Featured The Last Of The Romans

I understand that Italy post WW I tried to take some of the disputed islands from the defeat of the Ottomans during the Great War. Are you sure, or was your lecturer sure, that the marines were not from the Italian navy?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I confess to this as well. While the late Empire, post Constantine the Great makes for great study, I stop active collecting circa Theodosius I. I guess I like the images on the coins to look something like real people.

 

Yes. This was pre WWI. Also pre 1900. His point of mentioning the incident in his talk was to illustrate the continuity of the concept of Romanitas in modern Hellenism. In modern Greek, the adjective "ρωμαίικος" means "Greek".

 

This is true! While I love eastern Roman coins, my wife uses the argument that some of the images on the coins provide examples of space aliens interbreeding with eastern Mediterranean populations in late antiquity!

 

I'm starting to get more and more Byzantine coins. Partly because I am fairly close to getting a coin of each personage during the Roman Imperial period and need to expand my horizons. I agree about the alien nature of some of the coins. A coin of Justin II and Leontia I got last week shows two figures with big heads and large eyes, reminiscent of the so called "greys" from Zeta Reticuli...

 

LOL... today we call them CARTOONS!!!

 

I think I saw that program on channel 666 just last week.

 

Yes, they interviewed her!

 

About Charlemagne - I don’t believe that the Holy Roman Empire was considered a necessarily a continuation of the Roman Empire.

I thought it was made of Franks and Germanic people’s who were not at all related linguistically or culturally to old Rome.

I thought that the HRE was sort of a papal “state” of sorts, and didn’t nexessaeily claim to be a continuation of the actual Roman Empire, ie, the Roman Empire started by Augustus and ended by Julius Nepos.

So to that, I say that Charlemagne and the HRE was never truly “Roman” in any real sense.

 

Couldn't one argue that in at least a few respects the Vatican is the successor of the Roman Empire? Pontifex Maximus and all that sort of thing?

 

“The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.” Voltaire, 1756.

 

@AussieCollector

I love these discussions as well, because there are really no right or wrong answers. You make some good points. However, if I am arguing in favor of Justinian being the last true Roman emperor, I am not getting hung up on the city of Rome itself or the post 476 AD distinction.

I do believe that the most correct answer to this question lies somewhere between Justinian and Constantine XI. You have a slow chipping away of what made the empire truly "roman" throughout the years.

You have the linguistic transition under Heraclius, the shift to the thematic system and away from a traditional roman provincial system (which might have happened under him as well), but likely happened in the 660's under Constans II. You have the growing influence of Christianity over the legal system. The senate also becomes an increasingly cosmetic feature.

Eventually, these changes, paired with the lack of connection to Rome/ Italy (which is just one small piece of the puzzle, not a big deal in itself) makes the empire just feel like a different entity altogether. It is hard to quantify in some ways.

I don't think your point about WW2 is a great parallel for the 1204 argument for a couple of reasons. European countries were controlled for a much shorter time, and then the same governments from before were reinstated (or at least many of the same people comprised government). Here, we are talking about a 60 year gap, with an entirely new dynasty "reclaiming" power.

@hotwheelsearl

One last thought, I am certainly not saying that Charlemagne should be considered a roman emperor. I am actually pointing out that a non-roman, also was coronated using imperial porphyry, over 600 years earlier than Constantine XI. He didn't do this because of a roman connection, but likely because of the symbolism related to Christ. It is interesting though that Charlemagne was referred to as "emperor of the romans" and he did have that denarius with the latin inscription "Karolus Imperator Augustus".

So I think the use of Imperial Porphyry, extended beyond roman tradition, and had already become a Christian tradition.

 

When talking about the Byzantine Empire, I have always thought it is less important what we call them and more important what they called themselves--Romaioi.

 

And remember the quip of Voltaire (I think it was him) that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, Roman nor an empire.

 

Having spent seven years in a Catholic seminary I think I can say that in my observations the Church has historically always been more Roman (official Latin language, its Canon Law that Justinian would have been comfortable with, its monarch assisted by a curia) than catholic in the sense of universal, at the very least until, perhaps, quite recently.

 

According to Gibbons the epithet "the last of the Roman" goes to Aetius. He was the last Roman political leader who made genuine efforts to restore and maintain the classical Roman Empire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Aetius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_of_the_Romans

 

I would. The title Roman Emperor was an idea or an ideal that was as real for the Frankish King and Roman Emperor Karl as it was for Justinian or the various Roman puppet emperors of the 5th century, who wielded no real power.

PS. I don't like the name Charlemagne, which is ahistorical and kind of suggest that the he was Romance-speaking. Karl was born in Aachen (Germany), meaning that East Frankish was his mother tongue.