Scrolls of Lore Forums  

Go Back   Scrolls of Lore Forums > Scrolls of Lore > General Discussion

View Poll Results: In What Year Did the Roman Empire Fall?
44 BC 2 10.00%
14 AD 0 0%
180 AD 0 0%
312 AD 1 5.00%
337 AD 0 0%
395 AD 0 0%
476 AD 4 20.00%
1204 AD 0 0%
1453 AD 8 40.00%
1917 AD 0 0%
Other 5 25.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 04-27-2017, 10:06 PM
Mertico Mertico is offline

Elune
Mertico's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 7,261

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I think Song is a dynastic family name, not a geographic region?
They lost their northern capital and territory and continued on for about 100 years. It is dynastic in the sense that it is China.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 04-27-2017, 10:26 PM
HlaaluStyle HlaaluStyle is offline

Elune
HlaaluStyle's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tradegate, the Outlands
Posts: 12,465
BattleTag: DAllicant#1203

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
When the empire no longer existed, the Turks ruled over "Roman" people in that region. That's not weird to you?

How many centuries have to pass before we can tell the people in Lemnos, "Well, you're not REALLY Roman..." You and Saranas seem to feel the line comes before 1912.



Well, it's KINDA the same Constitution. See, before the continent was invaded, the U.S. established four different presidents instead of one, and then just two presidents - one for the American continent and one for the Pacific islands - and now only the Pacific president rules. Their official language is Hawaiian, and their culture has become a lot more Oceanic over the centuries, and most of their history they don't have anything to do with geographic America.
Roman had stopped being an ethnic identity by the time of Emperor Caracella. By that point, it was more loyalty to an idea of Rome, and that had pretty much died in 1453, unless you want to consider the Ottoman sultans to be successors to Rome (I would not grant them that).

Regarding the second point, our hypothetical future is getting a lot more complicated. However, assuming that it's a reasonably faithful translation of the US Constitution with the Bill of Rights, I would consider them American. They are the last Americans holding fast against the barbarous hordes on the North American continent.

Mahalo, Ocean Yanks!
__________________
See WoW in a way you've never imagined it.

"He came to Ahn'qiraj for the strife... instead, he found a wife! She's my qiraji love-bride, next on Sick Sad World of Warcraft!"
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 04-27-2017, 10:32 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,162

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mertico View Post
They lost their northern capital and territory and continued on for about 100 years. It is dynastic in the sense that it is China.
I mean "Song" is not a geographic region like Rome, America, Babylon, or China.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saranus View Post
Also, the goalposts have been moved in this discussion so many times that the worldwide post hole digger index has skyrocketed.
Ha! Do you see that poll? Each option on that poll is a different goalpost. We are arguing about which goalpost(s) we prefer to use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HlaaluStyle View Post
Roman had stopped being an ethnic identity by the time of Emperor Caracella. By that point, it was more loyalty to an idea of Rome, and that had pretty much died in 1453, unless you want to consider the Ottoman sultans to be successors to Rome (I would not grant them that).

Regarding the second point, our hypothetical future is getting a lot more complicated. However, assuming that it's a reasonably faithful translation of the US Constitution with the Bill of Rights, I would consider them American. They are the last Americans holding fast against the barbarous hordes on the North American continent.

Mahalo, Ocean Yanks!
I kinda want to see the western United States of "America" now.

Let's watch Lilo and Stitch and Moana back-to-back now.

Last edited by BaronGrackle; 04-27-2017 at 10:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 04-28-2017, 12:04 AM
Saranus Saranus is offline

Elune
Saranus's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,681
BattleTag: DrRobert#1475

Default

Hey, don't you dare forget the US Marshall Islands, American Samoa, and the Aleutians when you talk about forming up these Pacific States of America.

Presumably if America's mainland has been conquered, we are now living in a post-Nuclear apocalypse situation. Without prewar technology, the Pacific Americans have become extraordinary seafarers using the stars, currents, and weather patterns to navigate among all their island territories like the Pacific Islanders of old.

Shit. Now I want a maritime Fallout like a post-apocalyptic Wind Waker.
__________________
Now imagine a music, dear readers, heavy with cellos at a rapid staccato. Cellos held between thighs in a dark room. The little room of Harry's chest as he walks with his teammates to the opening gate of his first Test of Cribbage. They are a rag-tag group of champions, this bunch, and with Harry, the near-perfect new god, they know they will dominate the day. Harry is a world laced with rivers of wizardly blood. He is ready.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 04-28-2017, 01:34 AM
Marthen Marthen is offline

Eternal
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,977

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saranus View Post
We do? Still, having a history degree doesn't make you a historian just as owning a violin doesn't make you a concert violinist.
That's a really strange comparison. Owning a violin is not comparable to getting a major in history. I don't know much about the US, but out here, achieving such a major requires five years of extensive and continuous study, work on countless smaller projects, and (at least) two larger academic works based on your own research (as in based off of primary sources, not secondary). To own a violin, you simply need to visit a music store. A more apt comparison would be to finishing a conservatoire as a violin player. Would you tell such a person he is no violinist by any means?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
What makes a historian?
The most common (as in accepted) dividing line is the ability to work with primary sources. Whereas a history enthusiast would rely primarily or solely on secondary sources, a historian needs to be able to find, read and understand (often a problematic task, especially for the laymen), categorize, and evaluate relevant primary sources. Of course, even someone without a degree can learn to do these things, if he does, he's certainly no longer a mere history enthusiast, but it's a rather rare thing to see, whereas all people with a major in history need to learn this to attain their degree. Well, at least as far as Central Europe goes, again, I am not too much knowledgeable of the US.

Last edited by Marthen; 04-28-2017 at 02:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 04-28-2017, 06:32 AM
Mertico Mertico is offline

Elune
Mertico's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 7,261

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I mean "Song" is not a geographic region like Rome, America, Babylon, or China.
You could break Roman history down by dynasty as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HlaaluStyle View Post
Mahalo, Ocean Yanks!
A new Confederacy greeting the delegation from the remaining United States which are just the US' Pacific possessions.

Last edited by Mertico; 04-28-2017 at 06:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 04-28-2017, 06:35 AM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,162

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marthen View Post
That's a really strange comparison. Owning a violin is not comparable to getting a major in history. I don't know much about the US, but out here, achieving such a major requires five years of extensive and continuous study, work on countless smaller projects, and (at least) two larger academic works based on your own research (as in based off of primary sources, not secondary). To own a violin, you simply need to visit a music store. A more apt comparison would be to finishing a conservatoire as a violin player. Would you tell such a person he is no violinist by any means?



The most common (as in accepted) dividing line is the ability to work with primary sources. Whereas a history enthusiast would rely primarily or solely on secondary sources, a historian needs to be able to find, read and understand (often a problematic task, especially for the laymen), categorize, and evaluate relevant primary sources. Of course, even someone without a degree can learn to do these things, if he does, he's certainly no longer a mere history enthusiast, but it's a rather rare thing to see, whereas all people with a major in history need to learn this to attain their degree. Well, at least as far as Central Europe goes, again, I am not too much knowledgeable of the US.
I suggest that, in regards to any of the discussions on this thread, the ability to find and discern primary sources is irrelevant.

In fact, the ability to time travel and communicate firsthand with Roman Empire(s) citizens would be irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 04-28-2017, 06:41 AM
ijffdrie ijffdrie is offline

Elune
ijffdrie's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: A rock of certainty amid an ocean of possibility
Posts: 15,788

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
In fact, the ability to time travel and communicate firsthand with Roman Empire(s) citizens would be irrelevant.
Also pretty useless.

"Culus! Ex Quo? Quis Es? Quid vis 'finem imperio'? Que es Byzantium?"
__________________
This is not a signature.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 04-28-2017, 06:49 AM
Marthen Marthen is offline

Eternal
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,977

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I suggest that, in regards to any of the discussions on this thread, the ability to find and discern primary sources is irrelevant.

In fact, the ability to time travel and communicate firsthand with Roman Empire(s) citizens would be irrelevant.
You asked a general question, I gave out a general answer.

But since we are discussing our perception here, not any possible historical reality, sure.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 04-28-2017, 06:55 AM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,162

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marthen View Post
You asked a general question, I gave out a general answer.

But since we are discussing our perception here, not any possible historical reality, sure.
Oh no, it was a very good answer! My response was in regard to the "are any of us qualified?" discussion.

And Dutch, pretty impressive. Now in Greek!
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 04-28-2017, 10:38 AM
HlaaluStyle HlaaluStyle is offline

Elune
HlaaluStyle's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tradegate, the Outlands
Posts: 12,465
BattleTag: DAllicant#1203

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marthen View Post
That's a really strange comparison. Owning a violin is not comparable to getting a major in history. I don't know much about the US, but out here, achieving such a major requires five years of extensive and continuous study, work on countless smaller projects, and (at least) two larger academic works based on your own research (as in based off of primary sources, not secondary). To own a violin, you simply need to visit a music store. A more apt comparison would be to finishing a conservatoire as a violin player. Would you tell such a person he is no violinist by any means?
What you're describing sounds a bit more like a Master's program in the US. Getting an undergraduate degree in history takes four years, but isn't as intensive as you describe. A Master's degree takes another two years.
__________________
See WoW in a way you've never imagined it.

"He came to Ahn'qiraj for the strife... instead, he found a wife! She's my qiraji love-bride, next on Sick Sad World of Warcraft!"
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 04-28-2017, 12:42 PM
Saranus Saranus is offline

Elune
Saranus's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,681
BattleTag: DrRobert#1475

Default

For the sake of clarity, when I use the term "historian" I am referring to someone currently employed in the field doing research using primary sources and they (usually) have at least a graduate level degree in the field. And just having the degree doesn't necessarily make one a historian if you're not actively working in the field. I don't think anyone here currently satisfies those requirements, but someone feel free to correct me.

I know that I am known to be a pedantic ass sometimes though. It was just meant to be a playful jab at Anansi's thread title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marthen View Post
That's a really strange comparison. Owning a violin is not comparable to getting a major in history. I don't know much about the US, but out here, achieving such a major requires five years of extensive and continuous study, work on countless smaller projects, and (at least) two larger academic works based on your own research (as in based off of primary sources, not secondary). To own a violin, you simply need to visit a music store. A more apt comparison would be to finishing a conservatoire as a violin player. Would you tell such a person he is no violinist by any means?
I didn't say "violinist". I said "concert violinist. If you're not currently employed by a symphony orchestra, you can't call yourself that - doesn't matter how good you are or how long you've been playing. Just as having a degree in history doesn't make you a historian unless you currently work in the field. That's all. See? Pedantic.

This isn't nearly as fun as speculating about Fallout: Pacifica.
__________________
Now imagine a music, dear readers, heavy with cellos at a rapid staccato. Cellos held between thighs in a dark room. The little room of Harry's chest as he walks with his teammates to the opening gate of his first Test of Cribbage. They are a rag-tag group of champions, this bunch, and with Harry, the near-perfect new god, they know they will dominate the day. Harry is a world laced with rivers of wizardly blood. He is ready.

Last edited by Saranus; 04-28-2017 at 12:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 04-28-2017, 01:03 PM
ijffdrie ijffdrie is offline

Elune
ijffdrie's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: A rock of certainty amid an ocean of possibility
Posts: 15,788

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
And Dutch, pretty impressive. Now in Greek!
Oh gods no. I failed Ancient Greek so hard in high school I actually had to leave.
__________________
This is not a signature.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 04-28-2017, 06:15 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,162

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saranus View Post
For the sake of clarity, when I use the term "historian" I am referring to someone currently employed in the field doing research using primary sources and they (usually) have at least a graduate level degree in the field. And just having the degree doesn't necessarily make one a historian if you're not actively working in the field. I don't think anyone here currently satisfies those requirements, but someone feel free to correct me.

I know that I am known to be a pedantic ass sometimes though. It was just meant to be a playful jab at Anansi's thread title.



I didn't say "violinist". I said "concert violinist. If you're not currently employed by a symphony orchestra, you can't call yourself that - doesn't matter how good you are or how long you've been playing. Just as having a degree in history doesn't make you a historian unless you currently work in the field. That's all. See? Pedantic.

This isn't nearly as fun as speculating about Fallout: Pacifica.
Why do you call it "Fallout: Pacifica" instead of "Fallout: The United States, Still the Same and Everything"?
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 04-29-2017, 02:57 AM
Marthen Marthen is offline

Eternal
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,977

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saranus View Post
For the sake of clarity, when I use the term "historian" I am referring to someone currently employed in the field doing research using primary sources and they (usually) have at least a graduate level degree in the field. And just having the degree doesn't necessarily make one a historian if you're not actively working in the field. I don't think anyone here currently satisfies those requirements, but someone feel free to correct me.
That's...not a really accepted definition, at least not in these parts, as it disqualifies a large number of people who potentially contribute not a small deal. We usuallly refer to gratuates as adept historians, still historians nonetheless, to those forking in academia as academic historians, to those making a living this way professional historians. One of my past lectors has spent all his life teaching, first at high schools, then at a university, never publishing anything, yet calling him not-a-historian would drew the ire of the Czech academic community at large, as his personal research and subsequent counsel on the Moravian Premyslids proved invaluable to many published works and authors. I remember another historian, an acclaimed author (you can look this one up, Wihoda's his name, some of his works are in German), stating half his works wouldn't have been done without him. The only graduates not really historians by any means are those who do not touch history whatsoever after their graduation. That's not exactly a common sight, though, those who have the will to get so far are usually so embroiled in the subject they never abandon it completely. I do not actually think any of my past fellows have abandoned the subject completely, at least I know many that haven't and do work on something personal.


Quote:
I know that I am known to be a pedantic ass sometimes though. It was just meant to be a playful jab at Anansi's thread title.
I do not think that being pedantic over something that's not set in stone and can be contested rather simply is exactly a sound course of action. But that's just me.

Quote:
I didn't say "violinist". I said "concert violinist. If you're not currently employed by a symphony orchestra, you can't call yourself that - doesn't matter how good you are or how long you've been playing. Just as having a degree in history doesn't make you a historian unless you currently work in the field. That's all. See? Pedantic.
Well, and I was clearly not talking of concert violinists, as that alegory does not work much either. Not all violinists are concert violinists, as much as not all historians are academic or professional historians either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HlaaluStyle View Post
What you're describing sounds a bit more like a Master's program in the US. Getting an undergraduate degree in history takes four years, but isn't as intensive as you describe. A Master's degree takes another two years.
My bad, I meant four years as well. The rest stands, though. As for Master's, it usually goes like this. Two years, a large academic work at the end (usually around 70 pages, the minimum is 60), three months of practice for some associated institution, both have to be withing the subject chosen. That's possible the greatest difference from Bachelor's, you do not study general history anymore, you specialize. For example, I specialized in the history of militarism and political extremism (with a particular focus on the contention between different chauvinistic forms and groups within Central Europe) during late 19th century and 20th century, and both my work and practice had to reflect that (I remember telling this someone, wasn't it you?).

Last edited by Marthen; 05-23-2017 at 04:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 04-29-2017, 10:20 AM
HlaaluStyle HlaaluStyle is offline

Elune
HlaaluStyle's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tradegate, the Outlands
Posts: 12,465
BattleTag: DAllicant#1203

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marthen View Post

My bad, I meant four years as well. The rest stands, though. As for Master's, it usually goes like this. Two years, a large academic work at the end (usually around 70 pages, the minimum is 60), three months of practice for some associated institution, both have to be withing the subject chosen. That's possible the greatest difference from Bachelor's, you do not study general history anymore, you specialize. For example, I specialized in the history of militarism and political extremism (with particular focus on the contention between different chauvinistic forms and groups within Central Europe) during late 19th century and 20th century, and both my work and practice had to reflect that (I remember telling this someone, wasn't it you?).
That's fairly similar to a Master's here. I never had to do three months of practice for an institution, but there was a requirement for me to either study or work abroad during the summer. That's how I ended up in Germany, which turned out to be the only worthwhile part of my Master's program.
__________________
See WoW in a way you've never imagined it.

"He came to Ahn'qiraj for the strife... instead, he found a wife! She's my qiraji love-bride, next on Sick Sad World of Warcraft!"
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 04-29-2017, 12:29 PM
Saranus Saranus is offline

Elune
Saranus's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,681
BattleTag: DrRobert#1475

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marthen View Post
Well, and I was clearly not talking of concert violinists, as that alegory does not work much either. Not all violinists are concert violinists, as much as not all historians are academic or professional historians either.
Yeah, but I was talking about concert violinists which is why I used that term in the first place as an example to justify my shitposting. But I'll let it rest now and admit I have been fully out-pedanted.
__________________
Now imagine a music, dear readers, heavy with cellos at a rapid staccato. Cellos held between thighs in a dark room. The little room of Harry's chest as he walks with his teammates to the opening gate of his first Test of Cribbage. They are a rag-tag group of champions, this bunch, and with Harry, the near-perfect new god, they know they will dominate the day. Harry is a world laced with rivers of wizardly blood. He is ready.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 05-01-2017, 01:20 PM
Kir the Wizard Kir the Wizard is offline

The Sun King
Kir the Wizard's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Donetsk, Occupied Ukraine
Posts: 11,115

Alliance Flag

Marthen said it well: most posters' problem is relying on "flashy dates". 476 didn't even end the Western Roman Empire, not immediately. The transition from vestigial Roman holdings to Medieval Europe didn't happen until at least two more centuries, by the time of which Eastern Roman Empire "reconquered" a lotta territories from Gothic and Vandalic kingdoms, only to get Lagnobarded up their Italy. An 1453 left a couple of "Byzantiums" untouched by the Turk for some time.

Of course, there is a difference between "pure history", the historians' perception of history, and finally the public perceptions of history.

What is a Roman Empire?

I realize that after such an intro it would be overconfident to immediately propose "The Answer" regarding what is the Empire, and thus allowing to define its beginning and its end, but I feel like I need to let this off my chest. The Roman Emperor is a "Chronokrator" - Lord of Time. He defines the tradition that shaped the Ancient Ecumene. When we think of Ancient Europe (usually forgetting "the barbarian" Celts, Germanics, Iranians and Thracians) we think of Greek Art, Poetry, Culture, but of Roman Law, Infrastructure, Military. Whereas the Hellenic remnants of Alexander's empire diffused with the despotic polities of the East, the Romans brought the distinctly Western law, New Western society, if I may, to rule all across the Mediterranean. It wasn't without excesses, of course, as the history of, say, Judea shows us, but for the most part it is something that gave the idea of a unified, multi-ethnic empire as something feasibly and creatable in the Ecumene. Something was tried before with the Persian Empire, with its many peoples still practicing their own religions, customs and cultures, but it ended up even more decentralized than the Romans' Empire.

The idea, so to speak, of a Roman Empire is in the rule of law and power that can be projected across however many peoples possible. What started as expansion of one state against its neighbors turned into a hodgepodge of peoples and lands held by unified law, diverse military and the languages of trade, culture and the ruling class (Latin AND Greek). The idea of the Roman Empire acting as chief authority across the Ecumene continued even after its multiple "falls", with Kings of Italy, Burgundy, Gallo-Roman remnants acting as "representatives" of the Empire, even when factual control was impossible; or the whole thing about Frankish and Holy Roman Emperors' status being higher than that of their surrounding kings, even though they did not directly control those kingdoms and such.

This idea is what the Medieval (and "Early Modern") rulers were often after. The claim and the prestige. "The Germans wanted to be the Roman Empire" is what a lot of people think, and some may have heard about the Russian "Third Rome", but what about the Bulgarians, the Serbians, the Romanians, the Armenians, the Turks ("Sultanate of RUM")? The Imperial eagles all around, flying all the way to Napoleon's empire and beyond? Friggin Montenegro? Are all of them truly heirs to the vague, all-encompassing, but somehow so prestigious of a concept?

"Bah!" - a person says. "They are all pretenders, so unlike the TRUE Romans, that is WesternRoman/Byzantine/Glorious Ottoman empire!"

Because thinking about all those vague concepts and how people felt about those across the ages is BORING ("Some Greek ethnic communities outside of Hellas still call themselves Roman? Well, I don't care what those GREEKS call themselves!")

Instead, the people want to hear about The Cool Roman Empire.


The Cool Roman Empire

I remember when we started to learn about Ancient Rome back in school, one guy whined for a while during the first lessons about all those pre-Roman cultures in the Apennines Peninsula that they were too boring. "Those Etrurians are shit. When are we gonna study the cool Romans like in the movies?" Because, you know, every time a European thinks about Ancient History, it's all about those COOL ROMANS. Them and their LEGIONS, and PRAETORIANS, and JULIUS CAESARS, HELL YEAAAAAAAHHH. It's lucky if these people even know about Marius's reforms! To a lot all the Rome is the same, all that cool, red mass of soldiers, just like on TV!

This... This quintessential "Cool Roman Empire" is the layman's standard for defining Rome and "Romanness". Taking a separate glorified and myth-filled period of Roman history and imagining that the whole of TRU ROMAN history was exactly like that.

Now, where do people END with this image depends very much on their experiences with history studies, art, culture, heck, even video games. I've recently heard a "serious" argument that the Western Roman Empire is more Roman because they have red colors in Attila Total War, like the real Romans should!

Let's look over our main stereotype-making walking stereotypes.


Western Roman Empire Lover

Most of these people just operate on their school experiences. "Uhhh, the Ancient History course ended with the fall of the Roman Empire, so it ended. Byzantium are some other empire... whatever!" A plethora of people fantasize about it as if it was a lost chance, having dreams of a True Roman Empire fighting for its survival, seeing it as the opposite to GREEK Byzantium, instead of a corrupt mess that was ultimately divided by its own opportunistic warlords from within. A common argument for WRE is that "they held ROME, unlike Byzantines", even though Rome was pretty much a symbolic and cultural place, with Mediolanum and Ravenna being the main political centers by the times of WRE and its decline.

Byzantinophile

A rising group in the current times, who bring the fetishization of COOL ROMANS a bit further into the future. Will tell you about purple being the color of the emperors and Greeks totally thinking of themselves as Romans at the time (nevermind that the "Romans" thing was spread on ALL peoples of the empire, including a buncha Anatolian cultures no layman cares about). NEVER tell them half the emperors were some Armenian adventurers, or the Cool Rome is shattered forever! Like the WRE Lovers fetishize the 476 (even though WRE still had loyalists in Illyrium and the Romans retook the sacred Rome half a century later), these guys have the 1204 and 1453 as sacred dates. What, Latin Empire ALSO called themselves Roman? PRETENDERS! Now, all the myriad despotates here, that's the true Roman guys. And the truest of all are the Nicaeans, with Paleologos dynasty retaking Constantinople n shit. Yeah, they never retook the Athens. Yeah, the region was left divided into a lot of mini-empires. But still! And then, this mighty little empire had a last stand against the Turkish Horde, oh yeah. The evil Turks, who also called themselves Romans!

Morea? Trebizond Empire that existed post 1453, and was ruled by the Byzantophiles' most sacred Komnenoi? Never heard of them! Sorry, 1453 is enough fetishization for mois.


Local Nationalist Romans

This aren't so widespread, but there are still some weirdos thinking that X is a Third Rome because Priest Oldy McOldbeard wrote so in his priestly notebook at some time! And we totally took this piece of a Roman's land, or their crown, or whatever! Look, we're cool. Almost as cool as the Cool Roman Empire.


Closing Thoughts

I wanted this to be more coherent, but was overtaken by cynicism when I remembered that one guy and his argument about WRE being Red, and thus Truly Roman.

The lesson here is thus: do not make a fetish out of history and think of it as consisting of heroic last stands and evil pretenders/betrayers. Most of it is about a lot of clueless guys who aspired to greater ideals (probably fetishized in their own times) and were constantly dying due to poor communication.

The Roman Empire ended whenever people who wanted to aspire to its Imperial ideas would stop doing so.

"The Cool Roman Empire" dies whenever one thinks it lost its Cool Final Battle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
I feel dumb, I'd never considered that.

Still, they didn't hold Rome, so I still wouldn't consider them the Roman Empire.
In its apex of power, the "Byzantine" Empire held Rome and most of the Mediterranean.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 05-01-2017, 02:36 PM
Marthen Marthen is offline

Eternal
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,977

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kir the Wizard View Post

Local Nationalist Romans

This aren't so widespread, but there are still some weirdos thinking that X is a Third Rome because Priest Oldy McOldbeard wrote so in his priestly notebook at some time! And we totally took this piece of a Roman's land, or their crown, or whatever! Look, we're cool. Almost as cool as the Cool Roman Empire.
But Moscow was built on seven hills just as Roma and Nova Roma, you madman!
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 05-01-2017, 02:38 PM
Kir the Wizard Kir the Wizard is offline

The Sun King
Kir the Wizard's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Donetsk, Occupied Ukraine
Posts: 11,115

Orb of Venom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marthen View Post
But Moscow was built on seven hills just as Roma and Nova Roma, you madman!
More like on seven swamps. With bears.
Reply With Quote
  #121  
Old 05-01-2017, 02:47 PM
Mertico Mertico is offline

Elune
Mertico's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 7,261

Default

I'm a Byzaboo, thank you very much.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 05-01-2017, 02:49 PM
Marthen Marthen is offline

Eternal
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,977

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kir the Wizard View Post
More like on seven swamps. With bears.
Wolves, bears, they are all the same. And the red!
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 05-01-2017, 05:09 PM
HlaaluStyle HlaaluStyle is offline

Elune
HlaaluStyle's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tradegate, the Outlands
Posts: 12,465
BattleTag: DAllicant#1203

Default

Hmm, since I chose not to count Morea and Trebizond, it'd be a bit inconsistent of me to count post-4th Crusade Constantinople. I may have to revise my answer to 1204.
__________________
See WoW in a way you've never imagined it.

"He came to Ahn'qiraj for the strife... instead, he found a wife! She's my qiraji love-bride, next on Sick Sad World of Warcraft!"
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 05-02-2017, 11:48 AM
C9H20 C9H20 is offline

Elune
C9H20's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,218

Default

Heh, I am kind of strange in that regard because I knew very little of Rome before my formal education but I knew a lot about Ancient Greece so I was pissed we had to learn about these Roman people now since Greeks were so damn cool with their gods, and phalanxes and beautiful culture and so on!

Ofcourse when I learned Rome was basically that but ten times as glorious and long lasting I became an instant Roman fanboy with visions of legions in my head and empire spreading everywhere.

Which is why I was confused when I moved into higher grades and saw historical maps in the history cabinet that medieval Serbia was always bordered by this country named Byzantium, sometimes almost completely encircled by it. What was this country I've never heard of that apparently came out of nowhere and was huge?! And when I saw illustrations of their early soldiers I was even more perplexed, who are these Roman wannabees?! I instantly disliked them.
Until I learned what "Byzantium" was and then I became an instant BFF (Byzantine Fan Forever).

Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 05-02-2017, 12:05 PM
HlaaluStyle HlaaluStyle is offline

Elune
HlaaluStyle's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tradegate, the Outlands
Posts: 12,465
BattleTag: DAllicant#1203

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C9H20 View Post
Heh, I am kind of strange in that regard because I knew very little of Rome before my formal education but I knew a lot about Ancient Greece so I was pissed we had to learn about these Roman people now since Greeks were so damn cool with their gods, and phalanxes and beautiful culture and so on!

Ofcourse when I learned Rome was basically that but ten times as glorious and long lasting I became an instant Roman fanboy with visions of legions in my head and empire spreading everywhere.

Which is why I was confused when I moved into higher grades and saw historical maps in the history cabinet that medieval Serbia was always bordered by this country named Byzantium, sometimes almost completely encircled by it. What was this country I've never heard of that apparently came out of nowhere and was huge?! And when I saw illustrations of their early soldiers I was even more perplexed, who are these Roman wannabees?! I instantly disliked them.
Until I learned what "Byzantium" was and then I became an instant BFF (Byzantine Fan Forever).

I'm grateful that my father was a devoted Byzantine fan, and informed me of the school curriculum's injustice toward the Eastern Roman Empire. The ERE's lucky to get more than a paragraph or two in most history books here.
__________________
See WoW in a way you've never imagined it.

"He came to Ahn'qiraj for the strife... instead, he found a wife! She's my qiraji love-bride, next on Sick Sad World of Warcraft!"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
chronology, empires, history, realspace, survey

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.