Emperor of Europe said:
If culture doesn't define a people, then what does? The Romans of the 5th century developed directly from the Romans of Augustus', Julius Caesar's and Tullus Hostilius' time. The Roman Empire in the east did not. They were a conquered people who after the decline of Roman power reverted to their native language and culture. The Byzantine Empire was a hellenized empire that had little to do with anything Roman.
I did'nt say that culture doesn't define a people, as you will realize if you read my post.
In any event, the Romans of the 5th Century developed directly from the Romans of Caesar's time, Hostilius time, etc. But they ALSO developed directly from their subordinate nations: the Britons, Germans, Franks, Helvetians, Dalmatians, Greeks, etc. To claim that the Roman culture in the Western Empire of the 5th century was most broadly derived from their cultural origins 500 years to 1000 years before is simply false. The influences from other, conquered nations all around Europe, Asia, and Africa is undeniable, and it rendered the culture of 5th Century Romans *far* distinct from that of their predecessors 500 years previous. Not to mention the effect of 500 years of dictatorships, the steady erosion of civil and political liberties, the ever increasing and ever more oppressive influence of Christianity, etc.
Hypocritical? Splitting hairs? Calm down, will you? There's a world of difference between the Byzantine Empire and the Western Roman Empire. And to claim a political continuity until 1453 is really a wide stretch.
Has anyone here ever seen the candid camera footage of a woman trying to wrap three balloons up in some gift wrapping that is just a little too small? After much huffing and puffing and lots of duct tape she actually did it. But the package sure wasn't a pretty sight. Neither is a Roman Empire that is shoehorned into a continued existence until 1453. It's a shaky construction at best, it belittles the Byzantine Empire and it doesn't do anyone any good except for Roman fanboys.
rgds/EoE
There is also a world of difference between the Western Roman Empire of the 5th century and that of the 1st century B.C. -- you simply seem to either refuse to acknowledge this, or have not spent a lot of time studying the later period of the western empire.
In any event, to dispute that the political continuity from the time of Augustus to 1453 was continuous also begs one to argue that the continuity ended in the time of Diocletian, when the empire was reorganized, and governed by two distinctive Augustii and their respective heirs in four different pieces. Noting that Diocletian ruled, overall, from Nicomedia, disdained the old structures of succession that had been in place from the time of Augustus, gave himself many of the trappings of king that had long been dormant in Roman society, presided over a fundamental reorganization of the Roman provinces into dioceses, as well as making many other changes, there seems to be no reason not to make the distinction that the Roman Empire was gone at this point as well.
Again, you can split hairs, but there is no particular reason to say that the empire fell after Romulus Augustulus vs. with the ascension of Diocletian, Trajan (who was the first non-Roman Imperator), Constantine, and several others for whom strong cases of varying levels of radical departure from the previous norm can be made.
And for what it's worth, I am far from a "Roman fanboy". My first move in EU II was to take the Ottoman Empire and crush the little Byzantine remnant. I have never found myself interested in playing as the Byzantine Empire in an EU game, and I will note that the fact that I disagree with your interpretation of fact does not render me a "Fanboy".
In any event, take a deep breath, and realize that perhaps it is you that are not calm, since I completely calm now, just as I was when I made my other post in the first place. If you are also calm, then that is very well.
Good day.
