Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;AussieCollector, post: 4514843, member: 81093&quot;]I love this sort of discussion! It brings me happiness <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie101" alt=":woot:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>I hear what you&#039;re saying, but your argument speaks to my original comment around &quot;but they weren&#039;t real Romans.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Firstly, we shouldn&#039;t conflate Rome with Roman Empire. Yes, that&#039;s where it started, but it&#039;s not where it ended. As you’d know, Constantine the Great established Constantinople as THE capital of the Roman Empire. It was later split between Eastern and Western Roman Emperors, but it was indeed the capital at the time (not Rome), and the continued capital for the Roman Emperor in the East. Rome wasn&#039;t even the capital for the western part of the Empire after 402 AD - Ravenna was the capital. Does that mean that the (Western) Roman Empire ceased to exist in 402 AD? Or even when Constantine made Constantinople the capital? Of course not, the Roman Empire was more than where its capital was.</p><p><br /></p><p>Given that Constantinople was the capital of the Empire, and later the Capital for the eastern territories, who holds the city of Rome becomes less important when discussing the continuation of the Empire, except as a &#039;symbol&#039; from where the Roman Empire came from. Holding Constantinople for 1,000 years, almost uninterrupted, absolutely does mean something.</p><p><br /></p><p>In re to Charlemagne, I haven&#039;t given it much thought to be honest. Perhaps? But I don&#039;t know enough about it.</p><p><br /></p><p>But there are a range of differences. Even if you put aside the differences between a continuation of the same peoples in the location, culture, Senate, customs, military style and traditions, I think the absolute fundamental difference – which is the critical point in this discussion – is that the Eastern Roman Empire was a <u>direct and legal continuation of the eastern half of the Empire</u>. No one else was. Not Charlemagne. Not the so called Holy Roman Empire. No one.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I won’t get into discussion around the definitions of an Empire, and I think it’s fair to say it was no longer an Empire. But does that matter? It was the legal continuation of what was left of the Empire.</p><p><br /></p><p>And yes, I’ve seen the argument around 1204 AD before. And I do think an argument could be mounted. My response would be, governments in exile are nothing new, and I think it’s accepted that when governments in exile restore their throne/country, they are that same country. Otherwise, half of Europe ended in WW2, and we now have an entirely new Europe. When the same culture and people restore their country and seat of power, it is restoration. If you like, you can call it the Restored Roman Empire?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in