Talk:Roman Empire

Template:FAOL

Eastern Hemisphere Maps

Someone removed the Eastern Hemisphere maps that depicted the Roman Empire along with other major regional powers. Those maps were on the article for over a month; why were they suddenly removed with no discussion?

Thomas Lessman 14:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Look I didn't do it (AFAIremember). On the other hand I would have done it, because the maps are way too big (they show the whole of Europe, Africa, and Asia). Furthermore, the maps show all the countries in these three continents. They are simply too large for this article (which allready has too many images allready). What this article needs are good maps about the Roman Empire and its neighbours which interacted directly with it. Don't forget that "stuff" can always be removed in Wikipedia-articles (and restored), and only when such action is controversial does it require a discussion.

Flamarande 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I can understand removing one or two of the maps, but removing ALL of them is a bit too much. Sure they are big maps that cover Europe, Africa, and Asia - they were meant to. After all, the Roman Empire ruled parts of all 3 continents, and they had some kind of relationship with nearly every power shown on those maps. None of the other maps in the article shows nearly as much detail, nor do they give the readers nearly as much information as the Eastern Hemisphere maps do - that's why I created and uploaded them to Wikipedia. As has been noted on other articles, Rome traded directly with India and Han China (both of which are depicted in these maps).

Removing the maps deprives readers of great information contained within the maps. They should be reinstated (or at least some of them should be).

Thomas Lessman 21:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a good map showing these trade-routes allready. I honestly think that the maps try to show simply too much information at once. They should rather be used in articles which report the history of the whole Eastern hemisphere. I oppose.

Flamarande 22:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Any information on the demographs of the Roman Empire at the various stages of its history - 1st century ad, 2d century ad, crisis of the third , decline and fall, early byzantine?

Roman Empire a Monarchy?

Could one really define the Roman Empire, at least for much of its existence, as a monarchy? Later on the title of Augustus did become hereditary but this was hardly the case early on. While the Empire was clearly a dictatorship of some sort I think that the name "monarchy" is misleading as the succession was quite often *not* hereditary.

Nivenus (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's murky terrain. Where do we draw the line between a monarchy and a dictatorship, exactly (or an oligarchy)? Don't forget that there is also the concept of an elective monarchy. ;-)

Anyway, I don't believe the Empire ever did become officially hereditary. Not even in the Byzantine period.

You see, it was a catch-22 for the Romans. They officially despised the monarchy, because Rome had been oppressed by the Etruscan kings in its early history. Embracing a hereditary rule of succession would make it too blatantly obvious to everyone that the Roman "Republic" had degenerated into what it supposedly most hated: a tyranny. So they kept up the appearance of some vague sort of "meritocracy", along with a few republican trappings, like the Senate. The price they paid was constant political turmoil and periodical civil wars. Diocletian realised this was crazy and tried to fix it, but to no avail. The de facto absolute power of the imperium was just too tempting, and the army was too powerful a state within the state.

Note that, as much as the Empire may have feigned "republicanism", for most of its existence it was ruled by loosely knit dynasties. This started already with Augustus. Not only that, but its most stable and prosperous periods were mostly under dynastic rulers.

FilipeS (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet it wasn't a monarchy (where normally the son inherits from the father). A dynastic succession was quite the exception in the Roman empire. IMHO it was simply an autocracy.

Flamarande (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is it said that monarchies must be hereditary? I've never heard of such a thing!

FilipeS (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(resisting urge to make a comment about rules-lawyers) Try to read Hereditary monarchy, "the most common form of monarchy". I grant you that there other forms of monarchy but these are more the exceptions that confirm the rule.

Flamarande (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Most common form, yes, but the word "monarchy" by itself does not imply being hereditary. The last remaining absolute monarchy in Europe, for example, is elected; a hereditary monarchy would be impossible for practical reasons there.

Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(resisting an even stronger urge to make a comment about rules-lawyers and about the excuse of "legal theory") The pope is the elected head of a church (a religious organization); in other words the Vatican is a theocracy and not a kingdom: a monarchy with a ruler and subjects. Thank you for giving another exception that confirms the rule.

Flamarande (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I will give you that the case of the Vatican (with the Catholic Church by extension) is debatable, but I don't agree with calling the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted for a thousand years, and incidentally was a cultural successor to the original Roman Empire, for example, "an exception that confirms the rule".

What I think is that terms like "monarchy", "autocracy", "theocracy", "dictatorship", "tyranny", etc. are not always mutually exclusive. Take ancient Egypt: monarchy or theocracy? The Pharaohs were regarded as living gods; but if it was a theocracy, why do we speak of "Old Kingdom", "Middle Kingdom" and "New Kingdom"? Heck, the Roman Emperors themselves were officially regarded as gods, too, until Constantine! Was the Empire a theocracy, then?! There's no point in being dogmatic about such things.

I also think that it's unquestionable that the successive Roman emperors broke or rolled back many of the principles, if not the laws, of the original Roman Republic, by and large towards a greater concentration of power in their hands, and with a tendency to withdraw all power from the most participative (democratic-like) institutions of the old Republic.

If you're still not convinced, take a look at the article Order of succession.

FilipeS (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah, rules-lawyers, legal theory, political correctness, and all that. The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was more a confederation of several states sometimes ruled by a strong leader. The hereditary elector lords (Fuersten und prinzen) choose amongst them the new emperor. How many states do we know of with this system of succession? A mere handful? Even fewer? This makes it not only a exception, but also THE exception. IMHO it was one of the more extraordinary exceptions of all.

To openly worship a ruler as a god does not turn a state into a theocracy. Many rulers of Classical Antiquity where worshipped as living gods and in more recent times the Emperor of Japan also had this status. This doesn't turn their states into theocracies. The real problem and main definition and criteria of a state is the succession issue. How is the new ruler chosen? What are the rules of succession? This is what mostly defines the political status of a state.

Blood relative (normally eldest son or daughter)? Hereditary monarchy. Chosen by the priests of a religion (e.g.: Pope, Dalai Lama)? Theocracy. Ancient Egypt was mostly a monarchy (there always exceptions) because the new ruler wasn't chosen by the clergy but because (normally) he was the eldest son of the old Pharaoh.

The Roman empire was ruled by a lot of persons during many centuries which rose to power by many different means. Some were blood relatives. Others were chosen by the former ruler. Many of them made a military coup and/or were survivors of civil wars, in other words military dictators. Most of them had to bribe the Praetorian Guard and the legions and none of them survived without the support of the army (this point applies always and even today our democracies need the non-interference, acceptance, and loyalty of the military to survive and thrive).

IMHO the standard procedure (this is very debatable) was that the old emperor chose the new ruler. IMHO this makes the Roman empire an autocracy. Monarchies are different exactly because normally the king doesn't choose his heir, in effect he is unable to disinherit his eldest child (yes I know that there are plenty of such cases but the overwhelming majority aren't).

Flamarande (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Romano-Mauri Kingdom

One of my most respected sources, Bruce Gordan's Regnal Chrononlogies, makes a mention in his entry for the city of Constantine in north Africa. And Euratlas' maps of Europe in 500 AD and 600 AD both show a "Kingdom of the Romans and Moors in Algeria, not under Vandal control.

Would it be plausible to then say that part of the Western Empire survived the fall of Nepos and Syagrius? I unfortunately don't yet have more information, and wanted to bring it to your mutual attentions. It would make a very interesting note in this and a few other articles... Respectfully,

Thomas Lessman (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this aswell. It's almost fair to say that some Western Roman institutions survived the empire's collapse, minus central authority in Rome - hence the factions seemingly similar status to that of Syagrius' state.

However, Syagrius' Soissons was conquered by the Franks in 486, and Nepos' Dalmatia by Odoacer in 480.

Yet it seems that these Roman/Moorish lands can be considered the last bastion of the Empire in the west. Considering the Vandals merely sacked and pillaged their way to Hippo Regius, almost certainly avoiding the Roman interior.

If we can somehow prove that these interior lands held some form of autonomy from the Vandals, and show that Belisarius annexed them to the east, then in some ways the Western Roman Empire merely lost central authority, not neccessarily a full collapse. It's even probable that this Roman faction maintained communication with Constantinople.

Tataryn77 (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually a user named User:Cplakidas pointed me to the article about the Praetorian prefecture of Africa, where they talk about a war between the Byzantines and the "Romano-Moor Kingdom of Garmul". It's an interesting read, though it's somewhat incomplete, but with the tiny little bit of information available in sources, it still makes an interesting point that we should include in these articles. Imagine if Syagrius' domain had survived Clovis, and Belisarius came knocking on his door...

Thomas Lessman (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I added/edited some paragraphs on the Western Roman Empire article but with this heightened clarity of the topic I'll do a little more work soon. However I'd like to bring to attention the fact that the Western Roman Empire never really fell at all. In January of 480 the Western Roman Empire was fractured but we have four factions calling themselves "Roman"; Zeno's Rome, Syagrius' Soissons, Nepo's Dalmatia, and the Romano-Mauri "Kingdom". Problem is, what we're left with now is four states claiming to be Roman, yet none are based at Rome itself. All these peoples are "Romano-???". The bureacracy in the East was Romano-Greek, its "Roman" Emperor an Isaurian, who was born hundreds of miles from Rome, who's people only dreamed of seeing Rome. So it's important we take a step back and consider all these claims of "Roman" status to be equal. A second generation Roman in Mauretania Caesariensis no less so than a second generation Roman in Constantinople. All these states were wearing their Roman culture proudly, even if their emperors, kings and warlords were of a different ethnicity.

Tataryn77 (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it looks like the claim of 'continuity of Empire' is based on the use of titles such as rex gentium Maurorum et Romanorum and imperator by foreign rulers, in this case the Mauri. (Maybe based on a single inscription? See [1].) If this is the only criterion, the same status could be given to many of Germanic kingdoms, which also distinguished between their Roman and non-Roman subjects on a juridical level (see for instance the Lex Romana Visigothorum of Visigothic Gaul/Spain).

Iblardi (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, however titles are merely titles, Otto von Habsburg who's 85 today holds many titles; he's the most legitimate Holy Roman Emperor and Byzantine Emperor simultaneously through his genealogy - ironic. The Goths and Franks imposed their rule over the "Roman" population of Gaul, Italy and Hispania. However, these three factions (excluding the east) mentioned earlier represent an unbroken chain of Roman government, in these cases minus central authority. Provincial figures took power when imperial authority was lacking. I think there is a glaring difference between the "Romano-Mauri Kingdom" and the Visigothic Kingdom, for example.

I propose we atleast make a Romano-Mauri Kingdom article so we can pool our thoughts and make further progress through discussion. We'll need to search for more sources but we have enough so far to make a few concise paragraphs on the subject.

In the near future, even formalizing these three factions (Roman Dalmatia, Domain of Soissons, Romano-Mauri Kingdom) as successor states or some other status may be appropriate.

Tataryn77 (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a seperate article for the Romano-Mauri Kingdom, though we need more information before we start an article about it. And I agree with Tataryn that there is a difference between native Roman successor states (like Syagrius' domains) and Federate Roman successor states (like the Visigoths). They weren't entirely different, but they weren't the same either. Perhaps we could also add onto this article by adding small sections on Native Roman successor states and Federate Roman successor states? You can see its borders on the Euratlas maps I described above, and in any of the maps I've created from 476 AD to 600 AD.

Thomas Lessman (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. To me, this still looks more like a takeover of local power by Moorish tribes after the collapse of central authority, which was then legitimized, as elsewhere, by claiming continuity with the Roman institutions. Note that in the inscription cited above the kingship of the Moors is mentioned before that of the Romans, which appears to imply that the first title preceded the other, and could point to Moorish ascendency over the local Roman (or Romanized) population. This would hardly mean a real continuation of Roman government. The use of imperator, on the other hand, is interesting. We'll see.

Iblardi (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning to take a trip to the to the Toronto Reference Library, its right across the street from my apartment, so I'll look into the History of Roman North Africa - it'll take forever to find.

I have a good skeletal map of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East; I'm thinking of making some Maps of this region during Roman Republican times through to Late Antiquity. I'll make a more Romano-Mauri centric map, and another depicting it and other Roman "successor" states in 476.

Other maps will focus towards the Eastern Roman Empire from 565-1453. I'll stock the Romano-Mauri related maps for now until more consensus and information is reached in the near future, and an article is made - perhaps by myself.

Tataryn77 (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a blank version of the map I use, if you'd like to use it. [2] I'm eventually going to have something similar in my map series, like I did with the Roman Empire in 565 AD map.

Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I've noticed people before were saying how hemisphere maps aren't needed, but I think a large map like that but with the Indus at its easternmost extremity and the Sahara as its south would include all directly relevant cultures around the mediterranean.

It'd be nice to see an eventual standard quality for maps submitted. Some of the East Roman Maps look like someone put them together in 5 minutes and slapped it on the article.

Your large array of maps has been helpful to myself and Im sure many others on wikipedia.

Tataryn77 (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman View of transition from Republic to Empire?

I am not an expert on either the Roman Republic or Empire. I have a question for those of you who are. Was there any legal or documented conception of a difference between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. I realized the government operated differently, but didn't the Roman Emperors believe they were just continuing the Republic. There doesn't seem to be a change in the name of the nation. The motto remained the same (SPQR). And they maintained the same capital (Rome).

So I guess my question is this...is the Roman Empire a modern invention of scholars looking back on events? Or...did the people of Rome conceive of a difference between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire?

Thnx in advance and keep up the good work everyone!

Scott Free (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of propaganda, not of belief. The Roman emperors (especially Octavian) loudly proclaimed that they had restored the republic and the initial emperors liked to pretend that the republic was still alive. At the same time the emperor was commander-in-chief of all the legions, had authority over all provincial governors (most of them appointed by the emperor anyway), had senators murdered, disgraced or exiled, etc. One of the basic notions of the Roman republic was that all the major positions had two persons (two consuls) so that none could seize all the power. And yes some emperors held fake elections where they always won the position of consul - how amazing. Sometimes they even choose another partner "to help them in their arduous task of ruling the empire" - but everybody knew which one was the true power. Add to that the fact that the Roman emperors ruled for live and choose their heirs with only the stamp approval of the senate. I have read about a joking senator who told Octavian to cast his vote first so that everybody could know how they were supposed to vote. I also have read about a comment of Tacitus that tells more or less the following: "(Augustus) deceived the army by giving them gifts, the ordinary people by giving them cheap food, and everybody by giving them peace, after which, little by little, he increased his powers, stripping the powers of the senate, of the magistrates and of the laws. So changed the State, and the old roman people, which was free ceased to exist."

Flamarande (talk) 12:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I just have to say that I hate the traditional Kingdom/Republic/Empire view. Rome was an Empire long before it got an 'Emperor.' In fact a great deal of land was taken by the Republic. If it were up to me I would break it up into the ‘Reign of Kings’, Reign of Aristocrats, and ‘Reign of the Emperors’ and even that is oversimplifying it.

Jp1701a (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You are free to hate the traditional view, but as long at it remains the traditional/common/official/scholarly view Wikipedia will keep it. Flamarande (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is the 'scholarly' view anymore it seems to be more of the 'school textbook' view. I have read many books on the subject of the Roman Empire by peer reviewed 'scholarly' individuals, and even they refer to Rome in pre-Augustian times as an empire. I have also had professors in college refer to it as the empire. The way I think it should be view is that Rome established a Republic that Republic established an Empire and the weight of the Empire crused the Republic and made way for the Emperors.

Jp1701a (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother. Look, the Roman Republic certainly had aquired an empire (a collection of subjected territories, city-states, peoples, and tribes) through military might and conquest before Ceasar and Octavian. Kingdom, repulic and empire, these titles usually have less to do with the territorial organization of the state and way more to do with the system of goverment. The goverment still had a republican form. Because of that historians usually divide Roman history into kingdom, republic, empire. As for the weight of the Empire crushed the Republic and made way for the Emperors is IMHO a easy catch-phrase which doesn't explain anything at all.

My 2 cents about it? The subversion of the "rule of the republic" into the "rule of the emperors" happenend because of certain flaws in the political system; a enormous lack of control of the provincial governors, a neglect of the military (pensions of the retired veterans). An incredible amount of corruption inside the goverment (we always like to speak about the splendor of Rome but never speak about its corruption, which was simply mindstaggering). Add to that a extreme stuborness of the senate with a huge lack of will (to the point of of blindness and stupidity) to address any of these issues. The Roman state and its political system needed reforms, and the senate didn't make them. The problems acumulated to a bursting point, until the whole situation simply got out of control of the republican system.

Through the decades theorists have offered several explenations (which normally reflect the world view of the decade and the personal conclusions and opinion of the scholar in question - it still beats to blindly repeat the writings of classical authors). Currently we like the "it had several causes which caused certain effects which led to a development" (this explenation is in my personal opinion quite credible but then I'm of this decade). Check it out; pick any subject and you will find this recent (appeared since the 1990's) explenation. Flamarande (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire a legitimate successor state?

FilipeS, please substantiate your claims about the Holy Roman Empire. To be frank the section comes off IMHO as biased and not consistent with modern scholarship. Some specific questions: "This is subjective. There was definitely a cultural connection with the ancient Roman Empire. And what makes a political connection "real"?)" - That's a pretty lame argument. By that argument I could say that every civilization on earth that has ever existed is the Roman Empire since you can find connections between every civilization. The simple fact is that the Holy Roman Empire was simply a renaming of the Frankish Empire whose culture and government did not grow out of the the Roman state. Granted as it grew and adopted the Roman Christianity it incorporated many aspects of Roman culture (something that can be said about any and all states that grew up in Europe, West Asia, and North Africa), it still had different origins from Rome. The fact that they "claimed" to be descended from the Romans more than others around the Med does not by itself support this distorted view history. More importantly, though, since modern scholars do not support this view of history it should not be stated or even implied.

I am baffled as to how anyone can claim "simple facts" about a fluid and subjective thing like culture. And, yes, the Holy Roman Empire was very much a cultural, as well as political, notion -- like any state, really. Armenians still regard Armenia as the same state that existed in the 4th century, although in reality there were several periods when Armenia lost its independence since then, being conquered by some of its neighbours. Greeks still regard themselves as Greeks, even though ancient Greece was conquered by Alexander the Great over 2000 years ago, and its culture dissolved in Byzantine times. Poland... Iran (Persia)... China... the examples are endless. You cannot deny the cultural component of statehood.

I am the first to agree that Charlemagne's kingdom began as a barbarian, medieval state with little in common with the ancient Roman Empire. But those were just its beginnings. What it set out to be -- and in several ways suceeded in becoming -- is as relevant and real as where it came from.

I'm afraid you logic is lost on me. Many modern Greeks argue that they are the same state as Ancient Greece but I doubt many respectable historians would agree with this interpretation of history. The same thing can easily be said of China and Persia (I am less familiar with Poland). None of your examples in my mind support your argument. The fact that one state "sees" itself as a continuation of another state is not of direct historical relevance. Even if you wanted to make the argument that the HRE changed itself to be identical to the classical Roman Empire or that modern Greece has transformed itself to be identical to Ancient Greece that does not support your thesis. This is rather like a presidential candidate trying to copy George Washington and claiming that he is George Washington. Even if he succeeds in copying the man exactly he is still not the same man.

Mcorazao (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your lack of understanding is lost on me. All I see in that reply is your opinion. Got anything else? FilipeS (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"I don't think the term "Holy Roman Empire" was used yet in Otto's time." - I'm not 100% sure about the timeline but what does that have to do with the edit you undid? The edit I made was to say that the Germans did not create a new empire but just renamed and restructured the existing German empire.

Mcorazao (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit said Otto had "refounded the empire under the title Holy Roman Empire". I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that term was ever used in Otto's time. There was no title change while he was alive; he and his contemporaries used the same terms the Carolingians had used (quite deliberately, of course).

FilipeS (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Distortion. My edit was to say that the Empire was refounded and reorganized rather than a new Empire having been created. I did not introduce the mention of Otto as being the ruler at this point in history.

Mcorazao (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't have to, the mention of Otto was already in the article. FilipeS (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC):

I agree that the Holy Roman Empire had about as much to do with the Romans as did the Chinese. Sun Tsu and his Art of War was written during the Hellenic Golden age. Atleast they had some continuity of culture extending from the Hellenic world. The ROmans were a Hellenised people, the culture is defined Helleno-Romaic, the German states and Frankish kingdom were partly Hellenised, hardly Christian Orthodox and may have been given recognition by Constantinople as a Kingdom, not as Continuator nor replacement nor anything other. A japanese historian his name unfortunately escapes me wrote that if Western Europe could press into the Hellenic World, then Japan had as much right to do so from the east. I like to think neither had the right nor the herritage to replace the administration of the Hellenistic world without adversly changing the existing Helleno-ROman culture.

Ephestion (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. My point is that although all of these things are subjective we cannot use that as an excuse to say any supposition is equally legitimate. The Eastern Roman Empire was the original Roman state (a part of it anyway) and was the only part of the state that survived the fall of Rome (save some small local enclaves that survived for a while before essentially being swamped by other states). I think that is an important aspect of history to understand as it explains a lot of things about the Middle Ages which are otherwise difficult to grasp.

Mcorazao (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, for all the reasons I have just mentioned, is it not appropriate to remove the section on the HRE altogether and just keep this as a mention in the Legacy section (it is already discussed there anyway)? In principle if you are going to discuss the HRE as a claimant to Roman statehood there should also be sections on the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and all the Goth kingdoms (frankly you could even toss in the Arab caliphates who, although they never claimed to be part of the Roman state, in fact did incorporate as much if not more of Roman culture than the HRE). Point is devoting a section to the HRE seems to be pulling off topic.

Mcorazao (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Those states never called themselves "Roman". FilipeS (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any "Holy Roman" legitimacy. If anything a Roman would shudder at the idea of any Frank or German "monarchial" "barbarian" faction claiming to to be the legitimate successor to the Roman state, which fought against these two peoples during its West's collapse.

Are we going to now go and say that the Turks of "Rum" were legitmate successors aswell? even though they literally wiped the last remnant of Roman civilization off the map?

The only medieval state that can claim to ascend from the Roman Empire is the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire, ending in 1453 or arguably 1461, depending on Trebizonds claim - which seems legitmate.

Tataryn77 (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to show 4 "surviving Roman states", or "post-fall-of-the-west" states (Byzantine, Soissans, Dalmatia, and Altava? Those domains were still actual Roman states, not under Germanic occupation. I also wonder about some of the Romano-British kingdoms. They had been abandoned by the Roman government, but I believe some of them still considered themselves Roman citizens who had to fend for themselves without the Emperor's protection.

We should also have a special section on Federates. Because technically the Franks were Federates of the Empire, even in Clovis' time. Thus, in a sort-of way, they restored Gaul to the Empire and administered it for them. Now we all know that Clovis was fully independent of the Empire, but both the Empire AND Clovis recognized him as a Federate of the Empire...

Other "Federate States" would include the Visigoths (until 475), the Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Suevi, etc.

We should include HRE as one of the successor states. Not implying a direct continuity, but instead as a replacement state, just like the Vandals, the Suevi, the Burgundians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Ottomans, Arabs, etc.). Otherwise we'd also have to include Rome as a hellenistic state, since it conquered them and considered itself one of them (just kidding, but seriously...).

Thomas Lessman (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think formalizing the four "surviving" states is a good idea, however I think THEY are the only successor states. We should make a section on Federates, and another on states claiming to be successors (HRE, maybe Russia)

I don't believe much merit should be put into the Holy Roman Empire on this article. A couple paragraphs would do fine to mention its claimed continuity from the empire, thats all.

If the United States today claimed to be the "modern" Roman Empire, it would be about as legitimate as the Holy Roman Empire was in its day. We have to remember the Holy Roman Empire was not a stand alone claimant. The Eastern Roman Empire looked on and humoured itself with HRE's claim to legitimacy.

--Tataryn77 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

NO, NO, and NO. What replaced the old unified Roman empire were the two Roman empires (Western Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire). All the other candidates come only after the division and they could claim (and shout and pretend) what they wanted, they were (at most, very arguably, and most of them were little more than empty claims) successors of only one of the two Roman states. Let's analyze them. Domain of Soissons (with Sygarius), North Africa (whatever its official name was), Roman Britannia (with Ambrosius Aurelianus), and Dalmatia (under Julius Nepos). These territories are Roman exclaves or rump states. Basically they are remnants of the WRE where the Romans still ruled themselves. All of them were quite short-lived, and were relatively quickly conquered - in the case of North Africa I'm not really sure if the Byzantines conquered them or they simply dissolved. It can be argued that these remnants are what came after the WRE (successors of the WRE); but not what came after the whole Roman Empire because the BE was still alive and kicking.

All the other states: Burgundy, the empire of the Franks (which was proclaimed by the pope under Charlemagne in 800 AD, nearly 400 years after the end of the WRE!), and all the other "barbarian states" were created out of parts of the WRE. NONE of them could claim to contain the heartlands of the WRE and of the BE. ERGO none of the should be accepted as successor of the old Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation came only after the Empire of the Franks. It claimed the be a resurrection of the Roman Empire, but its core was German (or Germanic, or whatever you want call it - Germany was still much in the future) and not Roman. Some of them (but not all) claimed to be successors of the Roman Empire. These claims were simply empty, again because none of them had conquered the BE.

It could also be argued that the BE is "a half of the empire" and that its claim (of being the same entity as the the old Roman Empire) is also suspect. The claim of Russia (to be the "Third Rome") comes from Constantinople. To be honest IMHO Russia claim is much more weaker than the Ottoman Empire (which at least had Constantinople (the capital), Greece (the heartland), and the Greeks (the people).

Unless someone presents good arguments against it, the successors stay as they are: Western Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire and NONE other. Flamarande (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC) PS: I'm willing to listen to alternatives but I warn you: use rational and logical arguments (no stuff of "I feel that" and "legal claim", etc).

The Roman Empire was never "replaced" with the Western and the Eastern Roman Empires, for that matter. Both terms are anachronistic. There was only one empire until the end. But if we accept the purely historiographical convention of calling the medieval stage of the Roman Empire "Byzantine" -- which the "Byzantines" themselves never did -- then I don't see why the Holy Roman Empire -- which did call itself Roman -- should be erased from history. FilipeS (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact both terms are indeed anachronistic (not used during that time) doesn't mean that two full-fledged states didn't exist. You are focusing yourself solely upon the naming controversy (the term and name "Byzantine" invented much later) and avoiding all the other factual arguments (namely that the BE was still alive at the same time the HRE claimed to be the successor of the Roman Empire, that the core of the HRE was German and not Roman, that hundreds of years had passed between the existence of the two states, etc). I never called that we erase the HRE from the annals of history (you just had exaggerate the issue beyond all sense of proportion, hadn't you?). It should certainly be mentioned in the article (but not listed as a successor).

Just behold the madness of "legal theory" (as opposed by simple political facts). Towards the end of the Roman Empire there was a logical tendency simply to divide the huge empire into two. Several mighty emperors managed to re-united the two parts again and again only that circumstances re-divide the empire again, again, and again. In 395 AD with the death of Theodosius the empire was divided for the final time. We have two emperors, two capitals, two armies, two different coinages, two different foreign policies (who played the barbarian invaders against each other all the time). The two empires even fought against each other on occasion. The two even begin to have a religious conflict.

But simply because the Romans themselves liked to pretend that the empire was still "one and undivided" (ever heard about political lies? They also pretended for a very long time to be still living in a republic while at the same time they feared the wrath and madness of their emperor.) and wrote about "a single empire with two emperors" (and two capitals, armies, etc) we should (in your opinion) accept the HRE as an successor state? Well, could you please elaborate and explain your reasoning? Give me your arguments: Why should we list the HRE as an successor state of the Roman Empire? Flamarande (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: You are right, the old roman Empire wasn't replaced by two states, it was rather divided into two successors states.

The Roman Empire was never "divided" into two fully-fleged separate states, either. That's the main reason why "Western Roman Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are anachronistic terms. They are as anachronistic as "Byzantine Empire", except that they're more insidious, because they appear misleadingly natural. In reality, the Romans never saw Romania as two states. The power-sharing land divisions that emperors made were merely administrative divisions. Are California and Texas different and separate nation-states just because they have different governors?

The Roman Empire was one, from its foundation to 1453. Everything else are post hoc periodizations made by historians for their own convenience. FilipeS (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make me laugh. The governors of California and Texas have a complete Federal American government (the president of the USA, congress, senate, supreme court, etc) 'above' them and use the same coinage, laws (most of them). The WRE and the BE fought and played the barbarian tribes against each other. Flamarande (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we're getting bogged down in a lot of technicalities which are distracting us from the basics. First, to quickly respond to a previous comment, the Ottomans and the Russians did in fact refer to their empires "Roman" and considered themselves as legitimate if not more legitimate successors than the HRE. It is only a Western convention to somehow consider the HRE more legitimate. The confusing point in all of this is that during the classical age and the middle ages the concept of creation and dissolution of a state (indeed the concept of "state" itself) was much more murky so it is harder to define beginnings and ends of things and to draw boundaries around things. Nevertheless I would argue that there is no point in writing an article about what the Roman Empire is unless a clearer distinction is made although it needs to be made based on scholarly consensus. The consensus is that the "Byzantine" state was clearly a direct part of the Roman state and there is no distinction to be made. The so-called "fall of Rome" does not actually represent a clear point of dissolution of the Roman state but I think most (if not all) MODERN scholars agree that during the early Middle Ages the Western Roman Empire ceased to exist and that the political entities that developed in those former territories were new entities even though they had certain tenuous connections with the old Empire. Granted the "Byzantines" gave some of these entities a certain legitimacy in connecting them to the Empire at various times but most modern scholars do not consider this to in-and-of-itself imply any meaningful continuity with the Roman Empire itself. Certainly many individual aspects of Roman culture (notably the language) did survive in piece-meal form in the West, but that does not negate the fact that at the more macroscopic scale the state and its culture ceased to exist albeit gradually. Moreover many aspects of why the HRE resembled the Roman Empire in some ways had far more to do with "copying" than with any continuity with the old state. Trying to equate the WRE with the HRE is an anachronism which I don't believe most serious scholars today subscribe to. If anybody is aware of modern scholars that really do subscribe to this equation I'd certainly be interested to know.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What books are you reading? "It is only a Western convention to somehow consider the HRE more legitimate". The books that I have read (written by "western" academics) wholly reject the claim of the HRE. 476 AD is considered the end of the Western Roman Empire by the western academics (who in former times had big problems with the BE). There still is a wide trend to consider this date the end of the old Roman Empire but it seems to be very slowly fading away (and NO it doesn't seem to be replaced by 1453). Let give you a few of my books: Byzantium a history by John Haldon ISBN 0-7524-2343-6 In the name of Rome by Adrian Goldsworthy ISBN 0-75381-789-6 The Fall of the Roman Empire by Michael Grant ISBN 1-89880-048-0 I personally like 395 AD best (the last time a single emperor ruled over the whole empire) but this is OR. Flamarande (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

? How does what you have said contradict what I said? What you're saying supports what I said. Regarding the "Western" thing are you deliberately misinterpreting what I said or are you unaware of history? It is Western historians that have traditionally held the HRE to be a continuation of the Roman Empire. The Western historians you are referring to are modern historians which obviously was not what I was referring to in that context.

--70.112.217.132 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish to clarify something. When I argue that the HRE can be regarded as a successor to the Roman Empire, I make a very clear distinction between "successor" and "continuation". The HRE was not the Roman Empire. That is obvious. However, it did attempt to emulate it, to revive it to some extent. We can debate how far the attempt was legitimate, or successful, but I don't think anyone can argue that an attempt was made.

Concerning other possible successors to the Empire, this may just be my ignorance, but I thought none of those you mentioned (the Franks, the Ottomans, the Russians, etc.) consistently described their state as "Roman" in the way that the HRE did. From what I understand, "Roman" to them was just one among many in a long list of titles which they occasionally made claim to. But they made little effort to become like the Romans, to restore the Empire, as the HRE did in its first centuries (later, of course, it gradually became an essentially Germanic nation). FilipeS (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So we're getting down to terminology which may be at the core of this. Using your terminology what I was saying is that the article should not be devoting too much space to "successor" states and should not be implying that the "successors" were "continuations" which is what the article currently does with the HRE. But for what it is worth your terminology is probably the best way to use the terms.

As far as your distinction of "Roman" what you are saying is not untrue but not quite accurate either. First I'll point out that the Franks and the HRE were a continuous state (although, of course, the Frankish state split along the way). In any event, on the whole the people of the HRE did not really consider themselves "Romans" exactly. The people of Rome did, of course, and certain pockets of the former Roman provinces may have as well but the emperors of the HRE didn't consider themselves "Roman" per se but rather rulers of the Empire that included the great city of Rome (hence the fact that the full title became "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation"). In other words, the concept of a "Roman Empire" was a concept of prestige of being associated with that continuity of power not specifically an indication of ethnic or cultural identity. This is exactly the same way that the Ottoman sultans and the Russian czars (and others, really) thought of themselves. Granted the HRE made the most conspicuous attempt to associate themselves by the official title of their empire but still. In terms of who "copied" the Romans more my understanding is that the Russians made at least as much attempt to copy the Romans as the HRE did although they were copying different parts of the Roman Empire from different time periods and with different biases (hence the perception by each that the other got it wrong and therefore was less legitimate). The Ottomans copied the Eastern Romans a great deal as well although they had a clearer distinction between their culture and the "Roman" culture, both of which, though, they saw as being a part of their Empire.

Regardless, who "copied" the Romans more is not the point. The article should focus on the Roman Empire itself and leave major discussions of who copied them to other articles.

So can we remove the section on the HRE and just leave the discussion of them in the Legacy?

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you are being patient with me but I must say that I am still not favorable to removing the HRE from the article. As you said, this is a matter of terminology, but sometimes words matter. They can have a strong symbolic value, and it seems to me that, during the Middle Ages especially, symbolism played a non negligible role in politics. In this case, we have the ideal of restoring the Roman Empire in some way. To me, this is one of the interesting leitmotifs that run through the whole Early Middle Ages: combined with the centrifugous force of the fragmentation of political power (which would eventually lead to feudalism), and with the tremendous social and ideological changes, there was nevertheless a countercurrent that resisted change, or rather wished to reverse it. The "dream" of reuniting Europe still had some power of seduction, at least with the people (I don't doubt that Pope Leo III and Charlemagne viewed this restoration less romantically). It was a time of ideals and contradictions. Later ages were more cynical.

Let me add that, currently, the article has only three short paragraphs about the HRE, which it nowhere describes as a "continuation", or even a "successor", to the Roman Empire. The word that is used is "revival", which to me seems quite appropriate... FilipeS (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not disputing the significance of the HRE's attempt to "revive" the ancient Empire but I'm only saying that this is a separate discussion from the ancient Empire itself (i.e. from the perspective that each article should stick to its topic and not confuse the reader by meandering too much). Regarding the wording I agree that the section does not directly say that the HRE was a "continuation" but even the term "revival" could be misconstrued by a reader who did not understand the history. This is why I tried to add wording to ensure that this was not misinterpreted. And the simple fact that it is in its own section following the section on the "Byzantines" strongly implies that if the Byzantine Empire was a continuation then so was the HRE. In my mind the HRE and other similar topics are best mentioned briefly in the Legacy section. That ensures that there is no misinterpretation and gives it its fair due. Bear in mind also that there were other states in Western Europe (Spain, France, England) which were never entirely part of the HRE and yet copied the ancient Empire and considered themselves to varying to degrees continuations of that Empire and made conspicuous attempts to revive it (for that matter even later Hilter attempted to copy the Romans to some degree considering himself in a vague way to be a continuation of that legacy).

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hitler's Germany called itself the III Reich (Third Empire) because the Nazis saw themselves as successors to the Holy Roman Empire (the II Reich being the German Empire of the 19th century, which the Allies had dismantled after World War I). Or, at least, they used these images and metaphors as propaganda. They did have a historical precedent, and initially they were successful; Austria was easily reunited with Germany. Their invasion of Poland, and Eastern Europe in general, had the implicit pretext that that land had at one time belonged to the Empire (or at least been a client to it). Still, they never really called their state "Roman". Mussolini would have had a fit, LOL!

I will think more about what you've written. But when you say that Spain, France, and England "copied the ancient Empire", "considered themselves to varying to degrees continuations of that Empire", and "made conspicuous attempts to revive it" I'm not sure what you mean. Could you give a couple of examples? FilipeS (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for example you can observe things like the following Iberia and the Gaulish region. For centuries they continued to use Latin as an official language or co-official language (Spain for example only began using Spanish for official decrees in the 13th century). After the original Gothic conquests formal Latin had been dying but as the Goths assimilated into the cultures of their conquests they would gradually try to make their kingdoms more "cultured" by reviving use of classical Latin among themselves and their subjects (i.e. not just learning the local Vulgar Latin dialect but actually trying to bring use of the formal language into their courts). Also as the Goths assimilated into the regional cultures the regalia of the monarchies often mimicked the ancient Roman or the Byzantine forms. Note also that after the conquests most of the citizens of the provinces (i.e. outside of the core of the HRE) stayed with the Roman Church seeing that as part of their identity. Throughout the Middle Ages a frequent theme was that Western Europeans saw becoming more connected to the Church was somehow becoming more "Roman" (in the sense that they equated "Romanness" with culture).

I don't specifically know that any of these other states actually referred to their countries as Roman (although it wouldn't surprise me if they did at some points in their history) but the point is that they were all constantly trying to connect themselves with "the good ol' days". The people of those former provinces (again, outside the core of the HRE) continued to see themselves as descendants of that heritage and were always trying to prove to themselves and others that there was a connection. If anything it may have been the very fact that Germany was the main part of Europe that had not been part of the ancient Empire that was the reason they made the biggest deal about their empire being "Roman" (in the same way that in Nazi Germany the people who barely made the cut to be classified as "Aryan" were often the most proud of it; sorry to use another Nazi analogy).

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding your Hitler comments, Hitler did mostly focus on his connection to the HRE and the German Empire but I've read that he did see some sort of connection to the Roman Empire as well presumably in the sense of the older Western perspective that the HRE was a continuation of the ancient one. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's all true, but a bit tenuous. I just can't brush aside the fact that Charlemagne's empire, and Otto I's empire, consistently called themselves "Roman". We can discuss how historically accurate and legitimate that was, but legitimacy in such matters is ultimately subjective anyway. They appear to have been de jure Roman states.

By "Roman" here, I mean no more than that they called themselves that. Their culture did not descent directly from that of ancient Rome, and they didn't even control the city of Rome itself (which Charlemagne donated to the Pope, thus creating the Papal States.) But then again The Byzantine Empire did not control Rome for most of its existence, either. And while Byzantium could correctly claim that it descended directly from the ancient Roman Empire, it became a very different entity in every way you can think of: geographically, culturally, ethnically, politically, linguistically, religiously... FilipeS (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I see what you are getting at. The fact that the HRE referred to itself as Roman is a meaningless argument. By the same token I could argue that because there is a modern nation in Eastern Europe named "Romania", one of the names commonly used by the Romans to refer to themselves, then the Roman Empire exists today. The fact that one nation uses the same name as another does not make them the same. And I don't know on what basis you make the "de jure" argument. The fundamental basis for the "de jure" claim was the Donation of Constantine which was proven a fraud (even it wasn't claim of continuity would still be a gross stretch).

As far as the changes in the Eastern Roman state, to be honest I've always found those kinds of arguments gratuitous. Were there huge changes between the fall of Rome and the fall of Constantinople? Of course. It was a thousand years. Were there huge changes between the founding of Rome and the fall of Rome? Of course. Even if Rome had never fallen there might have been equally huge changes in the years afterward. Among other things long before Rome ever fell Greek was the Empire's majority language and the aristocracy had long debated switching the official language to Greek. It might have happened anyway. And regardless, how different the Empire appeared at different points in its history has nothing to do with whether it was the same state.

I see no merit in the name argument at all. In any event, I don't believe modern scholars support the HRE's supposed continuity so I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be the main problem is that you all haven't found a good forum for discussion. :) Essentially the basis of the problem is in recognising the macro history between 285-600AD. The Germanics and Goths invaded the Western part of the empire, in the east a reasonably large group called the Ostrogoths had become almost entirely Hellenised sharing in the Eastern Roman traditions. The Eastern EMpire was powerless due to Persian wars between 285AD-~450AD to do anything about the Western Problem. One solution was that using the OstroGoths from along the Danube and Black Sea, the Eastern Romans could push back the Western Germanic Tribes and many others that had rushed inward towards the prizes and spoils of the decaying western frontier. By 700AD the Romans almost entirely restored what damage was done but it was short lived before a new wave of Germanic assaults began towards 1010AD ie shortly prior and during the crusades. Now by this time the Visigoths and Ostrogoths had reunited and to some degree had become Hellenised. In this view the cultural change of the Germanics was occuring rapidly, yet they were simply never accepted as Romans. This explains the tolerance of the Eastern Roman EMpire in recognising many Western Kingdoms only to attempt at crushing them within a few centuries of doing so. It kept the aggressors content and allowed time for the Romans to handle them later. We should not see any formal recognition given to Frankish Kingdoms as Evidence but rather as a means to keep them at bay. So I would say the HRE was simply one that had become Hellenised but was never acknowledged as a successor by bloodlines, ancestory to alexander or his generals, a general of the Romans. These were the common methods of claiming the throne and none applied to both Eastern and Western states that claimed lineage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 January 2008

"The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an Empire"... :D srsly, i agree that its a weak connexion at best, shouldnt be in there. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 10:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead Horse: What is the topic?

I hate to beat a dead horse since this has been discussed in various ways many times but ...

I believe the article still suffers from a lack of a clear definition of what it is about. The dates given in the info box go from 27 AD - 1453 AD implying the age of Augustus to the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks. The article itself, though, MOSTLY covers the state until the Fall of Rome, implying an end date in the 5th century. As mentioned in the discussion above, though it does discuss and give equal treatment to the "Byzantine" Empire and the HRE in the later sections which would imply an end date in the 19th century.

As we have discussed there is a lot of debate in scholarly circles about the "best" historiography for things but, regardless, the article needs to pick a historiography and stick to it. IMHO, since common historiography (and the way most of the related articles in Wikipedia are written) uses "Roman Empire" to designate the history of the empire prior to the demise of the Western Empire this seems the best way to focus this article. This is not to say that the article should imply that the state "ended" in the 5th or 6th centuries but there needs to be a clear historiographical convention applied. Neither does it imply that what happened after the 5th century should not be mentioned but it should be discussed in context.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you provide us a list with all your books (with the ISBN and page number) and the given dates (of the beginning and the end - several different dates for these events in the same book if that is the case). After your list I will provide mine, and if anyone more is willing they will provide theirs (you go first because I'm lazy :). IF any dates appear more often we can accept them as the commonly accepted ones and use them in this article. Flamarande (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Flamarande, huh? You are not addressing what I said. A pet peeve of mine in Wikipedia circles is changing the subject to deflect from the topic at hand. What the "correct" end date is is not the basic question. The point is that the article needs to be consistent (with itself and with the historiography applied in other articles). --Mcorazao (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It only must be consistent with common scholarship, nothing else. IF we provide proper sources and prove that the overwhelming majority of the scholars that write books about this subject ("Roman Empire") end it around the 5th century we can reform and improve this article accordingly. No evidences and sources = no reforms. Flamarande (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

New Language

Please add Farsi Artcle to the Language List fa:امپراتوری روم —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.2.51 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

End of the Roman Empire

I have noticed that the user Kurt Leyman often changes the end of the Empire from 476 to 1453 and the Fall of Constantinople by the Turks. OK, many say that there was never an official end of the Roman Empire until 1453 but you can not say that the Roman Empire unaltered existed up to the 15th Century. It is not only the "official end" (after all such term cannot exist about this empire) but a whole series of events in a point that the Byzantine Empire cannot be the same with the Roman Empire: other language, other geographical centre, other people with whom the Byzantines got in touch and many other differnces. I can also add that after Romulus Augustus never again a roman ruled the empire and after that the next "Roman Empire" was the "Holy Roman Empire" ruled by German kings. And something more, in this article there is nothing but very little explanation about the Roman Empire after 476 AD so you cannot date the end and not to explain until then. The article is not constructed for an end after 476. So there is no reason for anyone to change the date. Dimboukas (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The claim that "the Byzantine Empire cannot be the same with the Roman Empire" is anachronistic POV. FilipeS (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your view above, Dimboukas. Specifically, I think the evolved culture, different geographical center, and other differences between the Romans/Byzantines is one of the most unique parts of their culture. Not many other cultural systems have lasted that long period (2253 years, approximate). Let alone under a continuous (though evolving) goverment for that entire period. It was a cultural system that started in Rome, Italy in 753 BC as a little kingdom, rose to dominate their world, then slowly fell apart until they lost their last capital, in Thrace, in 1453 AD. Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat myself and request that all of you provide your sources (title of the books with the respective page numbers, and the ISBN's) so that this article can finally follow common scholarship in this matter. Flamarande (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think we are addressing the wrong issues. It is Wikipedia policy that we should not be arguing about "right" and "wrong". The only issue is whether Wikipedia is consistent with itself and modern scholarship. As Dimboukas points out the article currently mostly covers the history of the Roman state from Augustus to the 5th century. It makes no sense to say at the top of the article that it covers the history up to the 15th century when clearly it doesn't. This is non-sensical.

Clearly the article could be rewritten to cover that entire period up to the 15th century but then most of the detail that it currently contains would have to be removed which makes no sense. Another option is to make this an overview article for the entire history from the Augustus to the fall of Constantinople and then create sub-articles titled with time periods. In my mind I think sticking with the convention of using "Roman Empire" to refer to the pre-fall-of-the-West period is probably the simplest and least confusing approach.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes

The first line of this articles says that the 'Roman Empire is the phase of the roman civilization characterised by an autocratic form of government'. The Roman kingdom was also characterised by an autocratic government and therefore this statement is misleading. perhaps it could be re-worded.

Within the opening description the article states that: 'From the time of Augustus to the Fall of the Western Empire, Rome's dominion covered all of the following: England and Wales; most of Europe (west of the Rhine and south of the Alps); coastal northern Africa, together with the adjacent province of Egypt; the Balkans, the Black Sea, and Asia Minor; and also much of the Levant'. I am unsure about other territories but no part of britain was encorpoated into the empire until 43AD. This statement is misleading because it suggests these territories were part of the empire over the whole period between Augustus' rule and the fall of the western empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.106.147 (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right. IMHO there is a slow tendency in most articles to "accumulate" too much facts and informations (and beautiful sentences which repeat the same information several times = garbage). This is but another minor blunder that shows again that this article needs and deserves a full-scale reform. Flamarande (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Subheadings about Emperors

I'm leery of making massive edits, but for anyone with more guts, may I suggest that we don't need separate sections on each of the major emperors? Having subheadings covering the periods of Imperial history (Juilo-Claudian, Flavian, Good Emperors, Crisis of the Third Century, etc.) seems like plenty of detail to me. A. Parrot (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)