|
Post by penetratorx on Sept 12, 2005 9:46:02 GMT -5
Getting back to the point of this thread - yes the British Empire was the greatest world empire that ever existed in terms of total land mass. And in a time when world power was measured mostly by naval strength the British had a policy of keeping the Royal Navy at least as large as the next two largest navies combined.
And as great as the Roman Empire was the legions of it's greatest ever Emperor were annihilated by the Germanic barbarian's of Arminius when they marched into the Teutoberger Forest in AD9 and they had a few bloody noses from the Parthians and Sassinids.
But I'd still agree that the Roman Empire was the greatest single power this world has known.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Sept 12, 2005 10:16:49 GMT -5
so what? the british even lost a battle to bronze age (maybe even stone age) zulu impies.
Rome was definitely a greater military power than The British empire.
|
|
|
Post by penetratorx on Sept 12, 2005 13:36:47 GMT -5
so what? the british even lost a battle to bronze age (maybe even stone age) zulu impies. Rome was definitely a greater military power than The British empire. Oh dear, seems we have an argie who has still not gotten over the fact his country had it's arse well and truly kicked by the British in a war that was fought 200 miles off the coast of argentina and about 6000 miles away from Britain. Yes the British lost the battle of Isandlwana but then they was outnumbered by at least 10-1 up to as much as 20-1, the Zulus although mostly armed with spears actually outnumbered the British in rifles, the British killed up to 10 times the number of Zulus that they themselves had killed and whatever the outcome of the battle the Zulus were still utterly defeated in the war. One last thing, I said in my post that I consider the Roman Empire to be the greatest Empire of all time, though not of course in overall land size. los malvinas son británicos ;D
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Sept 12, 2005 15:14:20 GMT -5
I am not a nationalist, I dont have a problem with the british keeping those islands, and btw your spanish grammar is wrong.
The british indeed had the best navy, but, unlike Rome, on land they were not as good as some european powers, like Prussia, that is all I meant.
The loss against the germanic tribes in Teutoberger or against the Parthians were just exceptions, like Isandlwana, more often than not both empires won.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Sept 12, 2005 19:26:33 GMT -5
In the most literal sense, I would with Dienekes - that there was a Roman Empire lasting from the foundation of Rome to the fall of Constantinople. But I also think that, due to the shifting of the seat of power, to different demic and cultural influences and to historical developments, that Eastern Rome became a very different expression of Rome and needs to be considered on its' terms. Exactly. Latin was phased out, reforms were instituted, the kingdom was further Christianized an Orthodox nation, and the surviving eastern half became a kind of Hellenized Roman Empire, therefore I think it is quite deserving of its own name apart from Roman. That was the whole mindset behind naming it Byzantine in the first place. Not because it wanted to separate the eastern half from the fallen western half, but because it had evolved in a new direction from its pagan Latin roots. So, there's certainly nothing wrong with calling it the Eastern Roman Empire (as that's exactly what it was), but there's also nothing wrong with calling it the Byzantine Empire. They're both two different words for the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Sept 12, 2005 21:23:09 GMT -5
<<And as great as the Roman Empire was the legions of it's greatest ever Emperor were annihilated by the Germanic barbarian's of Arminius when they marched into the Teutoberger Forest in AD9 and they had a few bloody noses from the Parthians and Sassinids. >>
Besides the point that Arminius was a Roman trained soldier ,ally and a traitor,who cowardly ambushed his friends (only 3 legions where wiped out) ... your Arminius was hunted down By General Germanicus Claudinus,his wife put in chains, his armies where defeated ,those that werent switched sides and even fought eachother. Germanicus found the remains of the Romans massacred by Arminus and buried them with high honors and recovered the legion's eagles ...Rome won!
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 13, 2005 1:37:55 GMT -5
In which sense was the Empire of the Romans when the Romans had for long ceased to rule it or even be part of it? In what sense did the Romans cease to rule the Empire? What constitutes a "Roman" for you? There were emperors that were not (ethnically) native Romans long before the beginning of the Byzantine Empire. So, if you think that the Byzantine Empire was not Roman, then neither was most of the pre-Byzantine Roman Empire.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Sept 13, 2005 2:45:16 GMT -5
In what sense did the Romans cease to rule the Empire? What constitutes a "Roman" for you? There were emperors that were not (ethnically) native Romans long before the beginning of the Byzantine Empire. So, if you think that the Byzantine Empire was not Roman, then neither was most of the pre-Byzantine Roman Empire. A Roman imho was a member of the ethnic unity called generically "Romans", living in Latium, who are known to history starting from about 600 B.C. (B.C.. I Hate that stupid B.P.). Actually I don't remember studying the Byzantine Empire as properly Roman, and also remember that the last times of the Empire the things had gone out of Romans hands, even if they retained a big political power and big privileges, expecially economically. Obviously the transition was gradual. However if you see, as I do, the empires as an instrument of domination of a population over another, the consequence is that the Sacrum Romanum Imperium has nothing to do with Rome. Maybe we should agree on a definition of "empire" first
|
|
omegaspan
Full Member
????? ??????? ??????, ??????? ??????
Posts: 211
|
Post by omegaspan on Sept 13, 2005 3:04:49 GMT -5
Regardless of if the Eastern Roman Empire is qualified to be called "Roman" or not (actually it does qualify, since the capital of the Roman Empire was officially moved from Rome to Constantinoupoli, thus Charlesmange was just a barbarian venturer ) the point is to what extent does the Eastern Roman Empire qualify to be called a culturally Hellenic federation, especially in the last centuries..
In the case of early Rome and the Roman empire, Hellenic culture, language and science inflitrated and "conquered" the very roots of the Roman foundation. The same occured in the later divided Roman Empire, when the Chistian theocratic roots loosened up and Hellenic culture, language, and science rose again to transmit their light....
The same occurs to this day, you must have noticed how modern day scientists still refer to Plato, Aristotele, etc when refering to the scientific roots of western culture..
Empires are multicultural by definition. Thus, the quality of an Empire is measured according to how many cultures they succesfully assimilate and make live together, producing culture in a wider intercultural perspective. In this respect the Eastern Roman Empire, with Emperors such as Julian (Ioulianos) are superior than for the example the English Empire, that failed to transmit or produce any kind of culture, just was successfull in commercial techniques and exploitation of its colonies. Cause there is a big difference between an Empire that simply creates colonies (English) and an Empire that expands interculturally (Greek-Roman) by assimilating both land and culture.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 13, 2005 3:20:37 GMT -5
A Roman imho was a member of the ethnic unity called generically "Romans", living in Latium, who are known to history starting from about 600 B.C. (B.C.. I Hate that stupid B.P.). So, in your opinion the Roman Empire ended on 98AD when the first non-Roman according to your definition (Trajan) ascended to the imperial throne?
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Sept 13, 2005 3:28:58 GMT -5
A Roman imho was a member of the ethnic unity called generically "Romans", living in Latium, who are known to history starting from about 600 B.C. (B.C.. I Hate that stupid B.P.). So, in your opinion the Roman Empire ended on 98AD when the first non-Roman according to your definition (Trajan) ascended to the imperial throne? Not that soon, as the Romans retained big political power, high positions as Empire officers, and economic privileges. Power is not only about the Emperor. This power and privileges then went progressively fading.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 13, 2005 3:31:43 GMT -5
Not that soon, as the Romans retained big political power, high positions as Empire officers, and economic privileges. Power is not only about the Emperor. This power and privileges then went progressively fading. So, you think that the people who had big political power in the Rome of the first century AD were exclusive descendants of the Romans of 600BC?
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Sept 13, 2005 3:38:22 GMT -5
So, you think that the people who had big political power in the Rome of the first century AD were exclusive descendants of the Romans of 600BC? As much as any ethnic unity can have continuity in that long span of time (and to a point I think it can and expecially it could at the time with less mobile societies), yes. I don't see instead any reason to consider Roman the SRI, as there wasn't even administrative or linguistic continuity (the bosses couldn't speak latin).
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 13, 2005 3:48:07 GMT -5
As much as any ethnic unity can have continuity in that long span of time (and to a point I think it can and expecially it could at the time with less mobile societies), yes. But, you are aware of the fact that the original Romans at the time of the early republic gave rights first to the plebs, and then to non-Roman Latins and then to more and more people as they became more powerful. St. Paul, for example, was a Roman citizen at the of the Early Empire. So, I fail to see how the ethnically mixed Romans of early imperial times can be considered to be Roman, but the Romans of medieval times cannot be considered to be Roman according to your logic.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Sept 13, 2005 4:15:36 GMT -5
But, you are aware of the fact that the original Romans at the time of the early republic gave rights first to the plebs, and then to non-Roman Latins and then to more and more people as they became more powerful. St. Paul, for example, was a Roman citizen at the of the Early Empire. So, I fail to see how the ethnically mixed Romans of early imperial times can be considered to be Roman, but the Romans of medieval times cannot be considered to be Roman according to your logic. I didn't say I do not consider medieval Romans continuous with ancient Romans. There was mixing in Rome and Latium, as always happens, but I don't think there was such mixing to stop the continuity. My point is that medieval Romans were not the ruling/privileged class of the SRI, Germans were. And also before SRI Romans had been loosing their grip on the Empire, in favour of other populations.
|
|