Who wants Rome 2?

[DerOstkonig]

Rome's Empire collapsed in 1453 though. That's a historical fact.

Rome was sacked in 410, 455 and 546. The WRE(capital: Ravenna) fell in 476. Something is missing, don't you think?

Yes I think the Roman Senate and Patrician class (relevant up to the last days), the city of Rome, and the Latin language are missing from this Byzantium-based Greek-speaking hereditary autocracy that you are trying to convince me shares continuity with the SPQR.

Your source for this "Historical Fact"?

Please, do yourself a favor, and read Gibbon's Decline and Fall and HG Wells Outline of History.

 

[diegosimeone]

Yes I think the Roman Senate and Patrician class (relevant up to the last days), the city of Rome, and the Latin language are missing from this Byzantium-based Greek-speaking hereditary autocracy that you are trying to convince me shares continuity with the SPQR.

Your source for this "Historical Fact"?

Please, do yourself a favor, and read Gibbon's Decline and Fall and HG Wells Outline of History.

So the Eastern Roman Empire which called itself Rome because it was Rome (and directly linked to the history of Rome) was wrong, but Gibbon and Wells are the ones to trust? Everyone knows that Rome fell in 1453. The life of the Roman Empire you speak of was very short. The continuity of Rome, from the foundation to the fall, is the timeline I mentioned.
The city of Rome was also missing in the dying moments of the WRE. Why is that no concern over its legitimacy?

 

[DerOstkonig]

So the Eastern Roman Empire which called itself Rome because it was Rome (and directly linked to the history of Rome) was wrong, but Gibbon and Wells are the ones to trust? Everyone knows that Rome fell in 1453. The life of the Roman Empire you speak of was very short. The continuity of Rome, from the foundation to the fall, is the timeline I mentioned.
The city of Rome was also missing in the dying moments of the WRE. Why is that no concern over its legitimacy?

Where are your sources on this? I pointed you to two well-regarded texts that specifically maintain a very solid political and ideological divide between the SPQR and Basileia Rhomaion.

I will be happy to believe you if you can point me to one scholarly source (not wikipedia) that can maintain that the SPQR fell in 1453.

 

[diegosimeone]

Where are your sources on this? I pointed you to two well-regarded texts that specifically maintain a very solid political and ideological divide between the SPQR and Basileia Rhomaion.

I will be happy to believe you if you can point me to one scholarly source (not wikipedia) that can maintain that the SPQR fell in 1453.

Is this the book you recommended?
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5128452-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-roman-empire-3

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 1185-1453, Gibbon... Sounds like one of them.

 

[DerOstkonig]

Is this the book you recommended?
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5128452-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-roman-empire-3

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 1185-1453, Gibbon... Sounds like one of them.

You havent actually read it have you...

 

[diegosimeone]

You havent actually read it have you...

Nope but I will do. Found a decent offer and will purchase the collection. It still does not mean that whatever Gibbon said was correct. The "Byzantine" Empire was the continuation of Rome, it's a fact that cannot be denied. It was a different sort of governance system than the Roman Empire but so was the WRE which was ruled from Milano and then from Ravenna. So according to you the Roman Empire just died when Constantine took the capital to the city of Byzantium along with most people that composed the government. And most of the population too... Gibbon does say that the fall of Rome was in 1453 though by his title.. I don't see how that's not a factor.

As for what you're saying, it's been thoroughly discussed in the forums:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?753081-Byzantine-Empire-was-the-Roman-Empire

 

[DerOstkonig]

Nope but I will do. Found a decent offer and will purchase the collection. It still does not mean that whatever Gibbon said was correct. The "Byzantine" Empire was the continuation of Rome, it's a fact that cannot be denied. It was a different sort of governance system than the Roman Empire but so was the WRE which was ruled from Milano and then from Ravenna. So according to you the Roman Empire just died when Constantine took the capital to the city of Byzantium along with most people that composed the government. And most of the population too...

As for what you're saying, it's been thoroughly discussed in the forums:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?753081-Byzantine-Empire-was-the-Roman-Empire

No doubt it has, I don't even need to read that because people always fall into two camps on this topic and I happen to be in the "Rome is the characteristic feature of the Roman Empire camp"

I do recommend you check out those books I recommended though and thanks for the fun debate

and P.S. Gibbon's whole life was dedicated to research on the Empire. He has nailed the basic functional discrepancy between the classical and medieval empires to the fullest extent, and if you don't consider his analysis correct, no other historian is going to offer up a viable alternative...

 

[diegosimeone]

If you go strictly by the book:
Roman Empire - centered in the city of Rome
Byzantine Empire - centered in the former city of Byzantium

This is the main reason they have these names. And the other important one was that Rome was not part of this entity for approximately the last 1000 years. But it's pretty much the same entity. It's not like the USA popping out of the British settlers and claiming it's the continuation of the British Empire

 

[DerOstkonig]

If you go strictly by the book:
Roman Empire - centered in the city of Rome
Byzantine Empire - centered in the former city of Byzantium

This is the main reason they have these names. And the other important one was that Rome was not part of this entity for approximately the last 1000 years. But it's pretty much the same entity. It's not like the USA popping out of the British settlers and claiming it's the continuation of the British Empire

No its much more than that. The entire system of leadership was different in the Byzantine Empire. Mainly due to the lack of a Senate.

many people go with this Hollywood notion that Augustus Caesar magically and instantly made the senate irrelevant and transformed the SPQR into a hereditary absolute monarchy, which couldn't be farther from the truth. the senate remained a power center until Odoacer's final conquest.

The Basileia Rhomaion on the other hand, was just that, a hereditary absolute monarchy. This is why I say that they share about as much political continuity as the Muscovite Tsardom and Soviet Union. Or perhaps as much continuity as the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich.

 

[diegosimeone]

No its much more than that. The entire system of leadership was different in the Byzantine Empire. Mainly due to the lack of a Senate.

many people go with this Hollywood notion that Augustus Caesar magically and instantly made the senate irrelevant and transformed the SPQR into a hereditary absolute monarchy, which couldn't be farther from the truth. the senate remained a power center until Odoacer's final conquest.

The Basileia Rhomaion on the other hand, was just that, a hereditary absolute monarchy. This is why I say that they share about as much political continuity as the Muscovite Tsardom and Soviet Union. Or perhaps as much continuity as the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich.

You're being unfair here. You're comparing 'Rome' of 10AD with 'Rome' of 1400AD. What you should do is compare 10 with 50, 50 with 150, 150 with 500, 500 with 800, 800 with 1200 etc. It's the longest living political entity that we know of, it's bound to have differences at random points of time.

 

[DerOstkonig]

You're being unfair here. You're comparing 'Rome' of 10AD with 'Rome' of 1400AD. What you should do is compare 10 with 50, 50 with 150, 150 with 500, 500 with 800, 800 with 1200 etc. It's the longest living political entity that we know of, it's bound to have differences at random points of time.

Yes it is bound to have differences. Like for example, at one point the SPQR was ruled supremely by the senate, and at later times, the senate had less power and had to share power with a military dictator (Emperor) regardless, the vital characteristics of the the state remain intact: centered in Rome, heavily influenced by the Patricians of said city, governing universally in Latin, the native language of said city. Such is true at every point from 509BC-476AD. But at one point, the differences become so profound, that merely calling a state a continuation of a state is only talk. This is the case with the Byzantine Empire. The only similarity the two states actually have is that the Greek monarchs who ruled it referred to to it as "Rhomaion" and claimed, without legal evidence, descent from the Roman Imperators.

 

[alvaro]

Yes I think the Roman Senate and Patrician class (relevant up to the last days), the city of Rome, and the Latin language are missing from this Byzantium-based Greek-speaking hereditary autocracy that you are trying to convince me shares continuity with the SPQR.

Your source for this "Historical Fact"?

Please, do yourself a favor, and read Gibbon's Decline and Fall and HG Wells Outline of History.

Altough I agree completely with your point any reference to Gibbon disqualifies it completely.
Even though Gibbon is rite. Rome stronk! barbarians are barbarians no matter how many times you review history based on a crap decorated pin you found on a ditch in M40.
(deliberate provocative message to Pirro)

 

[DerOstkonig]

Altough I agree completely with your point any reference to Gibbon disqualifies it completely.
Even though Gibbon is rite. Rome stronk! barbarians are barbarians no matter how many times you review history based on a crap decorated pin you found on a ditch in M40.
(deliberate provocative message to Pirro)

Cut me some slack here, we're talking about the general functions of state and cultural trends not Elagabalus's sex life :laugh:

 

[alvaro]

Cut me some slack here, we're talking about the general functions of state and cultural trends not Elagabalus's sex life :laugh:

lol. mmm, yes, nobody wants to get banned

 

[randomguy123]

rome2: paradox fail edition

 

[EldarPanic]

rome2: paradox fail edition

Oh come on have some faith.

 

[randomguy123]

the idea of ever having a rome2 by any company is a disaster

 

[StelarCF]

I'm not talking about the Byzantine Greek empire (yes yes I know they claimed to be Roman even though they were less Roman than the Holy Roman Empire which was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire). I am talking about the Latin-speaking empire whose capital was Rome.

The Byzantine Empire was MUCH more Roman than the "Holy" "Roman" "Empire". For one it was the DIRECT DESCENDANT of the Roman Empire.

Then you have to consider the fact that the Roman Empire always had loads of greek influences

The Byzantine Empire was more of an empire than the HRE - at least from some perspectives.

 

[pirro]

Altough I agree completely with your point any reference to Gibbon disqualifies it completely.
Even though Gibbon is rite. Rome stronk! barbarians are barbarians no matter how many times you review history based on a crap decorated pin you found on a ditch in M40.
(deliberate provocative message to Pirro)

I'll murder you slowly

 

[AndreiTLC]

Yes I think the Roman Senate and Patrician class (relevant up to the last days), the city of Rome, and the Latin language are missing from this Byzantium-based Greek-speaking hereditary autocracy that you are trying to convince me shares continuity with the SPQR.

Your source for this "Historical Fact"?

Please, do yourself a favor, and read Gibbon's Decline and Fall and HG Wells Outline of History.

if the USA will start speaking spanish as it s primary language,does it mean it s no longer the USA ?

Altough I agree a nation is no longer "nation" if it s not composed of a majority of a certain ethnic group,an empire ,is an multitude of nations and nationalities and cannot be forever in the grasp of one ethnic group and it s culture and language.

Even the Roman Empire in the West,wasn t so "roman" because many emperors were actually barbarian born and had many barbarian non roman ideas.