Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 4

2132:

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

2079:

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

2401:

indeed there are earlier examples). The deposition of the guy who happened to end up being the last nominal western monarch was simply the deposition of the guy who turned out to be the last western monarch; the Empire as a whole continued, now with only one Emperor. The huge number of anachronisms and misconceptions that cloud this period in most people's head is what is causing the nonsensical belief in the end of the Empire. Romans in the west continued to acknowledge the existence of the Empire for centuries. Bede and other historians before Charlemagne date by reign of the "Roman Emperor". What we see as barbarian conquests were not seen like that by everyone in the west, just a limitation of imperial power at that point; frequently barbarian kings themselves would pay lip-service by pretending to be the vassals of the Roman emperor in Constantinople. Anyways, you know my opinion on the matter. The made-up "Byzantine Empire" (i.e. Roman Empire) is no more a "successor state" to itself than the USA of today is a successor state to the USA of 1800.

366:. Of course, he does need other people to exercise his power, and as the Roman emperors used the old aristocracy for many of those duties, they had to respect certain traditions of that aristocracy. That doesn't mean, however, that senators, governors or (least of them) generals had power *of their own*. The case could be made in a certain respect for governors, as officially, "senatorial" provinces during the early Empire were not directly ruled by the emperor. Regarding the military, however, the emperor was technically the only commander-in-chief (as shown by the fact that only he could celebrate a triumph, even if it was his generals who won). That senatorial "autonomy" was, however, on paper only - threats to the reigning emperor came from rebellious generals; senatorial governours had no power to actually work against the emperor's wishes. With time, the distinction faded, and even from early on, senatorial governors deferred many decisions to the emperor, or ruled according to how imperial provinces were run. 943:, regarding the sack of Rome by Brennus and the Gauls: "However, it would seem that some vague tidings of the calamity and capture of the city made their way at once to Greece. For Heracleides Ponticus, who lived not long after that time, in his treatise "On the soul," says that out of the West a story prevailed, how an army of Hyperboreans had come from afar and captured a Greek city called Rome, situated somewhere on the shores of the Great Sea. Now I cannot wonder that so fabulous and fictitious a writer as Heracleides should deck out the true story of the capture of Rome with his "Hyperboreans" and his "Great Sea." But Aristotle the philosopher clearly had accurate tidings of the capture of the city by the Gauls, and yet he says that its saviour was Lucius, although the forename of Camillus was not Lucius, but Marcus. However, these details were matters of conjecture." I think that goves a bit of context and shows how reliable Heraclides should be taken to be. -- 630:. Not a single one believes the lie (do you know of a single senator who said: "Ok, we accept your generous offer, now give us our power back?") and they beg the continuation of rule of the victor for "the security and wellfare of the republic". A couple of years later they offer him a new title. Then he chooses a succesor for himself (where was the authorithy of the Senate here?), and it goes on and on. In theory and officially the republic continues throughout this entire time. There is never a official proclamation of the Roman Empire with an official date. You will find out this is the same problem in many things: When began the Renessance?, the Age of Discovery, etc? There isn't a single precise date for these events it was always gradual developments. I personally don't agree with the battle of Actium for the war between Octavian and Markus continued, I would prefer to replace it with "unclear; several dates advanced but in reality it was a gradual process." 284:"Rome" is very commonly used as shorthand for "the Roman Empire" in multiple sources ranging from academic works to TV, movies and fiction - I don't think we need to change that. The section on the first emperor is an important debate, but still (despite revision) not quite accurate - the title of "Imperator" really referred to generalship and has only assumed the "imperialist" connotation via centuries of subsequent history. Roman emperors themselves were in modern terms essentially military dictators and the "imperial" system a sort of aristocratic militarised slave-owning universal culture with some local and regional liberties and religious tolerance, that evolved slowly in stages from "alleged democratic republic" to "alleged universal empire". So the whole debate is slightly flawed and anachronistic and user Rintrah is right to raise it - however, it does seem worth discussing it as to the modern mind the obvious query is "when did the empire start?" 1958:

ceased to be a divided monarchy. The monarchy and state itself went on, reconquering and then losing Italy, Africa, etc. But where does the Roman state disappear? It doesn't ... not until 1453. Talking about the disappearance of the Empire in the 5th century is high school history; the empire no more disappeared than any other empire that loses some territory. As for Italy, a series of Balkan emperors based in the east meant that Italy had ceased to be of prime political importance since the 3rd century ... nothing to do with the events of the fifth. The Italy thing is anachronism. As for Eastern Roman Empire ... if the Western Empire ceased to exist, then what is the "Eastern" Empire? It was simply the Roman Empire ... that's just fact; if you don't believe me, read the sources. Anyways, make up words to your heart's content, but that will remain a fact forever. It is simply not true, it is simply false, that the Roman Empire ended in 476. Like I said,

1892:

mind. All this Latin versus Greek trash people bore you with whenever this topic comes up misunderstands both the medieval and the ancient Roman Empire. The date is just a hang-up from badly informed /early modern/medieval western European Universal History ... barbarians, Romans, barbarian, Renaissance ... being imposed on areas outside the western Europe. Works for Italy and France, who ceased to be part of the Empire, but not for the eastern Roman heartland (as it was from the 4th cent. onwards). Like I said, 476 is the date for the Western Empire, not the Roman Empire, whose capital since the 330s stood as the centre of the Roman state uninterrupted (save 4th Crusade, and that temporary state was called ... wait for it ... Romania) until the end of the Middle Ages. If 476 is the date, then merge this article with Western Roman Empire and create a new article for the actual Roman Empire.

1332:”quidam haec … tradunt sinum Cylipenum vocari, et in ostio insulam Latrim, mox alterum sinum Lagnum conterminum Cimbris.” ”Some report that there is a bay called Cylipenus and an island, Latris, at its mouth, followed by another bay, Lagnus, coterminous with the Cimbri.” Locations of the bay with its island have been hypothesized as far east as Riga, but Pliny clearly says that it was coterminous with the Cimbri, and the latter were certainly located in Jutland. The Cyli- in Cylipenus is most likely to be Kiel, although whether the bay, the fjord, or both are meant is uncertain. Latris may be a translation into Latin of Langeland, based on the use of the adjective, latus, “wide”, for long. The Romans would have seen it as a wide island. Lagnus must be the Bay of Mecklenburg, or of Lübeck, or both. 1161:

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

726:

and again we have a duty to illuminate to the casual reader of Knowledge (XXG) the meaning, context and development of "Byzantium", "Byzantine" and "Byzantine Empire". If people who lived in those periods and places described themselves differently, we should also say how. Finally, your comment that there is "only a pagan and a christian period" is an absurd over-simplification and no significant academic working in this area would agree with your other over-simplification that the Roman Empire "fell" in "1453" - clearly the polity originally generally known as the Roman Empire evolved in different ways, divided into two main parts with separate histories, changed, fought many wars, developed culturally and religiously and so on. Your 1453 date is about the capture of Constantinople by

489: 220:

Empire started off as Roman Imperial states which imported Latin as their official languages, but soon thereafter they both became Greek and German states respectively. This is only natural if you consider the evolution of civilisation over the centuries. However I brought this up because I think that the Eastern Roman Empire (meaning Byzantium even before the fall of the Western Empire and while it had Latin as an official language) proves the important position of Greek culture in the Roman Empire. In the West all subjected peoples were assimilated and Latinized, but in the East even when Latin was imported for official purposes, it never gained popularity and didn't manage to survive.

1351:

outset of the imperial period Greek was the majority language in the Eastern half of the empire. In fact, since the major population centers were in the East I'm fairly certain it was the majority language in the whole empire (I have not seen statistics to confirm this, though). Moreover, Greek was widely used even in Rome (e.g. the surviving quotations from Caesar's assasination in Rome are all Greek, not Latin). Again, I don't have stats as to how prevalent this was in Rome although I have read that it was so prevalent that for some time many in the upper classes had even proposed changing the official language to Greek (i.e. the upper classes in the city itself).

787:

explored further and deeper on other pages. "Byzantine" is a very commonly used terminology not just here in Knowledge (XXG) but everywhere in both academic and popular literature, on TV, internet sites, etc. It's a very common phenomenon that the modern names for historical movements, nations, cultures, peoples and events are different in various ways to those that were originally used. This too can be explained in Knowledge (XXG) but it does not mean that we must use them generally in articles now, since it would be confusing. This is why I and other editors reverted (and will continue to revert if they don't make sense given the above) your recent changes.

132:

as I know, the diffrent Roman tribes/classes (you belonged to one by birth) were consulted on some major decisions but it always began with the richest and if the richest classes agreed the poorest ones were not consulted anymore. You can even argue that the Roman republic was a aristocratic Oligarcy. About Law I must confess that I'm ignorant if the Romans invented many of our modern legal notions or copied them (I guess a little of both). But to defend that Roman culture was the same as Greek culture is a bit exagerated; the Romans copied many things (from the Greeks among others), but they also invented many things which influence us even today.

3803:

Empire comes to an end when it is split (permanently or not depends whether or not you regard two Roman emperors becoming one in 476, or the head of one of two Roman states disappearing) in 395, or it comes to an end when both West and East are gone. You can't just choose one. Anyone who ever says "the Roman Empire came to an end in 476" means the Western Roman Empire, and is just being Western-centric; anyone who says "the Roman Empire came to an end in 476" and means the whole Roman Empire is factually incorrect. Regarding the Holy Roman Empire ... well, I think that's pushing it. Why count the HRE as Roman Empire but not the

2824:

babbling that the republic is dead, and that we have a new form of goverment. You know citizen, such impudent talk could be considered treasonous. You better proclaim that I am nothing but the first citizen of the republic or else you will wake in the Tulliarum one of these days." In private everybody knew who was calling the shots, but publicly nothing had changed. It is better to leave these particular "titles/classifications" it as they are; it is simple, easy to understand, and more or less widely recognized as correct. They are given in hindsight, but that isn't soo bad. Hair-splitting is many times a bad idea.

358:, "The autocrat needs some kind of power structure to rule. Only a boss of a street gang or a barbarian chieftain can truly rule with only his personal charisma and his fighting skills. Most historical autocrats depended on their nobles, the military, the priesthood or others, who could turn against the ruler and depose or murder him." "Autocracy" doesn't need that only one person holds power; it means that essentially, all power *derives* from one person (or one institution), or is dependent on that one person. In Rome, all power ultimately rests with the Emperor - maybe not 2353:

clean-uppers. But unfortunately for it the bulk of the editors here presumably don't have a problem with such a presentation, and I suppose it's not too extreme for the readership the article is likely to attract. I besides don't have the time to engage in these long discussions or to waste effort on the article, so won't bother tagging it, which I'm sure (given what I've just said) would be interpreted by most users here as disruptive. But of course I still care, but I guess I'll just have to live with my sadness." These words could have easily been mine.

2004:

the surviving "twin", but it didn't became THE whole Roman Empire. What is the Eastern Empire? It is a successor state. States don't "disapear", states are either conquered, break up, or are disolved. In this particular case it was the second. Never said that the Roman Empire ended in 476 (but scholars indeed use that date). Of course that Byzantine historians wrote that the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire; everybody in the BE wanted to, and indeed did, believe it. But it wasn't accepted as such by the "West (especially by Rome)" even in those days.

626:

then one of them dies and the other two slug it out. One emerges victorious to be slain by republicans (a dying breed). In the mess that follows other three mighty men finish the rebellious republicans at Philipae off, and order the execution of hundereds of political opponents. Then one of them loses all his power and the other two slug it out (hello deja vu). The victor, giving a great show of humility and honour, offers to return all his powers to a Senate mostly composed by his loyal followers and frightened persons, and

748:, even though, for a lot of that period, it ruled foreign territories and had what we would call an "empire". This is a retrospective judgement but is an established convention because marks an important distinction, just as the transition from "Roman" (ruled from Rome) to "Byzantine" (ruled from Constantinople) Empire does. This article is not about the entirety of Roman civilisation, it's about the period during which it is conventionally known as the Roman Empire. Hence, I used the informal coining "Imperial period". 2684:

Empire for the two time-periods, as both were vast "empires") is simply unwise. Imperial Rome isn't widely used describing "the state with the Roman emperor". Most of us (just look at the History and Discovery channels - no, TV channels aren't my major sources, I rather like books) simply use the terms Roman Republic (and speak of its empire) and the Roman Empire. It might not be 100% acurate (but then nothing truly is AFAIK) but it is adequate. It is better to leave both articles under their current titles.

1769:

1453, which is sensible, because that's when the continuously developing Roman state ends. BTW, what all that nonsense about the Roman Empire ending in 476? That made me laugh. 476 is the date for the Western Empire, ::::::::::::not the Roman Empire, whose capital since the 330s stood as the centre of the Roman state uninterrupted (save 4th Crusade) until the end of the Middle Ages. If 476 is the date, then merge this article with Western Roman Empire and create a new article for the actual Roman Empire.

1928:. You seem to neglecting that Constantinople wasn't the only new capital. Rome kept on being a capital, it wasn't stripped of its importance. Italy kept on being the Latin homeland. The Eastern Roman Empire is a half of the old Roman Empire who slowly evolved on its own. The WRE fell in 476 but that doesn't turn the ERE into the Roman Empire. I like the ERE (aka BE) alot, but it wasn't the Roman Empire. It was a part of the Roman Empire and a more than worthy successor but no more and certainly no less. 655:"...it maintained Roman legal and cultural traditions within a distinctly Greek Orthodox form for another thousand years until it finally succumbed to Latins in 1204, and then the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453." This sentence is probably a bit confusing to those unfamilar with Byzantine history -- how can an empire be eradicated twice? Perhaps there should be a brief mention of the greek reconquest, or else leave out the referance to the fourth crusade (as it wasn't the true endpoint). -- 401:

crisis. The tetrarchy's solution was not to wait until the respective area (province, army) chose an emperor if the "real" one wasn't available, but to choose them beforehand, securing their loyalty to the "central" government. Rome had become a real autocracy by then - everything depended on the emperor personally, and the four emperors of the tetrarchy were an attempt to solve the geographical and logistic problems resulting from that requirement of the emperor's personal presence.

341:

institution at all and could (and many did) order the execution or forced suicide of many Senators and generals. Still it wasn't a monarchy, because most of the time there wasn't any Imperial dinasty with clear lines of succession. Senators and generals could certainly make a coup or a rebellion but this means that the goverment is overthrown and that the system is put out of comission. Compare it to todays time: General MacArthur certainly had power until Truman sacked him.

3455: 3773:, a seperate political entity; in fact a collection of states under a common emperor whose real power was many times very limited. It was certainly of Roman inspiration, but built upon diffrent fundations, nothing more. It is basicly a seperate nation who inspired itself (or better yet whose rulers sought inspiration) upon an ancient empire and tried to re-capture its ancient glory. Of course you are free to think diffrently. You defend 1806, academia says 476. In the end 2775:

interpretation of the word "republic" on its own. Look it up: "system of goverment in which the leaders are chosen by the ppl". In the opinion of many anything else is either a monarchy or a dicatorship (it's true; I read that myself on a dictonary and heard that here in Knowledge (XXG)).I seriously suspect that this is the result of political correctness. Not all republics are democratic, and the other forms of goverment aren't all (simple) dicatorships.

3731:

Certainly they did that, but after an invasion and conquest an assimlation and mixing happens. If not in the second generation then in third, fourth, ... (400 years are a lot of generations (and invasions), the notion that the Roman continued throughout all this time as a culture and people is IMHO wrong. Only the Jews were able to keep being a seperate religion and culture during hundered of years because there never was a full assimilation).

31: 1292:

and population, but ruled over a single ethnicity (cultural ethnicity) and yet was not as unified as the Roman Empire (more a collection of autonomous states rather than Rome's unified government). Also, the reference to the Roman Empire's rule in western Eurasia. The Roman Empire held territory from southern to northern (though not far-northern) Europe, parts of southwestern and Central Asia, and A LOT OF NORTHERN AND EASTERN AFRICA.

1295: 1259: 180:

believes that Byzantines were just 'Romans' and not Greeks who got potically assimilated to the Roman ecumenical state, this makes quite a contradiction. If we assume that Byzantines were just Romans, then it means that the Roman Empire got finally assimilated into Greek culture and retained nothing from its past, except its very name (and that in Greek). So what you claim about "Roman culture" becomes moot by your own logic.

3737:

emperor, etc) disapeared. How many revolts of the Romans we know of? Look how latter the Italian city-states rose, each with their own seperate sense of identidy. If they still continued to be Roman they would loudly proclaimed this and cooperated as a whole. They never did, and in fact always fought amongst themselves. Their loyalty was to their city-state and not to an vanished empire.

165:

these were quickly cast aside and the Roman army developed its own Roman identity (legions, manipules, centuries, etc). This new army who managed to conquer Italy, and later the known world wasn't based upon any Greek model. The legions smashed the phalanaxes again and again, exactly because they were trained, equiped, and organized under a original and far superior Roman model.

477: 121:

weak point in their army, but it was nontheless trained. My point is is that Roman culture was basically the same as Greek culture, such as the ideas of Democracy and Law. However, the Romans never used the Greek's miltary formations or tactics that I am well aware of, i believe thier military derived from the other latin cultures such as the Etruscans.

2465:(was conquered by Odoacer). Everybody has its own opinion (and formerly I was largely ingnorant about the ERE at all). You choose to believe/hold for true that Roman Empire continued. I believe/hold for true that it was divided and that there was no re-unification. You seem to accept that there had been previous divisions. May I ask you: 3100:

between Republic and Empire in historiography, and when I say that the territorial empire is the first thing that comes to mind, I am reasoning from a layman's point of view. I am not trying to make some point against established scholarship, and I am not taking your criticism personally at all. My assumptions may simply be wrong.

694:, not in an article specifically about the Imperial period. The transition between the Roman Imperial and Byzantian periods deserves notice here, but not in such detail in the introduction. All the material added, I should point out, needs to be coherently written, argued and sourced, not unilaterally asserted like it has been. -- 617:"Sigh". There isn't a single date for the transformation of the republic into the empire. There are several dates of great importance but it was a gradual process. Mark is unsure between two dates, and MosheA merely wants to replace one date with another. It is a basic flaw on the approach and question: we want to determine a 1061:) not in 1480. Also it was more like a retreat than a defeat for Ottomans. Ottoman historians argue that Mehmet decided to use Otranto as the base of his invasion but when he died (some argues that he was poisoned) his plans were not carried on mostly because of the conflict between his sons, Cem Bey and Bayezid (later 3239:

hones though, if you can find an attestation in Livy that supports your claim, it would need a lot more evidence, including either an official document using the term for the Roman Republic or some commentary on the term itself; we also need to be very careful with primary sources, as it's too easy to fall into

1797:

managed to survive and to thrive. The WRE on the other hand colapsed and was conquered by the barbarian invaders. The BE lateron claimed to be the same entity as the old Roman Empire. Well it could even be recognized by many as such, but fact is that it didn't have Rome or Italy; safe for a very short time.

3378:

of opinion and debate if you decide to draw the "line in the sand" for the significance of mottoes arbitrarily, according to taste. Someone who doesn't agree with your taste will probably come along and kick sand in your face :) In Knowledge (XXG) that's almost guaranteed. The resorting to "official"

3366:

were also ideologically inspired. My opinion is that if you open the door way to populist labels for political entities — especially for such a long-lived and politically/internationally fluid one such as Rome — your infobox explodes with mottoes. I agree that it is a matter of debate at what point a

3033:

Well, I understand the need to make divisions on the base of the form of government, but I still find it odd that a person looking for information on the Roman Empire on Knowledge (XXG) is immediately directed to a page that only treats the period from c. 30 BCE to 476 CE. When we speak of the "Roman

2586:

is used by Scholars everywhere. We have to distinguish the form of goverment: monarchy (alltough it was many times not a monarchy (which suggests an dynastic succession), but rather a dictatorship, or perhaps even an autocracy (my favourite)) and the several diffrent peoples who where part of the the

2564:

I find it somewhat peculiar that in this article the term "Roman Empire" is tied so closely to the form of government, i.e. the monarchy. Does this correspond with normal practice in scholarship? In the territorial sense, Rome was an empire long before it ceased to be a republic, and I think that for

1810:

Later several powerful rulers tried to resurrect and/or claimed to rule the old Roman Empire. Charlemagne with his empire (modern France, Italy, the Benelux, parts of Germany and a minor part of Spain). The Holy Roman Empire of the German nation (Germany and nothern Italy and other territories). They

1291:

This article seems to be written from pro-Asian POV. Chiefly the reference to the Roman Empire being a co-superpower with Han China. The Roman Empire encompassed multiple cultures and civilizations, from Egypt to Gaul, from the Carthaginians to Mesopotamians. Han China ruled over a comparable area

1160:

Not really. Firstly domination is almost better known as occupation. Rome was South of the Baltic, and didn't often include much West of the Rhine in Europe. For majority of Population to be a majority it has to actually be there, and here it is simply not there. It is stretching things a bit to say

786:

Armodios, you've already made it very clear you have strong views on this, but the article uses terms that are widely used elsewhere and any casual reader of Knowledge (XXG) deserves a chance to read good quality information on this important subject using words and phrases that are familiar and also

640:

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

509:

This is a beautiful new map, thanks for all your efforts with it Varana! Couple of things I noticed - is it just my browser/PC, or is the colour in your key box for 218BC not the same as the one on the map? One other thing - I've often seen empire maps that show parts of the region north of the Black

400:

The tetrarchy, otoh, is a direct consequence of autocratic rule. Everythin relied on the emperor; and if the emperor was not present, the empire couldn't be ruled effectively. It wasn't enough to have governors, generals, prefects or other magistrates around - it had to be an emperor in every area of

396:

I think that the impression that the senate was a kind of "parliament" during the Empire is misleading. We should keep in mind that most literary sources from the early and high empire were written by members of the senatorial class, reflecting their views. Though I grant that I'm maybe stressing one

179:

was a concept that all Italic peoples adapted from the Italian Greeks. As I said before the Roman Republic did come up with remarkable innovations in the fields of military and state formation. But do not forget the Greek influence in all fields of culture from science to letters. But for someone who

131:

The Etruscan aren't a Latin culture, their origin is shrouded in mystery. The Romans copied miltary tactics and formations from many cultures, but also invented many of them (perhaps event the more important ones). Ancient Greek Democracy did not have a great influence upon the Roman republic. As far

3788:

There is no question about it. Many states continued to call themselves Roman. Why not the Ottoman Empire - they conquered Bzantium, surely they managed to get some roman blood in due to all those daughter marriages by the Byzantine emperors to the Ottoman sultans. well? u see u cant say hre was the

3348:

seems quite legitimate. From Wolff I get the impression that that name was fairly common (he mentions a couple of other examples, including a series of saints' lives). It was, however, an informal term used by the inhabitants of the late Empire to refer to it and not an "official" name. Still, using

2774:

dom" and the other one by "Emperor's empire" or something similar. But even in German they speak of the "Römisches Reich" - Roman Empire and of the "Römische republik" - Roman republic. Behold the power of words: simple diffrences result in major diffrences of interpretation. I particularly like the

2003:

If you divide something and then destroy one of the halfs, is the surviving half the same as the original? Right, sure. I will never deny that the early Byzantine Empire was a Roman state, but it wasn't the whole Roman state. So now you avoid the capital issue? With the end of the WRE the ERE became

1957:

Create a bunch of neologisms and historical distortions that most people can't see past, and sure, you can convince people of this stuff. But it is a linguistic trick; it is nonsense. The deposition of the last western emperor meant simply that, the deposition of the last western emperor. The Empire

1768:

The end of the Roman Empire was 1453; I don't think it's very common to regard the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation as seriously the successor of the Roman Empire; perhaps the Western Empire, but never the Roman EMpire as such. Gibbon's classic and influential account puts the Empire's fall at

1139:

I've reorganised the levels of the headings of the historical sections relating to the period between Constantine and Theodosius, and added a couple of sentences on the Western Empire between 395 and 474. These are there just to provide some continuity until something better can be added - I hope to

1001:

in his latest edit summary. What, you think you can overturn centuries of historical consensus just because you don't happen to like it? Give it up, you arrogant twit. Should we stop using the term "Middle Ages" as well? What about "Stone Age", "Bronze Age" or "Iron Age"? For that matter, what about

725:

The article does not use the phrase "imperial period". "Western" and "Eastern" empires are terms so widely used that it would be anti-reader not to repeat and explain them in Knowledge (XXG). "Byzantine" is also a very widely used term throughout the academic history of study of the classical period

664:

Your obviously losing grips with fact. The initial church of Jesus Christ and God was started by what is distinctly today the Greek Orthodox CHurch. The Papacy and the Germanics following the Papal Heresy called Catholism were responsible for teh damage and destruction of the Eastern Empire through

404:

Regarding the map: I'll see if I can come up with a similar, but more accurate map, though it will take some days. The problem with the map is imho not that it is wrong in itself, but that it is a bit rough, or imprecise: the Dacian conquests of Trajan are that green area protruding north, while the

317:

society - not that autocracy is wholly wrong, but it tends to imply that all power is in one person, but in many periods of the empire and at different times, that was not completely the case; senators had real power, as did governers, other members of the imperial family, particular generals and so

273:

Rome was simply the original city-state and the power was concentrated there. We speak about the Romans and not the Roman Imperials; unlike today where we speak of a capital e.g. "Paris" and of the country "France", and the ppl, "French". We also speak of "the greatness and glory of Rome" and not of

164:

The Ancient Roman republic wasn't an Athens-inspired democracy, simple as that. The origin of the Roman city-state, and culture was Etruscan. The original Roman army in which the diffrent sorts of infantry were based upon the class/wealth seems indeed to be somewhat copied from Greek models. However

120:

Very true the Romans did take many things from the Greeks, (hence Greco-Roman civilization), but that was all based on culture, the Romans focused on mobile heavy infantry units, their infantry was their main bulk they never really expanded on their calvery, it has historically been considered their

3802:

The date should be 1453, because that's when the continuous lines of Roman Emperors comes to an end and the last part of the Roman state taken by another. If you wanna be POV and stress the importance of the west (and its "loss"), then 395, not 476. 476 cannot reasonably be argued. Either the Roman

3757:

agreement (never truly stopped a war if one of the sides was very ambitious). Byzantine princesses would be married to whoever was considered a potential ally or a potential enemy of the BE. Nothing more, nothing less. If somebody married a Byzantine princess he was powerful, not a recognized Roman.

3742:

Charlamagne was basicly king of the Franks (a Germanic ppl), the Franks had conquered former Gaul, and he conquered the Lombards (another Germanic ppl) in northern Italy. He had a mighty realm, so it was decided to crown him as Roman Emperor. We are speaking of a Frank here, not a Roman who rose in

2078:

1453 is simply the factual date. 395 is just another of many divisions of power between different rulers. You see, you see a state-split, everyone then saw a power split between two rulers, who btw were brothers, in what remained one state. 476 was the nominal deposition of the nominal monarch of a

1433:

superpower" implies uniqueness (which I think was the original author's intent to imply greatness). One has to be careful because Parthia and China can qualify as contemporary "superpowers" and although some scholars say the Roman Empire was the greatest superpower at its zenith (even that is not a

1335:

Admiral Pliny tells us that the Romans kept a military presence in Denmark, which is contrary to what we are accustomed to thinking about their relationship to the ancient Germanics. He states that the Roman military had intelligence of 23 islands, including Bornholm. Beyond that he isn’t sure. The

381:

Thanks for all this Varana, I do very much agree with your and others' views above about power deriving from the Emperor. I guess I feel suitably corrected. :-) Maybe I was thinking though that Senators had slightly more power sometimes than is implied in your comments above - true that dictatorial

219:

political successor of the Roman Empire, but as Charlesmagne correcly emphasised the Greeks were neither speakers of the "Roman language" nor possessors of the Roman land, and the city of Rome itself chose the German Emperor as the legimate inheritor of the Empire. Both Byzantium and the Holy Roman

2400:

Regarding your point of disagreement, this is something you've already said and I've already disagreed with. There was not two Roman states after 476, and the Roman state was seen as one before ... just had two monarchs. Such divisions and reunifications had been taking place since Diocletian (and

2266:

Some territory??? The empire had been divided in half, and one of halves had been completly overun, conquered, dismembered into several states, and then destroyed. You can't simply compare this development with the previous separations and re-unifications. On all the previous cases the two halves

2131:

BTW, I notice that the narrative of this article follows your own belief; it describes the Empire, united until 395, then has a section about the fall of the west, then adds the Holy Roman Empire and "Byzantine" Empire as postscripts. Then it has the bizarre, and totally uncited, statement "Of the

825:

article already make this clear. It is a useful way of subdividing information and making articles like this more manageable. You're raging against a useful historical convention which is universally used and not an invention of Knowledge (XXG). I see you're also still persisting in trying to push

625:

and then we get amazed that don't find an appropiate date. It began slowly with Marius and Sulla; at the end of Sulla it might appear that the republic had beeen saved but the idea of a single ruler had beeen launched. Then we a have a military junta of three mighty men (is that a true republic?),

198:

Latin were official languages at the beginning of the Byzantine Empire (as far as something like 'official language' existed at that time). I personaly think that the Byzantine Empire had a strong Roman and Ancient Greek legacy and with the passing of time and the loss of territory re-grouped more

3756:

Of course the Byzantines recognized the power of the HRE (especially when they needed something). But honestly: that only proves that politicians always recognize power and use beautiful words. Marriages were made between powerful dynasties and by the large were simply the culmination of a major

3238:

As far as I can tell, the Livy doesn't suggest imperium Romanum was used of the state - it seems to be used of the territories Rome held - "fortunam illius urbis ac Romani imperii" (at the end of 41) - though if there are any phrases in particular you'd like to highlight, I'd be interested. To be

2823:

Doesn't it mean "public affair"? The problem is simple: "replace them for what"? AFAIK the ancient Romans publicly didn't recognize that their repblic had been replaced by an autocracy (fear of being called before Augustus (whoever)) is a great motivation to keep quiet: "I have heard that you are

2688:

20:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Just look at word "Byzantine", the word was invented centuries later but it was imposed and is used today to such a large extent that to correct it (and then one would have to choose a more acurate one - Eastern Roman Empire? Roman Empire? Romania? None of them? Another

1960:

476 is the date for the Western Empire, not the Roman Empire, whose capital since the 330s stood as the centre of the Roman state uninterrupted (save 4th Crusade, and that temporary state was called ... wait for it ... Romania) until the end of the Middle Ages. If 476 is the date, then merge this

1350:

The article lists Latin as the language of the empire and gives a nod to Greek as a later language used in the Eastern Empire. While in terms of official languages this is accurate (the pop-up box does not say "official") in terms of overall usage this is arguably a distortion. Certainly from the

1023:

Behave yourself! At the middle ages, when the german tribes gain over the roman name (similar to what the slav tribes are doing nowdays with macedonia), it was because german tribes had no civilisation at all, so the roman glory was the glue that united them, and gave to their people the faith to

520:

Good catches. :) Which regions north of the Black Sea actually belonged to Rome, is a bit unclear; unfortunately, I couldn't access specialized literature. Cherson probably had a Roman garrison under Nero, but the Bosporan Kingdom in general seems to have remained a vassal state throughout (until

466:

Yes, you are right RafaelG, and I did not mean to imply the above map should be our only source; merely that it is correct not to show Dacia as part of the empire at that time. Here is the map I am talking about, just to be completely clear. I think this is a great map. Just that Dacia is wrongly

294:

Alot of this article seems to have been directly copied from various subject textbooks. I myself have wikified the sentence "Our major primary sources include the:" to "Primary sources for this include:" or something similar. A fine tooth comb is needed to clean this article, many parts of it are

214:

I've never used the term "Greek nation", I said "Greek monarchy" which is a mainstream connotation for post-Manzikert Byzantium. Greek-speakers were never a nation in the modern sense before 1821. I think the answer to who is the most important successor of Rome is an abjective one. It depends on

3736:

The Germanic/barbarians conquerers simply mixed with the conquered Romans and a new people was the result: neither Germanic nor Roman (using the Normans/Saxons as an example: they slowly mixed and became English, neither Saxon nor Norman). The sense of Roman unity (with a single empire, a single

3730:

Italy wasn't invaded only by the Ostrogoths, they were conquered in succesive waves of barbarian/Germanic invaders. We have the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Lombards (and these are only the major ones). The notion that the conquered Romans passed their culture to their children is of course right.

2352:

To be honest I completly agree with: "This I'm afraid makes this article of poor quality for the topic it purports to cover (it is littered with many other misconceptions and mistakes), the continuous Roman monarchy, and should be tagged *CLEANUP* or something to save wikpedia face or to attract

1891:

All this "true Roman" stuff is BS. Romanitas evolved over time, like any cultural concept; it did not fossilize in the pagan age of Caesar. The Roman Empire is continued on until 1453, and that's just fact. It was not a successor state, it was the Roman state; it's a no brainer for anyone with a

1440:

Regarding "Western world" this is a dangerous expression to use. Certainly at that time one could say that the Roman Empire was the "western" empire since the others were east of it. But the term "Western world" today refers to Western Europe so it is confusing to try to use this expression in a

3768:

The official end of the WRE was in 476. This date appears in books (written by historians), and is accepted by the academia everywhere. It is also traditionaly/officialy used by academia as the end-date for the Roman Empire (something far more debatable - see above). 1806 is the official end of

3099:

Hm, actually I was making two basic assumptions: (1) Knowledge (XXG) articles are written for people with no previous knowledge of the subject at hand; (2) in "normal", i.e. colloquial usage, the term "Roman Empire" primarily refers to the territorial empire. I am fully aware of the distinction

2683:

Hey I'm not a native English reader, perhaps I didn't get because of this fact. To be honest: there is some merit in what you are proposing but it simply isn't worth it. To be a little more acurate at the expense of clarity (and to be truly accurate one would have to use Imperial Rome and Roman

1796:

It was simply divided between the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire (widely known as Byzantine Empire). The WRE had the old capital Rome and the old Latin heartland; namely Italy. The BE had Constantinople and the richer (eastern) provinces. Due to that fact and other reasons it

1465:

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

761:

This article is not about roman civilisation. It is about roman empire. An empire is defined as a state ruled by an emperor. Roman republic is a different state, it is not Roman empire. The so called "byzantine" empire is actually a direct descendant of the roman empire, it was also ruled by an

3496:

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

2522:

which didn't happen at all in the Roman Empire after 395. But if we imagined that the "north - USA" had been invaded and broken up by a lot of barbarians (Indians? or even Canadians? :). Would the CSA be considered the exact same political entity as the former unified American state before the

1116:

lost its momentum half a year ago. Rewriting the whole Roman Empire article is probably to big a task for the small ancient history community on Knowledge (XXG). I think we might as well remove the talk-box at the top of this page, and declare the project defunct. I guess improving the present

707:

There is no "imperial" period! Think about it. Are you are talking about the imperial period of an empire? Does this makes sense? And how do you call the rest period of thus empire? Non imperial? There is neither east nor west roman empire, nor "byzantine" empire, which is an awfull neologism.

229:

By the way many Greeks are of the opinion that there is one and only Roman Empire which ends in 1453, and would never accept to call it 'Greek monarchy' at any point, clearly a view which doesn't meet consensus. I'm of the realistic view that a culture is not defined only by means of political

2587:

Roman state and the huge size of it. Even at the later stages of the republic the Roman state had several peoples (almost all of them conquered by force of arms, and we are not talking about one or two or three but dozens of them) and had vast domains. Something as that is called an empire.

340:

was autocratic during the empire. That means that real power was in the hands of the Emperor. Some might have been more powerful than others, and Senators and Generals certainly also had some power, but in final analysis they served the emperor. The emperor himself was not controlled by any

820:

scholarly historical literature is to call it the Byzantine Empire after the move to Constantinople. It should of course be made clear that the Byzantine Empire is a term conventionally used for the continuation of the Roman Empire after the move to Constantinople, and this article and the

1648:

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

743:

It was my comment that used the phrase "Imperial period". This article is about the Ancient Roman civilisation after it becomes conventionally known as the Roman Empire, sometime between the dictatorship of Julius Caesar and the principate of Augustus. Before that it is known as the

952:

Its not only Heraclides. We have plenty of evidences showing that the early days Romans were "almost" greeks. The participation of Romans to the olympic games dates 228, before they conquer mediteranian sea. And above all, it is their religion which shows greek influance on romans.

2228:

Roman states had been conquered, while the other one survived. Only later was the survivor able to conquer former territories from the late WRE (who had ceased to exist long ago). There wasn't any fusion between the the WRE and ERE. The WRE had perished long ago. Too late for

2625:

the autocratic (lets use this one) time-periods. This will only confuse too many ppl. There is a huge diffrence between the two systems of goverment (perhaps less than most of us believe but perhaps more than we know of). Better to keep the present names of the two articles.

1441:

different way. The original author may have intended to convey that the modern "Western world" is the inheritor of the Roman legacy but, setting aside the fact that that's not what it says, this is not fair either since many other cultures also inherited from Rome as well.

3709:. Well besides the obvious point that they have diffrent name (and languages, peoples, coins, capitals, etc) and that there were around 400 years between Romulus Augustus (or Julius Nepos) and the coronation of Charlamagne. You argue that the same thing happened with the 1866:

With all that said, still Rome as a political entity, regardless of its ties to the ancient empire, wasnt formally taken off of maps untill 1806. We can debate endlessly here about the Holy Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire, and who spoke what, and who had true

435: 382:

emperors treated them as comical or suppressed them, but some emperors seem to have treated them actively as a parliament. Also the tetrarchy and vicarius periods post-Diocletian I think distributed power more, although quite right, it derived from the emperor(s).

2731:

would expect to find the article covering the entire period from the first expeditions outside of Italy to the "Fall" in the 5th century (with additional info on Byzantium). But if I understand well, the English term "Roman Empire" is of a more restricted nature.

419:

mentioned above - this I see has some stage maps in green, but not the multi-coloured integrated map we are discussing - does that mean in effect we need no longer bother what's on this page but should instead focus on the reorg page? Thanks for any guidance.

1521:

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

3203:

I don't see any rationale behind calling the "Roman Republic" "Imperium Romanum". Perhaps I've missed something. Would it not be simpler to use those and and only those names whose use is well attested - i.e. res publica in both cases, imperium in neither?

3117:

lines because that is what people expect, or not. I would object to that strongly; I think it important to be academically accurate rather than what people expect. However, I agree that it is wise to take popular views into account when writing. Perhaps an

2186:

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

1097:

section) guildline and then improve the article. If your improvements meet with opposition someone will either revert them and/or put the issue here for proper factfinding/checkup. Don't forget to include your sources (references) at the correct location.

588:

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

768:

Listen to the citizens and to the emperors of the roman empire. How they always identified themselves during the 1500 years life of their empire? Did they ever used the "byzantine" nickname? Why do you call them with a name most of them they didnt even

385:

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

1838:

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

2855:

were somehow "official" Latin names for the republic resp. the empire maybe looks nice, but gives a completely wrong impression about the actual use of the terms. They are just too problematic, and we shouldn't try to force infoboxes upon history. ;)

771:

Is it maybe because the descendants of the german tribes, who, after destroying the western roman empire and gaining over the roman name (similar to what the nowdays slavs are dong with macedonia name) convinced you with their anhistorical arguments?

2718:

No, my own wording was a bit sloppy - I'm not a native reader (or writer) either ;). It's probably my own linguistic background. In my language, a lexical distinction is made between "empire" in its territorial and in its constitutional sense, i.e.,

2565:

most people the form of government is not the first thing that comes to mind when confronted with the term "Roman Empire"; rather, it would be the great power that established itself around the Mediterranean after the Punic Wars. "Imperial Rome" (

1024:

create their state. But now we are not in the middle ages. Nowdays the germans tribes (including german, france, north italy and the anglosaxons) have create a great civilisation, even better than the roman one, so the dont need the "roman" glue.

3553:

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

2947:, when the Republican forms of government are going strong. However, I think that if you poll 10 professional historians/writers you'll get a general agreement that the "Republican Period" and the "Imperial Period" are separate, and that the 3762:

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

834:

by Greek Naples, but was not the same thing at all. The fact that the Romans had foundation legends that claimed they were descended from Trojans is irrelevant, as Trojans were not Greek. Please stop pushing this tendentious POV material.

318:

on. It is certainly true under some emperors but I think classical scholars viewed that sort of absolutism as defective and more enlightened emperors ruled slightly more collaboratively. Opinions please? I think it should say either

3683:

The history of Rome spans thousands of years of the existence of a city that grew from a small Italian village in the 9th century BC into the center of a vast civilization that dominated the Mediterranean region for centuries, to a

606:

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

445:

in 101-6 - contrast with the map below, also on Knowledge (XXG), showing the supposed extent of the empire in 50AD. How do we go about getting the map re-drawn? I really like it, the colour scheme and simplicity is really good.

3557:

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

3518:

How bout "temporary conquests", because the plural suggests more than once whilst the article will allow the reader to know just how many. The above info cannot be denied but the Persians gave the Romans one hell of a time.

274:"the greatness and glory of the Roman Empire" (well sometimes we do, but the first is more commonly used). You might think that the point about the 1st emperor is too easy, bu there are plent of ppl who are unsure about it. 2267:

had been seperated, granted, but they also had been re-joined/united under a single emperor (who normally killed the other one). After the division of 395 there wasn't any unification only the destruction of the weaker one.

107:

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

1824:

The language point is a serious issue: the Byzantines spoke Greek, the Franks spoke French, and the Germans spoke German (old versions of course) Which one of the canditates truly spoke Latin as their every-day language?

203:

to the "old" Roman Empire but without a doubt the most important one. However it also had many other elements/cultures inside of it so it isn't solely a 'Greek nation' (which seems to me your POV - simply being honest).

1543:

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

1328:

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

1481:

It succeeded the 500 year-old Roman Republic (510 BC - 1st century BC), which had been weakened by the conflict between Gaius Marius and Sulla and the civil war of Julius Caesar against Pompey and Marcus Brutus

2765:

I really don't thing so. Normally one expects that a empire is ruled over a emperor. German is in this particular case simply better (more acurate). There is the word "Reich" - which can translated as kingdom

2991:). This has been - I believe - the rationale for seperating the periods of Roman history to date: not the international relationship of Rome with her neighbors, but the internal structure of Roman politics. 1871:. I do however believe that 1806 should be the offical end date of the empire, because if nothing, that was the end of the Roman Empire, on paper(regardless of the Holy Roman Empire being a true heir to the 2648:

Empire) and I try to argue that for that reason it would better be called "Imperial Rome", i.e., Rome under the emperors, precisely because of the confusion inherent in using the expression "Roman Empire".

3644:

There are many recorded Byzantine and Holy Roman Royal marriages, which further prove that the Byzantines reconized the Roman state in the west. One good example is when in 972, when the Byzantine emperor

1336:

presence need not have been imposed by the Romans. It may have been simply naval stations permitted by treaty with the Cimbri. Perhaps the first shipyards of Kiel were Roman, but this is only speculation.

1056:

There is a section about the successor states and there are couple of mistakes about the Turkish claim for the throne of the Roman Empire. The Turkish invasion of Italy stopped in 1481 (with the death of

1445:

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

2843:

Constantius et Galerius Augusti creati sunt divisusque inter eos ita Romanus orbis, ut Galliam, Italiam, Africam Constantius, Illyricum, Asiam, Orientem Galerius obtineret, sumptis duobus Caesaribus.

3081:. Sorry - but they win. They write all the sources; that assumption lies behind most - if not all - of their writing. Their perspective trumps yours as far as writing about topics when the writing 752:, If the only change you can see in ancient Roman civilisation over the long centuries of its existence is a change from pagan to Christian, you obviously haven't read enough about the subject. -- 3815:

with its kings taking a title in imitation of both Charlemagne (who has nothing to do with the HRE by the way) and the Caesars, it isn't reasonably connectable with a continuous Roman state. The

3113:

think it wise to take the likely mistaken preconceptions of interested, but uniformed, readers into account. I'm not sure if you're advocating restructuring the division of Republic/Empire along

3002:

a motto. It is possible however; one could look at official inscriptions and monuments and find one, or the other, or both being used in official documents. If one always appears in document pre-

2897:, not because people want to please him by telling him so, but because that is what he rules: the state, the "good of all", the commonwealth, although a couple of senators may disagree that this 2885:

is "the commonwealth of Rome", "the common cause of Rome", "the state of Rome". Both terms are independent from the question whether or not the Roman state is ruled by the Senate or by emperors.

680:

is making a series of fairly extreme and unsupported edits to the lead in connection with the above, having already reverted twice I would be grateful if other editors could also review. Thanks.

3608:

even answered to the Byzantine emperor. Roman tradition, and culture didnt just go extinct, as we know because our own society, and cultures in the western world are heavily influenced by Rome.

1852:

Being completly honest the most ardent defenders of: "BE is the same entity as the Roman Empire" are Greeks or have a Greek background. I think that this issue is a difficult problem to solve.

1185:

article. I'm having trouble getting the table to look right. Does anyone have the template for this info box, cuz its not showing up in the edits. Thnx in advance and keep up the good work.

3912:: "the provincials joined with us in imploring the gods that they would be graciously pleased to preserve you and the republic in that state of prosperity which your many and great virtues.." 2224:"The Empire ceased to be a divided monarchy. The monarchy and state itself went on, reconquering and then losing Italy, Africa, etc. But where does the Roman state disappear?" No; one of the 199:

and more around ancient Greek culture and language. It also gradually lost many of its early Latin elements, like the language itself (and the territories, gained by Justinian). It isn't the

3614:

after the fall of Rome, and told there children, and grand-children they were Romans too, this went on for generations, but also while mixing with the Germans too (if you want, check out

3398:

I think that all the attested names are equally legitimate to use if we want to give a "native name" in the infobox, and I don't think there is an "official" name comparable to, say, "

983:, as it is about the origin myths of Rome, of which there are many, the "Trojan origin" being just one (and as with many such myths, no actual evidence whatever to back it up). Thanks. 764:

At least call it "constatinople" empire or "New Rome" empire (because new rome was the official name of constantinople). What has the term "byzantine" to do with constatinople empire?

3747:. Where is the ancient Roman core? There isn't any Roman core, only a political attempt to unify his conquests. He used the Roman titles, and Latin was used as lingua franca but his 2304:

These scholars you speak off are certainly intitled to their own opinion but they aren't the majority. I really don't want to list the books which defend the end at 476 that I own.

1157:

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

665:

the blatant mis use of their powers and through the blasphemous and hell bound condemnation of their satanic actions that called men to aid in wars for their own political agendas.

3006:

and the other afterawards, that seems to be pretty clear. If both appear mixed, throughout both periods then the use of both is justified. If neither appears as officially part of

521:

Byzantine times). I have altered the map to reflect this, i.e. coloured the southern Crimea green ("after 14"). Until I get more information, it'll have to do as an approximation.

1322:, it says that the Romans kept a military presense in Denmark!? This is not cited at all. If it is true, then someone should put a map of the empire with Denmark in its borders. 3717:. My friend, it is one of the oldest tricks in the book of politics. To impose your rule (and the right of your family) you proclaim yourself as the heir of ancient traditions. 3367:

motto becomes "significant enough" to include. My suggestion of only mentioning "official" mottoes is only one, and perhaps the most restrictive (except for leaving the mottoes

2647:

OK, I seem to have trouble making myself clear. My point is the exact opposite. This article bases the term "Roman Empire" exclusively on its form of government (Emperor --: -->

2918:

Fine by me. Your reasoning does makes sense (It isn't the ancient Roman name). Replace it by nothing (and brace yourself for a revert by someone who doesn't agree with this :)

1164:

Rome dominated the Mediteranean and controlled all of the islands and coastal areas and clearly dominated Southwestern Europe. Find a way to say that, because it is the truth.

3618:). The Roman populace was never wiped out, and it is debateable that Roman civilian loses were minimal. 300 plus years later there was still a Roman essence among the people. 3277:, edited about the year 330, and in a series of other Greek and Latin texts of the fourth and fifth centuries (...). In this period the term was clearly used to denote the 3743:

revolt or a descendant of an ancient Roman family. The overwhelming majority of his nobility were Franks, the core of his army was Frank, the language of the Frank was

1811:

have even less credability. Noone can resurect the dead. Someone can posses the same territories and even speak the same language but that doesn't make someone "Roman".

798:

What kind of encyclopedia are your trying to create? an encyclopedia based on popular majoritarian views and rumors or an encyclopedia based on accuracy and on sources?

2573:, which has nothing to do with emperorship, is mentioned in the lead, suggesting that it illustrates the term "Roman Empire" as used in the article, which it doesn't. 3428:

comes perhaps closest to our modern use of country names. We could also have the infobox say "several" under "native name" and then explain the matter in a footnote.

2901:

actually the common good. The city of Rome, on the other hand, has power over a number of subjects; its power, and the area over which it is projected, is called the

230:

continuity, and that when it comes to editing articles wikipedia should always stick to mainstream terminology and should not try to decide between right and wrong.

146:

was adapted from the Greeks. Constitution and military were probably the only domains where Rome made its own innovations, although their origins were there too the

456:

This map is wrong in several aspects as there are many territories that were part of the empire at the time such as northern Spain and do not appear in this map.--

813: 533:

I like the muted colours on the new map but it seems strangely squished, north to south. Is this some Knowledge (XXG) image rendering flaw, or is it the map??

369:

Emperors could exercise their absolute power more openly, or more veiled, trying to gain the support of the aristocracy. It always was absolute power, though.

496:

If anyone feels that there's something wrong (in various areas, sources differ on when they were conquered), please say so; I still can shuffle things around.

488: 441:

The map (which is nice and generally very good) seems to show Dacia (modern-day Romania and part of Bulgaria) as being Roman in 14AD, which is wrong - Trajan

3837:

Isn't there a way to have the infobox say something along the lines of "476 AD (West), 1453 AD (East)"? It seems to me that this would satisfy all parties.

3725:, a saxon king. The same William had defeated the Saxons at the battle of Hastings and his Norman aristocracy later largely displaced the Saxon aristocracy. 3464:

Is wrong because Iraq was invaded numerous times and Ctesiphon itself was sacked by the Roman army four times, so how could they have only invaded it once?

3322:. Republic? Pricipate? Never? Some modern political pundits have referred - quite often - to the United States as a "new Rome" - but the US Government does 1437:

Regarding "known", Rome obviously knew about Parthia and there is evidence of trade with China. So the "known world" at that time was actually quite large.

510:

Sea (including part of the Crimea) as Roman - did you leave these off or is it that they were occupied later when other parts of the empire were smaller?

1497:

I believe this is extraneous. Obviously this sentence is talking about the circumstances of the end of the republic. That doesn't need to be pointed out.

3401: 924:

also goes to some lengths to explain to the layman the various naming conventions and how the peoples of that empire thought of themselves as well.

1181:

Hi everyone. Just wanted to say this is very nice page in my opinion. I specialize in African history and wanted to make a similar table for the

3672:

is ludacris. But thats not even the debate here! the debate is the offical end of the empire, and that date is 1806 when the last Roman Emperor,

1354:

Although this is a detail Western historians have traditionally not wanted to acknowledge it seems worth clarifying in this article. Comments? --

2998:

the mottoes are used? Do they appear in inscriptions? When? How? What for? I'm not even sure that it can be unambiguously agreed upon that Rome

1752:

With these reasons alone the Holy Roman Empire should be noted on this article. If anyone has any problems or concerns to me added the medieval

3770: 2943:

the forms of government. I don't think anyone can reasonably fail to acknowledge that Rome was an "international empire" since the end of the

1086: 1085:

Look, you are not supossed to wait for the anyone's approval (the above "you" - there is no such person) to improve a article. Read first the

3340:

Are we only supposed to use "official names" in the infobox, as used in treaties with foreign nations and such? I suspect that in that case

2315:

is a valid successor (nor the Frankish empire of Charlemagne). I know of the invention of the word Byzantine. I didn't wrote these chapters.

3878: 3751:

was mostly Germanic, not Roman. In fact the realm was divided under his grand-sons. The HRE is a successor state of the Frankish Empire.

3297:. It was used specifically in contrast with the barbarian world (...)." (R.L. Wolff, "Romania: The Latin Empire of Constantinople". In: 1075:

Don't you have any counter claims? I will wait for one more day and then I will make the changes that I mentioned above. With respect,

856:

You claim that Trojans were not greeks. Then how do you explain the fact that they spoke the same language and had the same religion?

3536:

this map with a few other territories, and am putting it in the infobox. If you have any other suggestions, please comment. Regards,

2518:

Comparing this the USA is a very weak excuse, there was indeed a division between the CSA (south) and the USA (north) but there also

1569:

page. But instead of including this old term, he states that the Old Meaning of Republic is "monarchy" and so he has added this to

3641:

must have reconized Charlemange's Empire as the true Western heir, or she would never have agreed to marry her son to his daughter.

3379:

mottoes used by the Roman governments themselves puts the onus for demonstrating significance on a third, neutral, and conveniently

3214:

You're right, I got carried away a bit. I agree with you that we should use only the names that are attested. For the Empire, both

1208:

in modern Turkey, located east of Istanbul, on the Marmara Sea) was the eastern capital of the Roman Empire between 286-324 (until

3353:

as a name of the late Roman Empire seems a lot more justifiable than the ideologically inspired "New Rome" for the United States.

2523:

division? I truly don't believe so. You defend 1453, I say 395. In the end we both are simply wrong, and we can say what we want;

2805:

for the other, as these terms have nothing to do with forms of government and their use in this context is therefore misleading.

194:(at least that I remember, but if you are able to find such a statement please let me know). I have read (and defend) that Greek 3586:

In 1806 the Roman Empire was on maps, making it the offical date Rome was taken off maps, and ceased to be a political entity.

2569:

in parallel with the article "Roman Republic") would be more transparent. I find it all the more confusing that the Latin term

766:

Its a term some people invented three hundred years after the fall of the roman empire. Its a wrong term and shouldnt be used.

3936: 730:, which conquered the tiny rump state which was all that was left of what had once been the Eastern half of the Roman Empire. 3825: 2407: 2138: 2085: 1969: 1898: 1775: 3952: 1272: 2893:

do not refer to political systems in Latin the way they do in our modern languages. An emperor can perfectly well govern a

1308: 111:

Right sure, we all know how well the Romans used the Greek phalanx and the Companion cavalary to expand the republic, NOT.

3689: 1876: 1757: 247:

This isn't correct. Rome was a city. It was the empire which comprised the majority of the population in Western Eurasia.

690:

I agree. The debt that Rome owed to Greece and the Trojan foundation legend are interesting and important, but belong at

1026:

It is time for the germans to return the roman name back to their owners, and the real owners of the roman name are the

94: 3924: 3055:

appear to automatically think of the "empire of Rome" (i.e. a division based on international influence and the Roman

86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 1224:. Constantine also resided in Nicomedia between 324 and 330, until he established Constantinople as the new capital. 937: 2979:

period), Republican Form (Roman Republic), and Autocracy (Principate and Dominate - sometimes hereditary as in the

1635: 1376:... Over the course of the second and first centuries B.C. the percentage of Greek speakers in Rome became greater. 568: 38: 3820: 2402: 2133: 2080: 1964: 1893: 1770: 1113: 416: 1124:

Removed the text box. As nobody gave a reaction on above comment, hopefully nobody will mind - or even notice.--

1645:

last cites this meaning from 1684, it is difficult to tell to which present states it would have been applied.

1298: 1262: 1165: 830:. The Roman Empire was, as you must understand, the continuation of the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic was 3846:

Ow, by the way, if we have the empire end in 1453, we also should add a new "native name" to the infobox. See

3882: 3326:

do so. Knowledge (XXG) of 6,252AD would be wrong as listing "New Rome" as the "motto" of the United States -

3144:

over her neighbors very early in its history until its eventual demise, and that this might be considered an

3078:

Roman historians of the last several hundred years have made the reverse distinction in their published works

3819:

is far closer to that. I'd say more, but I'm prolly only gonna "convince" those who already agree. Regards,

3588:

This is all regardless if you dont consider the Holy Roman Empire to be the true heir of the Western Empire!

3285:; it was essentially a popular rather than a literary expression, formed perhaps by analogy on the model of 309:

Apologies if this has already been discussed, did a quick check of the archives. I'm wondering if the word "

260:? I am too tired to edit this myself. Perhaps someone else can attend to improving the quality of writing. 3874: 3480:

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

2975:), but these distinct governmental forms break down into three broad categories: Hereditary Monarchy (the 2837:

is used many times by Eutropius to refer to the empire after Augustus, for instance during the Tetrarchy (

1566: 555: 710:

There is only a pagan and a christian period, of one and single empire, the Roman empire, which fell 1453

2932:- and this in only my take on it based on the historians I've read - that the general divisions between 2813:"the common cause" or "the state". They do not simply overlap with the English "Empire" and "Republic". 2311:

PS (after edit-conflict): I don't like the present article either and I personally don't think that the

1213: 980: 147: 3320:

when did it become part of the official language of documents created by the ruling bodies of the state

1500:

The precise end of the republic is debatable and there's no reason to try to pin it to this event here.

656: 256:

Another comment: some of this article is written like a high school essay. Why is this in the article:

1231: 534: 447: 3722: 3718: 3669: 1872: 1753: 122: 3424:

is used to denote Rome's power/territory and can therefore mean the Republic as well as the Empire.

1609:, and would include not only the republics of antiquity, as above, but, for example, the following 668: 597:

How is that even possible if the Roman Republic didn't dissolve until four years later, in 27 BC? --

3804: 3697:(One in my talk-page, other on your and a third one here, one "here" would have been quite enough) 3605: 3454: 3174:

This would engage with the mistaken contingent of readers, and still preserve academic accuracy. --

1036: 998: 966: 903: 857: 800: 773: 749: 713: 677: 551: 3034:

Empire" in a general sense, we think of the empire of Rome, not strictly Rome under the emperors.

1669: 1140:

do so in a few days but (of course) if anyone else feels like doing so meanwhile, please step in.

826:

the notion that the Roman Empire was merely a continuation of the Greek colony at Naples. This is

142:

Flamarande most scholars wouldn't agree with you. Not only democracy but also the very concept of

3812: 3808: 3634: 3630: 3388: 3331: 3179: 3090: 3023: 1868: 1736:

recognized Holy Roman Emperor's Imperial authority for example in 972 A.D, the Byzantine emperor

1733: 1653: 1549: 1278: 3344:

might be the only option for both Republic and Empire, although I am not sure of it. Otherwise,

1717: 1704:

section, because the Holy Roman Empire was a conscience attempt to revive the western empire in

1682:

Don't you think the introductory passage is too long? It should end after the first paragraph.--

263:

I was going to read the whole article, but the First Emperor section thoroughly discouraged me.

2877:

is then taken to mean "Roman empire, ruled by an emperor". This is simply a wrong translation.

936:

Thanks. A minor bit of Googling also tracks down the Heraclides reference. It's from Plutarch,

3905: 3665: 2033:

You defend 1453, I say 395. In the end we both are simply wrong, and we can say what we want;

1697: 1570: 1230:

Therefore, Nicomedia should also be added on the capital cities graph at the top of the page.

47: 17: 3943:, Vol. 21, No. 63. (Oct., 1952), pp. 97-103. "The Emperor and his republic" Inscription from 2845: 1252:

drove them out, and especially that what is now a large part of the Netherlands (west of the

3921: 3847: 3646: 3576: 3508: 3420:

is used in such cases. However, this denotes the people, not a "state" in our modern sense.

2770:

empire. Then they have "Königreich" and "Kaisereich". The first one could be translated by "

1737: 1720:

to name a few. It should also be noted (not on this article of course) that in the west the

1003: 944: 921: 878: 836: 822: 753: 695: 215:

someone's criteria on defining "Roman" and the "Romans". For example Byzantium was the only

2600:

Uhm, yes, I believe that is what I am arguing too. So I suppose you agree with my comment?

2461:

Where you truly thinking in converting me :)? Not only the emperor of the WRE was deposed;

1294: 1258: 524:

The colour was wrong, yes. Corrected. (The update may need Reload in the browser to show.)

3778: 3748: 3714: 3615: 3244: 3205: 2984: 2919: 2825: 2776: 2690: 2685: 2627: 2588: 2528: 2354: 2305: 2042: 1929: 1853: 1562: 1141: 1099: 984: 925: 788: 731: 681: 642: 631: 608: 511: 468: 421: 387: 342: 327: 285: 275: 205: 166: 133: 112: 3406:" with which the empire refer to itself in transactions with other nations. According to 3240: 1398:

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

1373:

It is reasonable to assume Greek speakers made up at least 15% of the population of Rome.

3596:

after 476? The answer is no of course, most of the Germans that took power were already

2833:

Replace them by nothing? To give a quick example: even in the late 4th century the term

1244:

At least one of the two maps should show that the Roman Empire held territory up to the

3948: 3871:

Did the roman empire take over ALL the countries surrounding the medditerrainian sea?

3816: 3710: 3626: 3537: 3416:(used for both the republic and the empire) is not a juristic person; instead the term 3153: 3149: 3127: 2980: 2960: 2658:

I probably see how you misread my words. I've changed them; sorry for not being clear.

1683: 745: 547: 296: 258:

Who was the first emperor? is one of the never ending questions about the Roman Empire.

1961:

article with Western Roman Empire and create a new article for the actual Roman Empire

1740:

recognized Otto's imperial title and agreed to a marriage between Otto's son and heir

434: 3932: 3891: 3790: 3685: 3638: 3562: 3520: 3487: 3472:

Once by Galerius, although an earlier attempt was a failure, another in 296 AD worked

3408: 3384: 3327: 3318:

by some contemporary historian, in my opinion. What matters (again in my opinion) is

3243:. For now, I think it's best to stick with those terms whose attestation is clear. -- 3175: 3086: 3019: 2976: 2956: 2727:, respectively. (The first term may cover the second.) Therefore, someone looking up 1526: 1508: 1449: 1384: 1355: 1188: 1125: 1118: 1076: 1066: 3533: 955:

Can you give us a reasonable explanation why all romans gods originated from greece?

844:

Again you are using unhistorical majoritarian popular views and naming conventions!

3851: 3838: 3744: 3498: 3429: 3375: 3354: 3302: 3253: 3252:

Hmm... Agreed, trying to "solve" the issue this way comes dangerously close to OR.

3230: 3223: 3200: 3161: 3157: 3131: 3101: 3060: 3035: 2944: 2906: 2857: 2814: 2733: 2659: 2650: 2601: 2574: 1725: 1623: 1585: 1227:

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

691: 457: 264: 248: 3854: 3841: 3830: 3793: 3781: 3692: 3680:, and Rome, as an Empire was taken off of maps after being on them for millennia. 3565: 3540: 3523: 3511: 3501: 3490: 3432: 3392: 3357: 3335: 3305: 3256: 3247: 3233: 3208: 3183: 3104: 3094: 3038: 3027: 2922: 2909: 2860: 2828: 2817: 2779: 2736: 2693: 2662: 2653: 2630: 2604: 2591: 2577: 2531: 2412: 2357: 2308: 2143: 2090: 2045: 1974: 1932: 1903: 1879: 1856: 1780: 1760: 1686: 1672: 1552: 1529: 1511: 1452: 1387: 1358: 1340: 1281: 1234: 1191: 1168: 1144: 1128: 1102: 1079: 1069: 1039: 1006: 987: 969: 947: 928: 906: 881: 860: 839: 803: 791: 776: 756: 734: 716: 698: 684: 671: 659: 645: 634: 611: 601: 575: 562: 537: 528: 514: 503: 471: 460: 450: 424: 409: 390: 373: 345: 330: 299: 288: 278: 267: 251: 234: 224: 208: 184: 169: 158: 136: 125: 115: 313:" in the opener is quite right - most modern experts tend to speak of Rome as an 3622: 1709: 1596: 1422:

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

1319: 1197:

Nicomedia was the eastern capital city of Diocletian during the Tetrarchy System

1182: 1065:). Otranto was lost to western powers during this power struggle. With respect, 598: 572: 559: 543: 525: 500: 406: 370: 231: 221: 181: 155: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3775:

the majority of scholars say 476 and Knowledge (XXG) follows common scholarship

3222:(first attested in the 4th century, I believe) are used. This passage in Livy ( 2525:

the majority of scholars say 476 and Knowledge (XXG) follows common scholarship

2035:

the majority of scholars say 476 and Knowledge (XXG) follows common scholarship

997:"Please dont use the term "byzantine" empire. It is tottaly unistorical." says 3972: 3917: 3673: 3580: 3165: 3064: 2964: 1721: 1610: 1565:

has finally admitted that there is an Old meaning of the term Republic at the

1249: 1221: 1062: 3658: 3597: 3072: 2988: 2972: 2955:

be talking about "Republican" v.s. "Imperial" periods of Roman History, but

2041:

but know that 1453 isn't accepted as the end of the Roman Empire ;). Sorry.

1745: 1337: 1217: 1201: 1058: 1027: 727: 355: 310: 762:

emperor, and the main difference between them was the christian religion.

476: 245:

Rome dominated Western Eurasia, comprising the majority of its population.

3928: 3677: 3483:

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

3141: 3068: 3056: 3003: 2968: 1657: 1606: 1590: 1581: 1209: 3944: 3654: 3653:'s imperial title and agreed to a marriage between Otto's son and heir 3601: 1741: 1705: 1629: 958: 851: 847: 151: 2865:

Basically, what I am saying is this. In the infoboxes, the Latin term

1256:

River) was part of the Roman Empire, even if only for a few decades.

3909: 3811:

of 1917 as the end date? As the Holy Roman Empire is effectively the

3807:? Why not go even further and count the Russian Empire and take the 3629:

again, it was right to revive the empire in the west, he was crowned

3593: 3145: 1713: 1617: 1031: 902:

Yes I know. Homer is not history, you (after 3000 years) are. *sigh*

442: 484:

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

1660:

diminish religion why was the constitution of Rome divided between

3960: 3015: 1253: 1205: 1117:

article step-by-step is a more realistic endeavor. Any thoughts?--

487: 475: 433: 176: 143: 920:

Thanks Nicknack009, very accurately put. By the way, the Lead of

3951:. Edited and translated by Louis J. Swift and James H. Oliver. " 3650: 3470:

Once by Septimius Severus in which he deported and enslaved many

2797:

Then again, something should be done about the infoboxes saying

1605:

These were in some respects broader than the present meaning of

1245: 962: 3931:

of Autun received 600,000 sesterces "from the republic", temp.

1410:

The Roman Empire was the superpower of the known Western world.

3575:

I am going to mark the life span of the Roman Empire from the

3476:

Julian invaded Mesopotamia and wa skilled outside of Ctesiphon

1642: 1539:

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

25: 1504:

If you or anybody disagree you can feel free to put it back.

3959:, Vol. 83, No. 3. (Jul., 1962), pp. 247-264. Articles have 2994:

With that said, why not go back to the histories and check

3701:

A major argument of yours is the maps: You think that the

3507:

So shal I change the text to a few times instead of once.

1434:

universal opinion) it was certainly not overwhelmingly so.

1173:

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

854:" designate the forces opposed to the Trojans, not Greeks! 2869:

is given as a direct translation of "Roman Republic", as

1418:

The Roman Empire was the superpower of Europe and Africa.

3199:. While I can see the confilct about the native name of 3168:

and not its international political and military power.

2951:

is the defining factor. Ideally then we should probably

1668:(secular law)? Is there not a glaring discrepancy here? 3196: 2873:

use that term to designate the period before Augustus.

3621:

When things had settled down after all the Choas, and

3273:

made its first appearances in the so-called Chronicle

3047:

Um, no - that's my point. Please be assured that I am

1728:, and the Holy Roman Empire was looked at as an heir. 3014:

is appropriate and Roman civilization did not have a

1277:

I agree with that. we should have a map like that ¥→

3592:Do people think the Barbarians just killed all the 1002:"Greek", which the Greeks don't call themselves? -- 3688:empire marking the beginning of the Middle Ages!-- 814:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (common names) 3314:It is more-or-less immaterial as to when it was 3109:I don't think your assumptions are wrong, and I 816:. Whether you like it or not, the convention in 499:Else, I'll be switching the maps in a few days. 1794:The true end of the Roman Empire was at 395 AD. 1494:The two "which" clauses in a row sound strange. 336:Roman society was surely aristocratic, but the 3721:was crowned king of England upon the chair of 3600:. The first two German rulers after the fall, 3122:of the possible/probable misconception, and a 1366:Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic 979:Armodius, your discussion belongs in the page 3612:The people still considered themselves Romans 3152:, historians usually distinguish between the 2617:Not really, you seem to want to use the name 8: 3059:) instead of "Rome under the emperors" (The 3051:making a personal criticism or rebuke here: 1571:List_of_republics#Other_meanings_of_Republic 1425:A few problems with the original statement. 554:, this one uses soemthing else, most likely 1712:'s eyes, and among other emperor's such as 1477:Alphablast, I reverted the following edit. 651:Intro Paragraph -- Fall of Byzantine Empire 628:everbody knew what they were supposed to do 415:Thanks Varana. I've just been browsing the 405:yellow area next to it is Pannonia/Moesia. 1473:Reverted "which ended the republic" clause 1402:Intro edit regarding "known Western World" 550:difference, cartographers usualy use the 3400:Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( 1087:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold in updating pages 3668:didnt have any real claim to be the the 3453: 2039:So make up words to your heart's content 1580:For the archaizing meanings of the word 3898: 3134:articles? Something along the lines of: 2689:one?) is simple an impossible mission. 2467:Where was the re-unification after 395? 324:aristocratic and (sometimes) autocratic 190:I never said that the Byzantines where 3777:(or loudly proclaims it does). Sorry. 3771:Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation 3703:Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation 3195:Hrm. I've just come here after seeing 3085:on these sources for justification. - 2839:His igitur abeuntibus administratione 2527:(or loudly proclaims it does). Sorry. 2313:Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation 1692:Western Roman Empire/Holy Roman Empire 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2971:(with a footnote for the short-lived 1406:I changed the statement in the intro 1368:", by McDonnell/MacDonnell, page 79, 877:They didn't. Homer is not history. -- 7: 1702:The Fall of the Western Roman Empire 546:. As to the Squished look, that's a 3953:Constantius II on Flavius Philippus 2987:dynasties, sometimes not as in the 3867:Did the roman empire take over.... 2847:Having the infoboxes suggest that 1926:it is a difficult problem to solve 1875:), even though I believe it was.-- 1756:to this one please let me know. -- 24: 3957:The American Journal of Philology 3301:, 23 (1948), pp. 1-34 (pp. 2-3)) 3010:documents and edicts, then maybe 2469:There simply was none whatsoever. 295:contradictory to Wiki standards. 3920:indispensible to the republic." 3705:(HRE) is the same entity as the 3225:) appears to justify the use of 3148:in the same manner of the later 2881:means the "power of Rome" while 1293: 1257: 641:well, as does your piece above! 29: 3579:in 31 BC, to the abdication of 2037:(or loudly proclaims it does). 1575:==Other meanings of Republic== 354:As explained in the article on 3885:) 01:13, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 3374:It also seems that you open a 3275:Consularis Constantinopolitana 1700:section to this article under 1: 3566:16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC) 3541:14:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 2463:the whole WRE ceased to exist 1192:23:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1103:16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 1080:22:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 1070:21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 1040:18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 1007:23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 988:13:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 970:13:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 948:13:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 929:12:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 907:13:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 882:13:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 861:13:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 840:12:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 804:12:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 792:11:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 777:11:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 646:19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 635:11:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 612:09:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 602:01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 576:17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 563:14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 538:15:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 529:09:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 515:20:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 504:20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 472:12:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 461:12:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 451:10:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 425:21:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 410:18:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 397:particular direction here. :) 391:16:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC) 374:16:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC) 346:22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 331:09:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 300:19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 289:10:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 3549:Eliminate Holy Roman Empire? 2809:means "area of control" and 1169:23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 1145:20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 1129:06:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 757:12:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 735:09:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 717:09:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 699:19:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 685:19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 672:14:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 660:17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 593:Roman Empire Began In 31 BC? 279:20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) 268:19:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC) 252:18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC) 3977:Six Livres de la Republíque 3855:17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3842:17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3831:00:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3794:07:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 3782:14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 3693:07:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 3524:07:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 3433:15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3393:21:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3358:21:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3336:14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3306:11:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3269:, R. L. Wolff says: "(...) 3257:17:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3248:14:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3234:11:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3209:10:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3184:21:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3105:23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3095:14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3039:11:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3028:00:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 2949:internal form of government 2923:00:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 1114:Roman Empire/reorganization 417:Roman_Empire/reorganization 137:18:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 126:17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 116:00:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 3995: 3789:wre . wre ended in 476 AD. 3625:was able to unify most of 3512:08:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 3502:06:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 3491:03:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 3342:senatus populusque Romanus 2910:20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 2861:07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2829:23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2818:07:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2780:21:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2737:21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2694:20:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2663:20:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2654:20:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2631:19:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2605:19:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2592:18:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2578:16:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2532:02:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 2520:was a clear re-unification 2413:00:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 2358:21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2309:21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2144:20:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2091:20:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2046:19:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 1975:19:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 1933:18:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 1904:15:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 1341:18:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 1309:14:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC) 1273:15:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC) 1135:Late Roman Empire sections 3509:The Honorable Kermanshahi 3140:Even though Rome exerted 1880:05:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1857:03:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 1781:12:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1761:07:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1673:00:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC) 1643:Oxford English Dictionary 1588:, or as a translation of 1318:According to the article 1282:20:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 1235:14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 621:for a process which took 235:22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 225:22:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 209:21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 185:18:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 170:18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 159:17:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 3690:Lucius Sempronius Turpio 2621:for both the republican 1877:Lucius Sempronius Turpio 1758:Lucius Sempronius Turpio 1687:16:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 1553:04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 1530:03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1512:04:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC) 1484:which ended the republic 1364:Addendum: According to " 961:mountain is taller than 3468:Once by Avidius Cassius 3126:very early in both the 1636:Ancien Régime in France 1453:14:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 1388:18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 1359:18:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 569:plate carrée projection 567:Thanks. :) It's simple 3458: 3171: 3075:forms of government). 1567:Talk:List of republics 957:. Is it maybe because 556:Gall-Peters projection 492: 480: 438: 3935:, W. S. Maguinness " 3633:, and took the title 3457: 3451:The following image: 3164:based on its form of 3137: 2801:for this article and 1600:, see those articles. 1214:Constantine the Great 1095:but don't be reckless 981:Talk:Founding of Rome 491: 479: 437: 148:Athenian constitution 42:of past discussions. 3821:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3723:Edward the Confessor 3719:William I of England 3707:Western Roman Empire 3670:Western Roman Empire 3649:publicly recognized 3197:rather peculiar edit 2403:Deacon of Pndapetzim 2134:Deacon of Pndapetzim 2081:Deacon of Pndapetzim 1965:Deacon of Pndapetzim 1894:Deacon of Pndapetzim 1873:Western Roman Empire 1771:Deacon of Pndapetzim 1754:Western Roman Empire 1696:I am going to add a 1664:(religious law) and 1052:Mehmet the Conqueror 3947:, from the time of 3676:, was abdicated by 3606:Theodoric the Great 1517:Proposed protection 1216:in 324) during the 1166:John5Russell3Finley 1093:(in particular the 846:In Homer's Iliad, " 552:Mercator projection 3813:Kingdom of Germany 3809:October Revolution 3635:Imperator Augustus 3631:King of the Romans 3459: 3362:And terms such as 3229:for the Republic. 3061:Roman civilization 2883:res publica Romana 2849:res publica Romana 2803:Res publica Romana 1869:Translatio Imperii 1734:Byzantine Emperors 1654:Classical republic 1548:Please fix these. 1248:River, before the 493: 481: 439: 3941:Greece & Rome 3937:Eumenius of Autun 3906:Pliny the Younger 3886: 3877:comment added by 3828: 3666:Holy Roman Empire 3241:original reaearch 3142:political control 2567:as opposed to the 2410: 2141: 2088: 1972: 1901: 1778: 1724:were know as the 1698:Holy Roman Empire 1656:. And if Modern 1558:List of Republics 1461:Holy Roman Empire 1314:Romans in Denmark 240:Dubious assertion 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 18:Talk:Roman Empire 3986: 3979: 3970: 3964: 3922:Historia Augusta 3903: 3872: 3848:Byzantine Empire 3824: 3805:Sultanate of Rûm 3664:Saying that the 3647:John I Tzimisces 3637:. The Byzantine 3577:Battle of Actium 3422:Imperium Romanum 3405: 3283:Imperium Romanum 3227:imperium Romanum 2903:imperium Romanum 2879:Imperium Romanum 2875:Imperium Romanum 2853:imperium Romanum 2799:Imperium Romanum 2571:Imperium Romanum 2406: 2137: 2084: 1968: 1897: 1774: 1738:John I Tzimisces 1535:Run-on sentences 1305: 1302: 1297: 1269: 1266: 1261: 1212:was defeated by 922:Byzantine Empire 823:Byzantine Empire 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3994: 3993: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3971: 3967: 3904: 3900: 3869: 3749:Frankish Empire 3715:Sassanid Empire 3616:Romano-Germanic 3573: 3551: 3449: 3418:populus Romanus 3399: 2562: 1694: 1680: 1563:User:Pmanderson 1560: 1537: 1519: 1490:Three reasons: 1475: 1463: 1404: 1396: 1394:Marcus Aurelius 1348: 1316: 1303: 1300: 1289: 1267: 1264: 1242: 1199: 1179: 1155: 1153:West Eurasia ?? 1137: 1110: 1054: 653: 595: 443:conquered Dacia 432: 307: 242: 105: 103:Greek influence 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3992: 3990: 3981: 3980: 3965: 3949:Constantius II 3897: 3896: 3895: 3868: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3844: 3817:Ottoman Empire 3797: 3796: 3785: 3784: 3765: 3764: 3759: 3758: 3753: 3752: 3739: 3738: 3733: 3732: 3727: 3726: 3713:and the later 3711:Persian Empire 3657:and his niece 3627:Western Europe 3572: 3569: 3550: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3527: 3526: 3505: 3504: 3477: 3473: 3471: 3469: 3467: 3466:Once by Trajan 3465: 3461: 3448: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3409:Der neue Pauly 3372: 3309: 3308: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3172: 3150:British Empire 3135: 3128:Roman republic 3120:acknowledgment 3042: 3041: 2981:Julio-Claudian 2926: 2925: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2863: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2656: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2595: 2594: 2561: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1750: 1749: 1744:and his niece 1693: 1690: 1679: 1676: 1652:Is NOT Rome a 1639: 1638: 1632: 1626: 1620: 1603: 1602: 1559: 1556: 1536: 1533: 1518: 1515: 1502: 1501: 1498: 1495: 1488: 1487: 1474: 1471: 1469: 1462: 1459: 1457: 1443: 1442: 1438: 1435: 1429:The phrasing " 1420: 1419: 1412: 1411: 1403: 1400: 1395: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1347: 1344: 1326:Kiel and Pliny 1315: 1312: 1306: 1288: 1285: 1270: 1241: 1238: 1198: 1195: 1178: 1175: 1154: 1151: 1149: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1109: 1108:Reorganization 1106: 1083: 1082: 1053: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 807: 806: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 746:Roman Republic 738: 737: 722: 721: 720: 719: 702: 701: 652: 649: 638: 637: 594: 591: 587: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 548:Map projection 522: 507: 506: 497: 486: 485: 467:colour-coded. 464: 463: 431: 428: 413: 412: 402: 398: 379: 378: 377: 376: 367: 349: 348: 306: 303: 293: 282: 281: 241: 238: 212: 211: 201:only successor 173: 172: 150:and the Greek 140: 139: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3991: 3978: 3974: 3969: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3933:Constantius I 3930: 3926: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3902: 3899: 3893: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3884: 3880: 3879:70.250.172.74 3876: 3866: 3856: 3853: 3849: 3845: 3843: 3840: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3827: 3822: 3818: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3795: 3792: 3787: 3786: 3783: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3767: 3766: 3761: 3760: 3755: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3741: 3740: 3735: 3734: 3729: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3695: 3694: 3691: 3687: 3686:Romano-German 3681: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3662: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3642: 3640: 3639:Empress Irene 3636: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3619: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3590: 3589: 3584: 3582: 3578: 3570: 3568: 3567: 3564: 3559: 3555: 3548: 3542: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3525: 3522: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3513: 3510: 3503: 3500: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3489: 3484: 3481: 3478: 3474: 3462: 3456: 3452: 3446: 3434: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3410: 3403: 3397: 3396: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3377: 3373: 3370: 3365: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3356: 3352: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3307: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3280: 3279:orbis Romanus 3276: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3258: 3255: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3246: 3242: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3207: 3202: 3198: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3170: 3169: 3167: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3136: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3103: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3079: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3040: 3037: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2992: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2977:Roman Kingdom 2974: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2924: 2921: 2917: 2916: 2911: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2862: 2859: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2844: 2842: 2836: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2827: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2781: 2778: 2773: 2769: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2738: 2735: 2730: 2729:Romeinse Rijk 2726: 2722: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2695: 2692: 2687: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2664: 2661: 2657: 2655: 2652: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2632: 2629: 2624: 2620: 2619:Imperial Rome 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2606: 2603: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2593: 2590: 2585: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2559: 2533: 2530: 2526: 2521: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2414: 2409: 2404: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2359: 2356: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2314: 2310: 2307: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2227: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2145: 2140: 2135: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2092: 2087: 2082: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2047: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1976: 1971: 1966: 1962: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1934: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1905: 1900: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1795: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1782: 1777: 1772: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1759: 1755: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1691: 1689: 1688: 1685: 1677: 1675: 1674: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1650: 1646: 1644: 1637: 1633: 1631: 1627: 1625: 1621: 1619: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1612: 1608: 1601: 1598: 1595: 1592: 1589: 1587: 1583: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1573: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1557: 1555: 1554: 1551: 1550:RedRabbit1983 1546: 1545: 1540: 1534: 1532: 1531: 1528: 1523: 1516: 1514: 1513: 1510: 1505: 1499: 1496: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1485: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1472: 1470: 1467: 1466:empire left. 1460: 1458: 1455: 1454: 1451: 1446: 1439: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1423: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1401: 1399: 1393: 1389: 1386: 1382: 1377: 1374: 1370: 1369: 1367: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1357: 1352: 1345: 1343: 1342: 1339: 1333: 1330: 1327: 1323: 1321: 1313: 1311: 1310: 1307: 1299: 1296: 1286: 1284: 1283: 1280: 1279:WikiDragon295 1275: 1274: 1271: 1263: 1260: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1239: 1237: 1236: 1233: 1228: 1225: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1196: 1194: 1193: 1190: 1186: 1184: 1176: 1174: 1171: 1170: 1167: 1162: 1158: 1152: 1150: 1147: 1146: 1143: 1134: 1130: 1127: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1115: 1107: 1105: 1104: 1101: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1081: 1078: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1051: 1041: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1008: 1005: 1000: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 986: 982: 971: 968: 964: 960: 956: 951: 950: 949: 946: 942: 940: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 927: 923: 908: 905: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 883: 880: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 862: 859: 855: 853: 849: 843: 842: 841: 838: 833: 829: 824: 819: 815: 811: 810: 809: 808: 805: 802: 799: 796: 795: 794: 793: 790: 778: 775: 770: 765: 760: 759: 758: 755: 751: 747: 742: 741: 740: 739: 736: 733: 729: 724: 723: 718: 715: 711: 706: 705: 704: 703: 700: 697: 693: 689: 688: 687: 686: 683: 679: 678:User:Armodios 674: 673: 670: 666: 662: 661: 658: 650: 648: 647: 644: 636: 633: 629: 624: 623:several years 620: 616: 615: 614: 613: 610: 604: 603: 600: 592: 590: 577: 574: 570: 566: 565: 564: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 541: 540: 539: 536: 532: 531: 530: 527: 523: 519: 518: 517: 516: 513: 505: 502: 498: 495: 494: 490: 483: 482: 478: 474: 473: 470: 462: 459: 455: 454: 453: 452: 449: 444: 436: 429: 427: 426: 423: 418: 411: 408: 403: 399: 395: 394: 393: 392: 389: 383: 375: 372: 368: 365: 361: 357: 353: 352: 351: 350: 347: 344: 339: 335: 334: 333: 332: 329: 325: 321: 316: 312: 304: 302: 301: 298: 291: 290: 287: 280: 277: 272: 271: 270: 269: 266: 261: 259: 254: 253: 250: 246: 239: 237: 236: 233: 227: 226: 223: 218: 210: 207: 202: 197: 193: 189: 188: 187: 186: 183: 178: 171: 168: 163: 162: 161: 160: 157: 153: 149: 145: 138: 135: 130: 129: 128: 127: 124: 118: 117: 114: 109: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3976: 3968: 3956: 3940: 3913: 3901: 3870: 3774: 3745:Old Frankish 3706: 3702: 3696: 3682: 3663: 3643: 3620: 3611: 3610: 3591: 3587: 3585: 3574: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3506: 3485: 3482: 3479: 3475: 3463: 3460: 3450: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3407: 3380: 3376:pandoras box 3368: 3364:Pax Augustus 3363: 3350: 3345: 3341: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3226: 3219: 3215: 3201:Roman Empire 3194: 3139: 3138: 3132:Roman empire 3123: 3119: 3114: 3110: 3082: 3077: 3076: 3052: 3048: 3011: 3007: 2999: 2995: 2993: 2952: 2948: 2945:Samnite Wars 2940: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2927: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2852: 2848: 2841:rei publicae 2840: 2838: 2834: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2796: 2771: 2767: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2622: 2618: 2584:Roman Empire 2583: 2570: 2566: 2563: 2524: 2519: 2466: 2462: 2312: 2225: 2038: 2034: 1959: 1925: 1865: 1839:scholarship. 1793: 1751: 1726:Greek Empire 1701: 1695: 1681: 1678:Introduction 1665: 1661: 1651: 1647: 1640: 1628:Elizabethan 1624:Roman Empire 1604: 1599: 1593: 1586:commonwealth 1579: 1574: 1561: 1547: 1542: 1541: 1538: 1524: 1520: 1506: 1503: 1489: 1483: 1476: 1468: 1464: 1456: 1447: 1444: 1430: 1424: 1421: 1413: 1405: 1397: 1375: 1372: 1365: 1353: 1349: 1334: 1331: 1325: 1324: 1317: 1290: 1276: 1243: 1229: 1226: 1200: 1187: 1180: 1172: 1163: 1159: 1156: 1148: 1138: 1112:The project 1111: 1094: 1090: 1084: 1055: 1025: 978: 954: 938: 919: 845: 831: 827: 817: 797: 785: 767: 763: 709: 692:Ancient Rome 675: 667: 663: 657:141.157.74.8 654: 639: 627: 622: 618: 605: 596: 586: 508: 465: 440: 414: 384: 380: 363: 359: 337: 323: 320:aristocratic 319: 315:aristocratic 314: 308: 292: 283: 262: 257: 255: 244: 243: 228: 216: 213: 200: 195: 191: 174: 141: 119: 110: 106: 75: 43: 37: 3873:—Preceding 3623:Charlemange 3414:res publica 3216:res publica 3160:periods of 2895:res publica 2891:res publica 2867:res publica 2835:res publica 2811:res publica 1924:As I said: 1710:Charlemange 1666:Res publica 1597:res publica 1320:Bay of Kiel 1232:KeremTuncay 1183:Mali Empire 1004:Nicknack009 945:Nicknack009 879:Nicknack009 837:Nicknack009 754:Nicknack009 696:Nicknack009 619:single date 535:12.64.72.51 448:Mark Thomas 36:This is an 3973:Jean Bodin 3918:Diocletian 3779:Flamarande 3763:advantage. 3674:Francis II 3581:Francis II 3447:Wrong info 3245:Nema Fakei 3206:Nema Fakei 3166:government 3154:republican 3124:correction 3065:Principate 3063:under the 3018:per se. - 2965:Principate 2920:Flamarande 2826:Flamarande 2777:Flamarande 2725:keizerrijk 2691:Flamarande 2686:Flamarande 2628:Flamarande 2589:Flamarande 2529:Flamarande 2355:Flamarande 2306:Flamarande 2043:Flamarande 1930:Flamarande 1854:Flamarande 1722:Byzantines 1718:Fredrick I 1662:Res divina 1641:Since the 1611:monarchies 1250:barbarians 1222:Diocletian 1220:system of 1189:Scott Free 1142:PWilkinson 1100:Flamarande 1063:Bayezid II 985:MarkThomas 926:MarkThomas 832:influenced 789:MarkThomas 732:MarkThomas 682:MarkThomas 643:MarkThomas 632:Flamarande 609:MarkThomas 542:Very nice 512:MarkThomas 469:MarkThomas 430:Map error? 422:MarkThomas 388:MarkThomas 343:Flamarande 328:MarkThomas 311:autocratic 305:Autocratic 286:MarkThomas 276:Flamarande 206:Flamarande 192:only Roman 167:Flamarande 134:Flamarande 123:Cmatos1991 113:Flamarande 95:Archive 10 3916:X, 51. " 3659:Theophano 3598:Romanized 3583:in 1806. 3538:Cplakidas 3486:Regards, 3383:party. - 3295:Britannia 3073:Tetrarchy 2989:Antonines 2973:Tetrarchy 1746:Theophano 1684:Dominik92 1658:republics 1584:, as the 1218:Tetrarchy 1202:Nicomedia 1059:Mehmet II 1028:italiotes 965:? *sigh* 728:Mehmed_II 669:Ephestion 356:Autocracy 338:goverment 297:Bigbrisco 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3929:Eumenius 3892:Tourskin 3875:unsigned 3791:Tourskin 3678:Napoleon 3563:Mcorazao 3521:Tourskin 3488:Tourskin 3385:Vedexent 3328:Vedexent 3299:Speculum 3176:Vedexent 3158:imperial 3087:Vedexent 3069:Dominate 3057:hegemony 3020:Vedexent 3004:Augustus 2969:Dominate 2961:Republic 2957:Monarchy 2934:Republic 2887:Imperium 2807:Imperium 2187:capital. 1607:republic 1591:politeia 1582:republic 1544:Odoacer. 1527:Mcorazao 1509:Mcorazao 1450:Mcorazao 1385:Mcorazao 1356:Mcorazao 1346:Language 1210:Licinius 1126:Hippalus 1119:Hippalus 1077:Deliogul 1067:Deliogul 1037:Armodios 1030:and the 999:Armodios 967:Armodios 939:Camillus 904:Armodios 858:Armodios 801:Armodios 774:Armodios 750:Armodios 714:Armodios 364:de facto 3945:Ephesus 3914:Letters 3852:Iblardi 3839:Iblardi 3655:Otto II 3602:Odoacer 3534:updated 3532:I just 3499:Iblardi 3430:Iblardi 3426:Romania 3355:Iblardi 3351:Romania 3346:Romania 3303:Iblardi 3291:Graecia 3281:or the 3271:Romania 3267:Romania 3265:As for 3254:Iblardi 3231:Iblardi 3220:Romania 3115:popular 3102:Iblardi 3036:Iblardi 3012:neither 2985:Flavian 2930:believe 2907:Iblardi 2858:Iblardi 2815:Iblardi 2734:Iblardi 2660:Iblardi 2651:Iblardi 2602:Iblardi 2575:Iblardi 1742:Otto II 1706:Leo III 1670:WHEELER 1630:England 1177:Infobox 1091:Be Bold 959:Olympus 852:Argives 850:" and " 848:Danaans 458:RafaelG 360:de iure 265:Rintrah 249:Rintrah 152:phalanx 39:archive 3963:links. 3927:§10. 3910:Trajan 3604:, and 3594:Romans 3412:, the 3287:Gallia 3146:Empire 3083:relies 3071:, and 2967:, and 2938:Empire 1716:, and 1714:Otto I 1708:, and 1618:Sparta 1032:romioi 941:22.2-3 599:MosheA 573:Varana 560:Dryzen 544:Varana 526:Varana 501:Varana 407:Varana 371:Varana 362:, but 232:Miskin 222:Miskin 182:Miskin 156:Miskin 3961:JSTOR 3925:Carus 3850:. ;) 3016:motto 2560:Title 2229:that. 1825:None! 1732:Even 1301:Chiss 1265:Chiss 1254:Rhine 1206:Izmit 828:false 769:know? 676:User 177:polis 144:polis 16:< 3890:Yes 3883:talk 3826:Talk 3651:Otto 3571:1806 3402:help 3391:) - 3389:talk 3381:dead 3334:) - 3332:talk 3316:used 3218:and 3182:) - 3180:talk 3162:Rome 3156:and 3130:and 3093:) - 3091:talk 3026:) - 3024:talk 2996:when 2983:and 2936:and 2889:and 2851:and 2772:King 2723:and 2721:rijk 2408:Talk 2139:Talk 2086:Talk 1970:Talk 1899:Talk 1776:Talk 1634:the 1622:the 1338:Mrld 1246:Oder 1240:Maps 1089:aka 963:Alps 812:See 217:real 175:The 3908:to 3369:out 3324:not 3053:you 3049:not 3008:all 3000:had 2953:not 2941:are 2623:and 2226:two 1594:or 1431:the 1414:to 1304:Boy 1287:POV 1268:Boy 818:all 558:.-- 322:or 196:and 3975:, 3955:" 3939:" 3829:) 3661:. 3561:-- 3514:\ 3395:. 3371:). 3293:, 3289:, 3204:-- 3111:do 3067:, 2963:, 2959:, 2928:I 2905:. 2899:is 2871:we 2768:or 2411:) 2142:) 2089:) 1973:) 1963:. 1902:) 1779:) 1613:: 1525:-- 1507:-- 1448:-- 1383:-- 1035:. 835:-- 712:. 571:. 326:. 154:. 91:→ 3894:. 3881:( 3823:( 3404:) 3387:( 3330:( 3178:( 3089:( 3022:( 2405:( 2136:( 2083:( 1967:( 1896:( 1773:( 1748:. 1486:. 1378:" 1371:" 1204:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index