wiki edit of the Roman Empire

[Fedor]

Someone just edited the fall of the Roman empire. The last edit I checked was 27 BC -1453AD which I think is the correct date. Now the date is 27BC-395AD. Man, If I only knew how to edit the wiki page for the Roman Empire I would change it to 27BC-1453AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Empire

 

EDIT: I just found out how to edit the page. I changed the date from 395 AD to 1453 AD.

Edited May 26, 2008 by Fedor

[M. Porcius Cato]

Good job! 395 AD it's crazy.

 

I don't think it's crazy. The "Later Roman Empire" is often bookended by the accession of Diocletian in 284 and the death of Theodosius in 395, when the empire was divided between Honorius and Arcadius. That said, at least there were still Roman emperors in the west after 395, and there were no more after 476.

[Fedor]

Good job! 395 AD it's crazy.

 

I don't think it's crazy. The "Later Roman Empire" is often bookended by the accession of Diocletian in 284 and the death of Theodosius in 395, when the empire was divided between Honorius and Arcadius. That said, at least there were still Roman emperors in the west after 395, and there were no more after 476.

 

Though as the Empire lasted until 1453 it wouldn't be accurate to imply that the Empire ended in 395. I'm talking about the wiki end date of the Roman Empire. So I do believe that the 395 date is crazy and factually inaccurate when the eastern (and thus the entire Empire) fell in 1453. The 395 date is the date when the Empire was one whole empire when one Emperor was in charge. Since the Western side fell to the german barbarians that makes the surviving part of the empire a continuation. 1453 date is accurate for the fall of the whole Empire.

 

Animated Roman map from 301 BC- 1453 AD http://www.friesian.com/images/maps/rome-big.gif

Edited May 30, 2008 by Fedor

[Northern Neil]

395 is indeed stated in some sources because it is the time when the severance of Eastern and Western Empires became permanent. The two separate halves of the Empire are regarded by some as successor states. However...

 

As with all namings of different phases of the Roman State, this is with the benefit of hindsight and only partially true. When Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustus and sent the imperial insignia to Constantinople, he did so because the atrophy of the Western provinces was such that an emperor in the West was considered superfluous. He considered himself a provincial governor of Italy, and at the time no - one really noticed that anything momentous had occurred at all. The Empire was considered to be re-unified with his deposition, much as it had been re-unified several times before. In addition, it was re-unified under a legitimate emperor, not usurpers, as Julius Nepos and Romulus Augustus actually were.

 

As Colin McEvedy states in his Atlas of Medieval History, continued use of the term Eastern Roman Empire after 476 is a modern idea, and used by us as a way of recognising '...the many differences between the Classical Roman Empire and the Roman Empire of Constantinople'.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Honorius]

I just ordered Arthur Ferill's book called The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation.

 

What is your opinion on this book if anyone read it?

 

sorry for necroing .. this point but i have read that book and its rather interesting, i mean i didnt see anything particularly different in the case of the theories he brings forth but still a nice read, rather detailed if I remember correctly in reference to Stilicho and Theodosius' battle at the Frigidus.

 

by the way NN, Julius Nepos was far from being a Usurper, Romulus and his Father Flavius Orestes revolted and usurped his throne. Nepos was a genuine, legitimate emperor

Edited May 31, 2008 by Honorius

[king hannibal]

I would tend to see it as not falling at all as no one really take rome from the romans but was change into the popein state I not a major historian just know bit here and there but did the popeian state ever get taken over? if it didn't could it not been seen that it never really real fell at all just chage into a state from an empire (as like the republic to the empire states) although I know there was an italy faction that might have taken it in the late 18th century or early 19th century although I not to sure on that ever

[Kosmo]

king hannibal, you should edit wikipedia !

[king hannibal]

lol I'll give it a go just something I though of as it didn't really get take over unless you want to class the republic different from the empire anyway it all in my head

[Northern Neil]

by the way NN, Julius Nepos was far from being a Usurper, Romulus and his Father Flavius Orestes revolted and usurped his throne. Nepos was a genuine, legitimate emperor

Material on Nepos duly read, and correction noted

[TaylorS]

IMO The Byzantine Empire was "Roman" in name only. After the Arab conquests it became a pretty much Greek state. I consider the time frame from the death of Justinian to the Arab conquests to mark the break-point between "Roman" and "Byzantine."

[ASCLEPIADES]

IMO The Byzantine Empire was "Roman" in name only. After the Arab conquests it became a pretty much Greek state. I consider the time frame from the death of Justinian to the Arab conquests to mark the break-point between "Roman" and "Byzantine."

Salve, T. You're not the only one.

IMO your break-point is as arbitrary as any other; it only gives Justinian & Co. (ie, Belisarius) the benefit of being considered Roman and not Greek.

 

The Roman Empire was Greek too from the very beginning. Just check it out.

 

Byzantium was the Hellenic polis founded by the eponymous megarean Byzas that was superseded by Constantine's New Rome.

 

Strictly speaking, the "Byzantine Empire" began at 1557 under Hieronymus Wolf; but that "pro-western" historical construct didn't become popular until le baron de Montesquieu's writings at the XVIII century.

[Minerva]

Byzantium was the Hellenic polis founded by the eponymous megarean Byzas that was superseded by Constantine's New Rome.

 

polis ? I thought colonies were called "apoikia. And Byzantium was originally a Megarian colony.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Byzantium was the Hellenic polis founded by the eponymous megarean Byzas that was superseded by Constantine's New Rome.

 

polis ? I thought colonies were called "apoikia. And Byzantium was originally a Megarian colony.

Then you really have to check your sources.

 

Greek colonies (apoikiai at least) weren't excluded from the πόλις definition; the other class (emporia) were just trading posts.

 

And megarian, megarean, megaric among others are alternative demonym forms for both Megara (the city) and Megaris (the district).

Edited July 16, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

IMO The Byzantine Empire was "Roman" in name only. After the Arab conquests it became a pretty much Greek state. I consider the time frame from the death of Justinian to the Arab conquests to mark the break-point between "Roman" and "Byzantine."

 

Yes, the Romans of the east acted more like Greeks. But by then, why wouldn't the Greeks be culturally identified as Romans. Rome was a multi-ethnic empire and so Greeks calling/considering themselves to be real Romans is reasonable.

 

Honestly, why call the "Romaoi" Byzantine when they didn't know of such a concept. Every time I see the word Byzantine, there should be a footnote regarding its western connotation.

[ASCLEPIADES]

IMO The Byzantine Empire was "Roman" in name only. After the Arab conquests it became a pretty much Greek state. I consider the time frame from the death of Justinian to the Arab conquests to mark the break-point between "Roman" and "Byzantine."

 

Yes, the Romans of the east acted more like Greeks. But by then, why wouldn't the Greeks be culturally identified as Romans. Rome was a multi-ethnic empire and so Greeks calling/considering themselves to be real Romans is reasonable.

 

Honestly, why call the "Romaoi" Byzantine when they didn't know of such a concept. Every time I see the word Byzantine, there should be a footnote regarding its western connotation.

Salve, Amici.

Honestly? Because when the "Byzantine" pseudo-historical revisionism was developed, it was the only way to try to justify that incredible distortion that was the name of the "Heiliges R

Edited July 17, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES