri.” Locations of the bay with its island have been hypothesized as far east as Riga, but Pliny clearly says that it was coterminous with the Cimbri, and the latter were certainly located in Jutland. The Cyli- in Cylipenus is most likely to be Kiel, although whether the bay, the fjord, or both are meant is uncertain. Latris may be a translation into Latin of Langeland, based on the use of the adjective, latus, “wide”, for long. The Romans would have seen it as a wide island. Lagnus must be the Bay of Mecklenburg, or of Lübeck, or both.

Admiral Pliny tells us that the Romans kept a military presence in Denmark, which is contrary to what we are accustomed to thinking about their relationship to the ancient Germanics. He states that the Roman military had intelligence of 23 islands, including Bornholm. Beyond that he isn’t sure. The presence need not have been imposed by the Romans. It may have been simply naval stations permitted by treaty with the Cimbri. Perhaps the first shipyards of Kiel were Roman, but this is only speculation. Mrld 18:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Language
The article lists Latin as the language of the empire and gives a nod to Greek as a later language used in the Eastern Empire. While in terms of official languages this is accurate (the pop-up box does not say "official") in terms of overall usage this is arguably a distortion. Certainly from the outset of the imperial period Greek was the majority language in the Eastern half of the empire. In fact, since the major population centers were in the East I'm fairly certain it was the majority language in the whole empire (I have not seen statistics to confirm this, though). Moreover, Greek was widely used even in Rome (e.g. the surviving quotations from Caesar's assasination in Rome are all Greek, not Latin). Again, I don't have stats as to how prevalent this was in Rome although I have read that it was so prevalent that for some time many in the upper classes had even proposed changing the official language to Greek (i.e. the upper classes in the city itself).

Although this is a detail Western historians have traditionally not wanted to acknowledge it seems worth clarifying in this article. Comments? --Mcorazao 18:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum: According to "Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic", by McDonnell/MacDonnell, page 79,
 * "It is reasonable to assume Greek speakers made up at least 15% of the population of Rome.[i.e. the city itself] ... Over the course of the second and first centuries B.C. the percentage of Greek speakers in Rome became greater."
 * --Mcorazao 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius
Can anyone tell me who created the bronze of Marcus Aurelius in this article? Thank you.

Intro edit regarding "known Western World"
I changed the statement in the intro
 * The Roman Empire was the superpower of the known Western world.

to
 * The Roman Empire was the superpower of Europe and Africa.

Anticipating somebody might want a clearer explanation than my edit comment ...

A few problems with the original statement.
 * 1) The phrasing "the superpower" implies uniqueness (which I think was the original author's intent to imply greatness). One has to be careful because Parthia and China can qualify as contemporary "superpowers" and although some scholars say the Roman Empire was the greatest superpower at its zenith (even that is not a universal opinion) it was certainly not overwhelmingly so.
 * 2) Regarding "known", Rome obviously knew about Parthia and there is evidence of trade with China. So the "known world" at that time was actually quite large.
 * 3) Regarding "Western world" this is a dangerous expression to use. Certainly at that time one could say that the Roman Empire was the "western" empire since the others were east of it. But the term "Western world" today refers to Western Europe so it is confusing to try to use this expression in a different way. The original author may have intended to convey that the modern "Western world" is the inheritor of the Roman legacy but, setting aside the fact that that's not what it says, this is not fair either since many other cultures also inherited from Rome as well.

I don't mean to overanalyze but I think it is particularly important that statements in the intro not be misleading. If anybody doesn't like my phrasing please feel free to choose something different.

--Mcorazao 14:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire
Dont you think there should be mention of the holy roman empire as a successor to the Roman Empire? Even if it wasn't the Papacy and the Pope recognized it as Rome's successor. The papacy would be one to make this claim as the Roman Catholic Church is the only truly Roman trace of the western empire left.

Reverted "which ended the republic" clause
Alphablast, I reverted the following edit.
 * It succeeded the 500 year-old Roman Republic (510 BC - 1st century BC), which had been weakened by the conflict between Gaius Marius and Sulla and the civil war of Julius Caesar against Pompey and Marcus Brutus which ended the republic.

Three reasons: If you or anybody disagree you can feel free to put it back.
 * 1) The two "which" clauses in a row sound strange.
 * 2) I believe this is extraneous. Obviously this sentence is talking about the circumstances of the end of the republic. That doesn't need to be pointed out.
 * 3) The precise end of the republic is debatable and there's no reason to try to pin it to this event here.

--Mcorazao 04:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed protection
Anybody think it's a good idea to lock down this article a bit? This article has been rated very highly and has become fairly mature. Yet I am seeing lots of random edits occurring often by anonymous editors which are compromising the quality of the article.

--Mcorazao 03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Run-on sentences
There are too many run-on sentences. This example is typical:

Zeno probably expected that the Italians under the leadership of the senate would start a revolt and reorganize the Western Roman Empire,[citation needed] however there are no records of any significant resistance or insurgency against Odoacer.

Please fix these. RedRabbit1983 04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Republics
User:Pmanderson has finally admitted that there is an Old meaning of the term Republic at the Talk:List of republics page. But instead of including this old term, he states that the Old Meaning of Republic is "monarchy" and so he has added this to List_of_republics

==Other meanings of Republic==
 * For the archaizing meanings of the word republic, as the commonwealth, or as a translation of politeia or res publica, see those articles.

These were in some respects broader than the present meaning of republic, and would include not only the republics of antiquity, as above, but, for example, the following monarchies: Since the Oxford English Dictionary last cites this meaning from 1684, it is difficult to tell to which present states it would have been applied.
 * Sparta
 * the Roman Empire
 * Elizabethan England
 * the Ancien Régime in France

Can someone explain to me why the Roman Republic has the Newer definition and the Roman Empire has the Older meaning of republic? Can someone who is smarter than me and has a college degree explain this to me? I am having difficulty with this. Is the Roman Empire really a republic?

Is NOT Rome a Classical republic. And if Modern republics diminish religion why was the constitution of Rome divided between Res divina (religious law) and Res publica (secular law)? Is there not a glaring discrepancy here?WHEELER 00:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
Don't you think the introductory passage is too long? It should end after the first paragraph.--Dominik92 16:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

= Western Roman Empire/Holy Roman Empire =

I am going to add a Holy Roman Empire section to this article under The Fall of the Western Roman Empire section, because the Holy Roman Empire was a conscience attempt to revive the western empire in Leo III, and Charlemange's eyes, and among other emperor's such as Otto I, and Fredrick I to name a few. It should also be noted (not on this article of course) that in the west the Byzantines were know as the Greek Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire was looked at as an heir.


 * Even Byzantine Emperors recognized Holy Roman Emperor's Imperial authority for example in 972 A.D, the Byzantine emperor John I Tzimisces recognized Otto's imperial title and agreed to a marriage between Otto's son and heir Otto II and his niece Theophano.

With these reasons alone the Holy Roman Empire should be noted on this article. If anyone has any problems or concerns to me added the medieval Western Roman Empire to this one please let me know. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio 07:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The end of the Roman Empire was 1453; I don't think it's very common to regard the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation as seriously the successor of the Roman Empire; perhaps the Western Empire, but never the Roman EMpire as such. Gibbon's classic and influential account puts the Empire's fall at 1453, which is sensible, because that's when the continuously developing Roman state ends. BTW, what all that nonsense about the Roman Empire ending in 476? That made me laugh. 476 is the date for the Western Empire, ::::::::::::not the Roman Empire, whose capital since the 330s stood as the centre of the Roman state uninterrupted (save 4th Crusade) until the end of the Middle Ages. If 476 is the date, then merge this article with Western Roman Empire and create a new article for the actual Roman Empire. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The true end of the Roman Empire was at 395 AD. It was simply divided between the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire (widely known as Byzantine Empire). The WRE had the old capital Rome and the old Latin heartland; namely Italy. The BE had Constantinople and the richer (eastern) provinces. Due to that fact and other reasons it managed to survive and to thrive. The WRE on the other hand colapsed and was conquered by the barbarian invaders. The BE lateron claimed to be the same entity as the old Roman Empire. Well it could even be recognized by many as such, but fact is that it didn't have Rome or Italy; safe for a very short time.


 * Later several powerful rulers tried to resurrect and/or claimed to rule the old Roman Empire. Charlemagne with his empire (modern France, Italy, the Benelux, parts of Germany and a minor part of Spain). The Holy Roman Empire of the German nation (Germany and nothern Italy and other territories). They have even less credability. Noone can resurect the dead. Someone can posses the same territories and even speak the same language but that doesn't make someone "Roman".


 * The language point is a serious issue: the Byzantines spoke Greek, the Franks spoke French, and the Germans spoke German (old versions of course) Which one of the canditates truly spoke Latin as their every-day language? None!


 * Another point I really have mention: AFAIK the majority of modern scholars recognize 476 AD as the end (I guess they use the Italy-Rome (heartland) reasoning). Many also mention the BE as a sucessor state. Here in Wikipedia we must follow common scholarship.


 * Being completly honest the most ardent defenders of: "BE is the same entity as the Roman Empire" are Greeks or have a Greek background. I think that this issue is a difficult problem to solve. Flamarande 03:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

With all that said, still Rome as a political entity, regardless of its ties to the ancient empire, wasnt formally taken off of maps untill 1806. We can debate endlessly here about the Holy Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire, and who spoke what, and who had true Translatio Imperii. I do however believe that 1806 should be the offical end date of the empire, because if nothing, that was the end of the Roman Empire, on paper(regardless of the Holy Roman Empire being a true heir to the Western Roman Empire), even though I believe it was.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 05:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All this "true Roman" stuff is BS. Romanitas evolved over time, like any cultural concept; it did not fossilize in the pagan age of Caesar. The Roman Empire is continued on until 1453, and that's just fact. It was not a successor state, it was the Roman state; it's a no brainer for anyone with a mind. All this Latin versus Greek trash people bore you with whenever this topic comes up misunderstands both the medieval and the ancient Roman Empire. The date is just a hang-up from badly informed /early modern/medieval western European Universal History ... barbarians, Romans, barbarian, Renaissance ... being imposed on areas outside the western Europe. Works for Italy and France, who ceased to be part of the Empire, but not for the eastern Roman heartland (as it was from the 4th cent. onwards). Like I said, 476 is the date for the Western Empire, not the Roman Empire, whose capital since the 330s stood as the centre of the Roman state uninterrupted (save 4th Crusade, and that temporary state was called ... wait for it ... Romania) until the end of the Middle Ages. If 476 is the date, then merge this article with Western Roman Empire and create a new article for the actual Roman Empire. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said: it is a difficult problem to solve. You seem to neglecting that Constantinople wasn't the only new capital. Rome kept on being a capital, it wasn't stripped of its importance. Italy kept on being the Latin homeland. The Eastern Roman Empire is a half of the old Roman Empire who slowly evolved on its own. The WRE fell in 476 but that doesn't turn the ERE into the Roman Empire. I like the ERE (aka BE) alot, but it wasn't the Roman Empire. It was a part of the Roman Empire and a more than worthy successor but no more and certainly no less. Flamarande 18:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Create a bunch of neologisms and historical distortions that most people can't see past, and sure, you can convince people of this stuff. But it is a linguistic trick; it is nonsense. The deposition of the last western emperor meant simply that, the deposition of the last western emperor. The Empire ceased to be a divided monarchy. The monarchy and state itself went on, reconquering and then losing Italy, Africa, etc. But where does the Roman state disappear? It doesn't ... not until 1453. Talking about the disappearance of the Empire in the 5th century is high school history; the empire no more disappeared than any other empire that loses some territory. As for Italy, a series of Balkan emperors based in the east meant that Italy had ceased to be of prime political importance since the 3rd century ... nothing to do with the events of the fifth. The Italy thing is anachronism. As for Eastern Roman Empire ... if the Western Empire ceased to exist, then what is the "Eastern" Empire? It was simply the Roman Empire ... that's just fact; if you don't believe me, read the sources. Anyways, make up words to your heart's content, but that will remain a fact forever. It is simply not true, it is simply false, that the Roman Empire ended in 476. Like I said, 476 is the date for the Western Empire, not the Roman Empire, whose capital since the 330s stood as the centre of the Roman state uninterrupted (save 4th Crusade, and that temporary state was called ... wait for it ... Romania) until the end of the Middle Ages. If 476 is the date, then merge this article with Western Roman Empire and create a new article for the actual Roman Empire. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you divide something and then destroy one of the halfs, is the surviving half the same as the original? Right, sure. I will never deny that the early Byzantine Empire was a Roman state, but it wasn't the whole Roman state. So now you avoid the capital issue? With the end of the WRE the ERE became the surviving "twin", but it didn't became THE whole Roman Empire. What is the Eastern Empire? It is a successor state. States don't "disapear", states are either conquered, break up, or are disolved. In this particular case it was the second. Never said that the Roman Empire ended in 476 (but scholars indeed use that date). Of course that Byzantine historians wrote that the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire; everybody in the BE wanted to, and indeed did, believe it. But it wasn't accepted as such by the "West (especially by Rome)" even in those days.


 * You defend 1453, I say 395. In the end we both are simply wrong, and we can say what we want; the majority of scholars say 476 and Wikipedia follows common scholarship (or loudly proclaims it does). So make up words to your heart's content but know that 1453 isn't accepted as the end of the Roman Empire ;). Sorry. Flamarande 19:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1453 is simply the factual date. 395 is just another of many divisions of power between different rulers. You see, you see a state-split, everyone then saw a power split between two rulers, who btw were brothers, in what remained one state. 476 was the nominal deposition of the nominal monarch of a rump sphere of authority by the Germanic commander who ruled anyway, and was rather uneventful to the main Roman state, which regarded him as a sub-ruler to be deposed, which of course is what happened. For "scholars", try Edward Gibbon, or anyone who's written about the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Of course, the majority of "scholars" do not say 476 ... that's just funny ... most scholars I've met would have no less contempt for such a suggestion than myself, and would tell you as I do that the actual Roman state came to an end when Ottomans took the 1100 year old Roman capital in 1453. The deposition of the last western emperor meant simply that, the deposition of the last western emperor. The Empire ceased to be a divided monarchy. The monarchy and state itself went on, reconquering and then losing Italy, Africa, etc. But where does the Roman state disappear? It doesn't ... not until 1453. Talking about the disappearance of the Empire in the 4th or 5th century is high school history generated by a distorted and out of date western-centric scheme of Universal History; the empire no more disappeared than any other empire that loses some territory. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I notice that the narrative of this article follows your own belief; it describes the Empire, united until 395, then has a section about the fall of the west, then adds the Holy Roman Empire and "Byzantine" Empire as postscripts. Then it has the bizarre, and totally uncited, statement "Of the many accepted dates for the end of the Roman state, the latest is 610", which it justifies by subsequently discussing "reforms" by Heraclius. This is of course untrue, and a misinterpretation of the debate. Because scholars have been saddled with the unhistorical distinction between "Roman Empire" and "Byzantine Empire", some have tried to find "true" points when they separated (I always find stuff like that funny), of which Heraclius is just one and not the latest by any means; the debate is in relation to culture and society and administration (which eras are better grouped with which), since no one would ever argue that the Roman state as such ever ended until 1453. I might point out too that the debate itself is of course far from relevant to factual presentation because it ultimately can do no more than lead to more agreement in meaning for made-up words. "Byzantine" is just a historian's invention to assist periodization and cope with other ideological and terminological legacies (well, that's why it is kept, it's actual origins are more unworthy than that). This I'm afraid makes this article of poor quality for the topic it purports to cover (it is littered with many other misconceptions and mistakes), the continuous Roman monarchy, and should be tagged *CLEANUP* or something to save wikpedia face or to attract clean-uppers. But unfortunately for it the bulk of the editors here presumably don't have a problem with such a presentation, and I suppose it's not too extreme for the readership the article is likely to attract. I besides don't have the time to engage in these long discussions or to waste effort on the article, so won't bother tagging it, which I'm sure (given what I've just said) would be interpreted by most users here as disruptive. But of course I still care, but I guess I'll just have to live with my sadness. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Both empires played their barbarian enemies against each other, so much for their brotherhood. Both empires had their own foreign policies, and they even ocasionaly fought against each other. Both of them were states on their own right. Both had their own capital.


 * "The Empire ceased to be a divided monarchy. The monarchy and state itself went on, reconquering and then losing Italy, Africa, etc. But where does the Roman state disappear?" No; one of the two Roman states had been conquered, while the other one survived. Only later was the survivor able to conquer former territories from the late WRE (who had ceased to exist long ago). There wasn't any fusion between the the WRE and ERE. The WRE had perished long ago. Too late for that.


 * Some territory??? The empire had been divided in half, and one of halves had been completly overun, conquered, dismembered into several states, and then destroyed. You can't simply compare this development with the previous separations and re-unifications. On all the previous cases the two halves had been seperated, granted, but they also had been re-joined/united under a single emperor (who normally killed the other one). After the division of 395 there wasn't any unification only the destruction of the weaker one.


 * These scholars you speak off are certainly intitled to their own opinion but they aren't the majority. I really don't want to list the books which defend the end at 476 that I own. Flamarande 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC) PS (after edit-conflict): I don't like the present article either and I personally don't think that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation is a valid successor (nor the Frankish empire of Charlemagne). I know of the invention of the word Byzantine. I didn't wrote these chapters.


 * To be honest I completly agree with: "This I'm afraid makes this article of poor quality for the topic it purports to cover (it is littered with many other misconceptions and mistakes), the continuous Roman monarchy, and should be tagged *CLEANUP* or something to save wikpedia face or to attract clean-uppers. But unfortunately for it the bulk of the editors here presumably don't have a problem with such a presentation, and I suppose it's not too extreme for the readership the article is likely to attract. I besides don't have the time to engage in these long discussions or to waste effort on the article, so won't bother tagging it, which I'm sure (given what I've just said) would be interpreted by most users here as disruptive. But of course I still care, but I guess I'll just have to live with my sadness." These words could have easily been mine. Flamarande 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding your point of disagreement, this is something you've already said and I've already disagreed with. There was not two Roman states after 476, and the Roman state was seen as one before ... just had two monarchs. Such divisions and reunifications had been taking place since Diocletian (and indeed there are earlier examples). The deposition of the guy who happened to end up being the last nominal western monarch was simply the deposition of the guy who turned out to be the last western monarch; the Empire as a whole continued, now with only one Emperor. The huge number of anachronisms and misconceptions that cloud this period in most people's head is what is causing the nonsensical belief in the end of the Empire. Romans in the west continued to acknowledge the existence of the Empire for centuries. Bede and other historians before Charlemagne date by reign of the "Roman Emperor". What we see as barbarian conquests were not seen like that by everyone in the west, just a limitation of imperial power at that point; frequently barbarian kings themselves would pay lip-service by pretending to be the vassals of the Roman emperor in Constantinople. Anyways, you know my opinion on the matter. The made-up "Byzantine Empire" (i.e. Roman Empire) is no more a "successor state" to itself than the USA of today is a successor state to the USA of 1800. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Where you truly thinking in converting me :)? Not only the emperor of the WRE was deposed; the whole WRE ceased to exist (was conquered by Odoacer). Everybody has its own opinion (and formerly I was largely ingnorant about the ERE at all). You choose to believe/hold for true that Roman Empire continued. I believe/hold for true that it was divided and that there was no re-unification. You seem to accept that there had been previous divisions. May I ask you: Where was the re-unification after 395? There simply was none whatsoever.


 * Comparing this the USA is a very weak excuse, there was indeed a division between the CSA (south) and the USA (north) but there also was a clear re-unification which didn't happen at all in the Roman Empire after 395. But if we imagined that the "north - USA" had been invaded and broken up by a lot of barbarians (Indians? or even Canadians? :). Would the CSA be considered the exact same political entity as the former unified American state before the division? I truly don't believe so. You defend 1453, I say 395. In the end we both are simply wrong, and we can say what we want; the majority of scholars say 476 and Wikipedia follows common scholarship (or loudly proclaims it does). Sorry. Flamarande 02:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

= Title =

I find it somewhat peculiar that in this article the term "Roman Empire" is tied so closely to the form of government, i.e. the monarchy. Does this correspond with normal practice in scholarship? In the territorial sense, Rome was an empire long before it ceased to be a republic, and I think that for most people the form of government is not the first thing that comes to mind when confronted with the term "Roman Empire"; rather, it would be the great power that established itself around the Mediterranean after the Punic Wars. "Imperial Rome" ( as opposed to the in parallel with the article "Roman Republic") would be more transparent. I find it all the more confusing that the Latin term Imperium Romanum, which has nothing to do with emperorship, is mentioned in the lead, suggesting that it illustrates the term "Roman Empire" as used in the article, which it doesn't. Iblardi 16:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Roman Empire is used by Scholars everywhere. We have to distinguish the form of goverment: monarchy (alltough it was many times not a monarchy (which suggests an dynastic succession), but rather a dictatorship, or perhaps even an autocracy (my favourite)) and the several diffrent peoples who where part of the the Roman state and the huge size of it. Even at the later stages of the republic the Roman state had several peoples (almost all of them conquered by force of arms, and we are not talking about one or two or three but dozens of them) and had vast domains. Something as that is called an empire. Flamarande 18:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Uhm, yes, I believe that is what I am arguing too. So I suppose you agree with my comment? Iblardi 19:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really, you seem to want to use the name Imperial Rome for both the republican and the autocratic (lets use this one) time-periods. This will only confuse too many ppl. There is a huge diffrence between the two systems of goverment (perhaps less than most of us believe but perhaps more than we know of). Better to keep the present names of the two articles. Flamarande 19:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I seem to have trouble making myself clear. My point is the exact opposite. This article bases the term "Roman Empire" exclusively on its form of government (Emperor --> Empire) and I try to argue that for that reason it would better be called "Imperial Rome", i.e., Rome under the emperors, precisely because of the confusion inherent in using the expression "Roman Empire". Iblardi 20:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I probably see how you misread my words. I've changed them; sorry for not being clear. Iblardi 20:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey I'm not a native English reader, perhaps I didn't get because of this fact. To be honest: there is some merit in what you are proposing but it simply isn't worth it. To be a little more acurate at the expense of clarity (and to be truly accurate one would have to use Imperial Rome and Roman Empire for the two time-periods, as both were vast "empires") is simply unwise. Imperial Rome isn't widely used describing "the state with the Roman emperor". Most of us (just look at the History and Discovery channels - no, TV channels aren't my major sources, I rather like books) simply use the terms Roman Republic (and speak of its empire) and the Roman Empire. It might not be 100% acurate (but then nothing truly is AFAIK) but it is adequate. It is better to leave both articles under their current titles. Flamarande 20:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Just look at word "Byzantine", the word was invented centuries later but it was imposed and is used today to such a large extent that to correct it (and then one would have to choose a more acurate one - Eastern Roman Empire? Roman Empire? Romania? None of them? Another one?) is simple an impossible mission. Flamarande 20:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, my own wording was a bit sloppy - I'm not a native reader (or writer) either ;). It's probably my own linguistic background. In my language, a lexical distinction is made between "empire" in its territorial and in its constitutional sense, i.e., rijk and keizerrijk, respectively. (The first term may cover the second.) Therefore, someone looking up Romeinse Rijk would expect to find the article covering the entire period from the first expeditions outside of Italy to the "Fall" in the 5th century (with additional info on Byzantium). But if I understand well, the English term "Roman Empire" is of a more restricted nature. Iblardi 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't thing so. Normally one expects that a empire is ruled over a emperor. German is in this particular case simply better (more acurate). There is the word "Reich" - which can translated as kingdom or empire. Then they have "Königreich" and "Kaisereich". The first one could be translated by "Kingdom" and the other one by "Emperor's empire" or something similar. But even in German they speak of the "Römisches Reich" - Roman Empire and of the "Römische republik" - Roman republic. Behold the power of words: simple diffrences result in major diffrences of interpretation. I particularly like the interpretation of the word "republic" on its own. Look it up: "system of goverment in which the leaders are chosen by the ppl". In the opinion of many anything else is either a monarchy or a dicatorship (it's true; I read that myself on a dictonary and heard that here in Wikipedia).I seriously suspect that this is the result of political correctness. Not all republics are democratic, and the other forms of goverment aren't all (simple) dicatorships. Flamarande 21:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Then again, something should be done about the infoboxes saying Imperium Romanum for this article and Res publica Romana for the other, as these terms have nothing to do with forms of government and their use in this context is therefore misleading. Imperium means "area of control" and res publica "the common cause" or "the state". They do not simply overlap with the English "Empire" and "Republic". Iblardi 07:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't it mean "public affair"? The problem is simple: "replace them for what"? AFAIK the ancient Romans publicly didn't recognize that their repblic had been replaced by an autocracy (fear of being called before Augustus (whoever)) is a great motivation to keep quiet: "I have heard that you are babbling that the republic is dead, and that we have a new form of goverment. You know citizen, such impudent talk could be considered treasonous. You better proclaim that I am nothing but the first citizen of the republic or else you will wake in the Tulliarum one of these days." In private everybody knew who was calling the shots, but publicly nothing had changed. It is better to leave these particular "titles/classifications" it as they are; it is simple, easy to understand, and more or less widely recognized as correct. They are given in hindsight, but that isn't soo bad. Hair-splitting is many times a bad idea. Flamarande 23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace them by nothing? To give a quick example: even in the late 4th century the term res publica is used many times by Eutropius to refer to the empire after Augustus, for instance during the Tetrarchy (His igitur abeuntibus administratione rei publicae Constantius et Galerius Augusti creati sunt divisusque inter eos ita Romanus orbis, ut Galliam, Italiam, Africam Constantius, Illyricum, Asiam, Orientem Galerius obtineret, sumptis duobus Caesaribus. Having the infoboxes suggest that res publica Romana and imperium Romanum were somehow "official" Latin names for the republic resp. the empire maybe looks nice, but gives a completely wrong impression about the actual use of the terms. They are just too problematic, and we shouldn't try to force infoboxes upon history. ;) Iblardi 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, what I am saying is this. In the infoboxes, the Latin term res publica is given as a direct translation of "Roman Republic", as we use that term to designate the period before Augustus. Imperium Romanum is then taken to mean "Roman empire, ruled by an emperor". This is simply a wrong translation. Imperium Romanum means the "power of Rome" while res publica Romana is "the commonwealth of Rome", "the common cause of Rome", "the state of Rome". Both terms are independent from the question whether or not the Roman state is ruled by the Senate or by emperors. Imperium and res publica do not refer to political systems in Latin the way they do in our modern languages. An emperor can perfectly well govern a res publica, not because people want to please him by telling him so, but because that is what he rules: the state, the "good of all", the commonwealth, although a couple of senators may disagree that this is actually the common good. The city of Rome, on the other hand, has power over a number of subjects; its power, and the area over which it is projected, is called the  imperium Romanum. Iblardi 20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Your reasoning does makes sense (It isn't the ancient Roman name). Replace it by nothing (and brace yourself for a revert by someone who doesn't agree with this :) Flamarande 00:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe - and this in only my take on it based on the historians I've read - that the general divisions between Republic and Empire are the forms of government. I don't think anyone can reasonably fail to acknowledge that Rome was an "international empire" since the end of the Samnite Wars, when the Republican forms of government are going strong. However, I think that if you poll 10 professional historians/writers you'll get a general agreement that the "Republican Period" and the "Imperial Period" are separate, and that the internal form of government is the defining factor. Ideally then we should probably not be talking about "Republican" v.s. "Imperial" periods of Roman History, but Monarchy, Republic, Principate, and Dominate (with a footnote for the short-lived Tetrarchy), but these distinct governmental forms break down into three broad categories: Hereditary Monarchy (the Roman Kingdom period), Republican Form (Roman Republic), and Autocracy (Principate and Dominate - sometimes hereditary as in the Julio-Claudian and Flavian dynasties, sometimes not as in the Antonines). This has been - I believe - the rationale for seperating the periods of Roman history to date: not the international relationship of Rome with her neighbors, but the internal structure of Roman politics.

With that said, why not go back to the histories and check when the mottoes are used? Do they appear in inscriptions? When? How? What for? I'm not even sure that it can be unambiguously agreed upon that Rome had a motto. It is possible however; one could look at official inscriptions and monuments and find one, or the other, or both being used in official documents. If one always appears in document pre-Augustus and the other afterawards, that seems to be pretty clear. If both appear mixed, throughout both periods then the use of both is justified. If neither appears as officially part of all documents and edicts, then maybe neither is appropriate and Roman civilization did not have a motto per se. - Vedexent (talk) - 00:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I understand the need to make divisions on the base of the form of government, but I still find it odd that a person looking for information on the Roman Empire on Wikipedia is immediately directed to a page that only treats the period from c. 30 BCE to 476 CE. When we speak of the "Roman Empire" in a general sense, we think of the empire of Rome, not strictly Rome under the emperors. Iblardi 11:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, no - that's my point. Please be assured that I am not making a personal criticism or rebuke here: you appear to automatically think of the "empire of Rome" (i.e. a division based on international influence and the Roman hegemony) instead of "Rome under the emperors" (The Roman civilization under the Principate, Dominate, and Tetrarchy forms of government). Roman historians of the last several hundred years have made the reverse distinction in their published works. Sorry - but they win. They write all the sources; that assumption lies behind most - if not all - of their writing. Their perspective trumps yours as far as writing about topics when the writing relies on these sources for justification. - Vedexent (talk) - 14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, actually I was making two basic assumptions: (1) Wikipedia articles are written for people with no previous knowledge of the subject at hand; (2) in "normal", i.e. colloquial usage, the term "Roman Empire" primarily refers to the territorial empire. I am fully aware of the distinction between Republic and Empire in historiography, and when I say that the territorial empire is the first thing that comes to mind, I am reasoning from a layman's point of view. I am not trying to make some point against established scholarship, and I am not taking your criticism personally at all. My assumptions may simply be wrong. Iblardi 23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think your assumptions are wrong, and I do think it wise to take the likely mistaken preconceptions of interested, but uniformed, readers into account. I'm not sure if you're advocating restructuring the division of Republic/Empire along popular lines because that is what people expect, or not. I would object to that strongly; I think it important to be academically accurate rather than what people expect. However, I agree that it is wise to take popular views into account when writing. Perhaps an acknowledgment of the possible/probable misconception, and a correction very early in both the Roman republic and Roman empire articles? Something along the lines of:
 * "Even though Rome exerted political control over her neighbors very early in its history until its eventual demise, and that this might be considered an Empire in the same manner of the later British Empire, historians usually distinguish between the republican and imperial periods of Rome based on its form of government and not its international political and military power. "
 * This would engage with the mistaken contingent of readers, and still preserve academic accuracy. --Vedexent (talk) - 21:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. I've just come here after seeing |a rather peculiar edit. While I can see the confilct about the native name of Roman Empire I don't see any rationale behind calling the "Roman Republic" "Imperium Romanum". Perhaps I've missed something. Would it not be simpler to use those and and only those names whose use is well attested - i.e. res publica in both cases, imperium in neither? --Nema Fakei 10:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, I got carried away a bit. I agree with you that we should use only the names that are attested. For the Empire, both res publica and Romania (first attested in the 4th century, I believe) are used. This passage in Livy appears to justify the use of imperium Romanum for the Republic. Iblardi 11:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the Livy doesn't suggest imperium Romanum was used of the state - it seems to be used of the territories Rome held - "fortunam illius urbis ac Romani imperii" (at the end of 41) - though if there are any phrases in particular you'd like to highlight, I'd be interested. To be hones though, if you can find an attestation in Livy that supports your claim, it would need a lot more evidence, including either an official document using the term for the Roman Republic or some commentary on the term itself; we also need to be very careful with primary sources, as it's too easy to fall into original reaearch. For now, I think it's best to stick with those terms whose attestation is clear. --Nema Fakei 14:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Agreed, trying to "solve" the issue this way comes dangerously close to OR. Iblardi 17:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As for Romania, R. L. Wolff says: "(...) Romania made its first appearances in the so-called Chronicle Consularis Constantinopolitana, edited about the year 330, and in a series of other Greek and Latin texts of the fourth and fifth centuries (...). In this period the term was clearly used to denote the orbis Romanus or the Imperium Romanum; it was essentially a popular rather than a literary expression, formed perhaps by analogy on the model of Gallia, Graecia, Britannia. It was used specifically in contrast with the barbarian world (...)." (R.L. Wolff, "Romania: The Latin Empire of Constantinople". In: Speculum, 23 (1948), pp. 1-34 (pp. 2-3)) Iblardi 11:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is more-or-less immaterial as to when it was used by some contemporary historian, in my opinion. What matters (again in my opinion) is when did it become part of the official language of documents created by the ruling bodies of the state. Republic? Pricipate? Never? Some modern political pundits have referred - quite often - to the United States as a "new Rome" - but the US Government does not do so. Wikipedia of 6,252AD would be wrong as listing "New Rome" as the "motto" of the United States - Vedexent (talk) - 14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we only supposed to use "official names" in the infobox, as used in treaties with foreign nations and such? I suspect that in that case senatus populusque Romanus might be the only option for both Republic and Empire, although I am not sure of it. Otherwise, Romania seems quite legitimate. From Wolff I get the impression that that name was fairly common (he mentions a couple of other examples, including a series of saints' lives). It was, however, an informal term used by the inhabitants of the late Empire to refer to it and not an "official" name. Still, using Romania as a name of the late Roman Empire seems a lot more justifiable than the ideologically inspired "New Rome" for the United States. Iblardi 21:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And terms such as Pax Augustus were also ideologically inspired. My opinion is that if you open the door way to populist labels for political entities &mdash; especially for such a long-lived and politically/internationally fluid one such as Rome &mdash; your infobox explodes with mottoes. I agree that it is a matter of debate at what point a motto becomes "significant enough" to include. My suggestion of only mentioning "official" mottoes is only one, and perhaps the most restrictive (except for leaving the mottoes out).
 * It also seems that you open a pandoras box of opinion and debate if you decide to draw the "line in the sand" for the significance of mottoes arbitrarily, according to taste. Someone who doesn't agree with your taste will probably come along and kick sand in your face :) In Wikipedia that's almost guaranteed. The resorting to "official" mottoes used by the Roman governments themselves puts the onus for demonstrating significance on a third, neutral, and conveniently dead party. - Vedexent (talk) - 21:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC).
 * I think that all the attested names are equally legitimate to use if we want to give a "native name" in the infobox, and I don't think there is an "official" name comparable to, say, "République du Cameroun" with which the empire refer to itself in transactions with other nations. According to Der neue Pauly, the res publica (used for both the republic and the empire) is not a juristic person; instead the term populus Romanus is used in such cases. However, this denotes the people, not a "state" in our modern sense. Imperium Romanum is used to denote Rome's power/territory and can therefore mean the Republic as well as the Empire. Romania comes perhaps closest to our modern use of country names. We could also have the infobox say "several" under "native name" and then explain the matter in a footnote. Iblardi 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

= Wrong info =

The following image:



Is wrong because Iraq was invaded numerous times and Ctesiphon itself was sacked by the Roman army four times, so how could they have only invaded it once? Once by Trajan Once by Avidius Cassius Once by Septimius Severus in which he deported and enslaved many Once by Galerius, although an earlier attempt was a failure, another in 296 AD worked

Julian invaded Mesopotamia and wa skilled outside of Ctesiphon

Heraclius won a great victory at Nineveh and then marched to Ctesiphon to recieve Perisan armistice terms

Thats a total of 6 invasions, not one. Therefore I will make this edit.

Regards, Tourskin 03:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that map was meant, fairly traditionally, to show the empire at its greatest extent. The Syrian-Mesopotamian border was always unstable, but the Romans managed to break through to the Persian Gulf only once, under Trajan, and this was meant to be a real occupation, not a mere campaign. Iblardi 06:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So shal I change the text to a few times instead of once. The Honorable Kermanshahi 08:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC) \


 * How bout "temporary conquests", because the plural suggests more than once whilst the article will allow the reader to know just how many. The above info cannot be denied but the Persians gave the Romans one hell of a time. Tourskin 07:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just updated this map with a few other territories, and am putting it in the infobox. If you have any other suggestions, please comment. Regards, Cplakidas 14:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Eliminate Holy Roman Empire?
It seems that there was never any consensus behind adding the Holy Roman Empire section, especially describing it as a genuine continuation of the actual Roman Empire. Why is this section still there (or at least why has it not been rewritten)?

I propose removing this as it is inconsistent with modern historiography (with all due respect to the Roman Catholic Church). The discussion in the final section regarding states that claimed to be successors is sufficient.

--Mcorazao 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

= 1806 =

I am going to mark the life span of the Roman Empire from the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, to the abdication of Francis II in 1806.

In 1806 the Roman Empire was on maps, making it the offical date Rome was taken off maps, and ceased to be a political entity. This is all regardless if you dont consider the Holy Roman Empire to be the true heir of the Western Empire!

Do people think the Barbarians just killed all the Romans after 476? The answer is no of course, most of the Germans that took power were already Romanized. The first two German rulers after the fall, Odoacer, and Theodoric the Great even answered to the Byzantine emperor. Roman tradition, and culture didnt just go extinct, as we know because our own society, and cultures in the western world are heavily influenced by Rome.

The people still considered themselves Romans after the fall of Rome, and told there children, and grand-children they were Romans too, this went on for generations, but also while mixing with the Germans too (if you want, check out Romano-Germanic). The Roman populace was never wiped out, and it is debateable that Roman civilian loses were minimal. 300 plus years later there was still a Roman essence among the people.

When things had settled down after all the Choas, and Charlemange was able to unify most of Western Europe again, it was right to revive the empire in the west, he was crowned King of the Romans, and took the title Imperator Augustus. The Byzantine Empress Irene must have reconized Charlemange's Empire as the true Western heir, or she would never have agreed to marry her son to his daughter.

There are many recorded Byzantine and Holy Roman Royal marriages, which further prove that the Byzantines reconized the Roman state in the west. One good example is when in 972, when the Byzantine emperor John I Tzimisces publicly recognized Otto's imperial title and agreed to a marriage between Otto's son and heir Otto II and his niece Theophano.

Saying that the Holy Roman Empire didnt have any real claim to be the the Western Roman Empire is ludacris. But thats not even the debate here! the debate is the offical end of the empire, and that date is 1806 when the last Roman Emperor, Francis II, was abdicated by Napoleon, and Rome, as an Empire was taken off of maps after being on them for millennia.

The history of Rome spans thousands of years of the existence of a city that grew from a small Italian village in the 9th century BC into the center of a vast civilization that dominated the Mediterranean region for centuries, to a Romano-German empire marking the beginning of the Middle Ages!--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 07:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(One in my talk-page, other on your and a third one here, one "here" would have been quite enough)
 * A major argument of yours is the maps: You think that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (HRE) is the same entity as the Western Roman Empire. Well besides the obvious point that they have diffrent name (and languages, peoples, coins, capitals, etc) and that there were around 400 years between Romulus Augustus (or Julius Nepos) and the coronation of Charlamagne. You argue that the same thing happened with the Persian Empire and the later Sassanid Empire. My friend, it is one of the oldest tricks in the book of politics. To impose your rule (and the right of your family) you proclaim yourself as the heir of ancient traditions. William I of England was crowned king of England upon the chair of Edward the Confessor, a saxon king. The same William had defeated the Saxons at the battle of Hastings and his Norman aristocracy later largely displaced the Saxon aristocracy.


 * Italy wasn't invaded only by the Ostrogoths, they were conquered in succesive waves of barbarian/Germanic invaders. We have the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Lombards (and these are only the major ones). The notion that the conquered Romans passed their culture to their children is of course right. Certainly they did that, but after an invasion and conquest an assimlation and mixing happens. If not in the second generation then in third, fourth, ... (400 years are a lot of generations (and invasions), the notion that the Roman continued throughout all this time as a culture and people is IMHO wrong. Only the Jews were able to keep being a seperate religion and culture during hundered of years because there never was a full assimilation).


 * The Germanic/barbarians conquerers simply mixed with the conquered Romans and a new people was the result: neither Germanic nor Roman (using the Normans/Saxons as an example: they slowly mixed and became English, neither Saxon nor Norman). The sense of Roman unity (with a single empire, a single emperor, etc) disapeared. How many revolts of the Romans we know of? Look how latter the Italian city-states rose, each with their own seperate sense of identidy. If they still continued to be Roman they would loudly proclaimed this and cooperated as a whole. They never did, and in fact always fought amongst themselves. Their loyalty was to their city-state and not to an vanished empire.


 * Charlamagne was basicly king of the Franks (a Germanic ppl), the Franks had conquered former Gaul, and he conquered the Lombards (another Germanic ppl) in northern Italy. He had a mighty realm, so it was decided to crown him as Roman Emperor. We are speaking of a Frank here, not a Roman who rose in revolt or a descendant of an ancient Roman family. The overwhelming majority of his nobility were Franks, the core of his army was Frank, the language of the Frank was Old Frankish. Where is the ancient Roman core? There isn't any Roman core, only a political attempt to unify his conquests. He used the Roman titles, and Latin was used as lingua franca but his Frankish Empire was mostly Germanic, not Roman. In fact the realm was divided under his grand-sons. The HRE is a successor state of the Frankish Empire.


 * Of course the Byzantines recognized the power of the HRE (especially when they needed something). But honestly: that only proves that politicians always recognize power and use beautiful words. Marriages were made between powerful dynasties and by the large were simply the culmination of a major agreement (never truly stopped a war if one of the sides was very ambitious). Byzantine princesses would be married to whoever was considered a potential ally or a potential enemy of the BE. Nothing more, nothing less. If somebody married a Byzantine princess he was powerful, not a recognized Roman.


 * Claims (of being the inheritor of the WRE) were denied or confirmed by the BE depending upon the political situation. They could be confirmed by one ruler, only to be denied by his heir. It's simple politics. Use whatever is needed to gain advantage.


 * The official end of the WRE was in 476. This date appears in books (written by historians), and is accepted by the academia everywhere. It is also traditionaly/officialy used by academia as the end-date for the Roman Empire (something far more debatable - see above). 1806 is the official end of Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, a seperate political entity; in fact a collection of states under a common emperor whose real power was many times very limited. It was certainly of Roman inspiration, but built upon diffrent fundations, nothing more. It is basicly a seperate nation who inspired itself (or better yet whose rulers sought inspiration) upon an ancient empire and tried to re-capture its ancient glory. Of course you are free to think diffrently. You defend 1806, academia says 476. In the end the majority of scholars say 476 and Wikipedia follows common scholarship (or loudly proclaims it does). Sorry. Flamarande 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no question about it. Many states continued to call themselves Roman. Why not the Ottoman Empire - they conquered Bzantium, surely they managed to get some roman blood in due to all those daughter marriages by the Byzantine emperors to the Ottoman sultans. well? u see u cant say hre was the wre . wre ended in 476 AD.Tourskin 07:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The date should be 1453, because that's when the continuous lines of Roman Emperors comes to an end and the last part of the Roman state taken by another. If you wanna be POV and stress the importance of the west (and its "loss"), then 395, not 476. 476 cannot reasonably be argued. Either the Roman Empire comes to an end when it is split (permanently or not depends whether or not you regard two Roman emperors becoming one in 476, or the head of one of two Roman states disappearing) in 395, or it comes to an end when both West and East are gone. You can't just choose one. Anyone who ever says "the Roman Empire came to an end in 476" means the Western Roman Empire, and is just being Western-centric; anyone who says "the Roman Empire came to an end in 476" and means the whole Roman Empire is factually incorrect. Regarding the Holy Roman Empire ... well, I think that's pushing it. Why count the HRE as Roman Empire but not the Sultanate of Rûm? Why not go even further and count the Russian Empire and take the October Revolution of 1917 as the end date? As the Holy Roman Empire is effectively the Kingdom of Germany with its kings taking a title in imitation of both Charlemagne (who has nothing to do with the HRE by the way) and the Caesars, it isn't reasonably connectable with a continuous Roman state. The Ottoman Empire is far closer to that. I'd say more, but I'm prolly only gonna "convince" those who already agree. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a way to have the infobox say something along the lines of "476 AD (West), 1453 AD (East)"? It seems to me that this would satisfy all parties. Iblardi 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ow, by the way, if we have the empire end in 1453, we also should add a new "native name" to the infobox. See Byzantine Empire. ;) Iblardi 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Did the roman empire take over....
Did the roman empire take over ALL the countries surrounding the medditerrainian sea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.172.74 (talk) 01:13, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes Tourskin.