Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NicholasMaximus, post: 4514946, member: 111966&quot;][USER=81093]@AussieCollector[/USER]</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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 &quot;roman&quot; throughout the years. </p><p><br /></p><p>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&#039;s under Constans II. You have the growing influence of Christianity over the legal system. The senate also becomes an increasingly cosmetic feature. </p><p><br /></p><p>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. </p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;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 &quot;reclaiming&quot; power. </p><p><br /></p><p>[USER=75143]@hotwheelsearl[/USER] </p><p><br /></p><p>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&#039;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 &quot;emperor of the romans&quot; and he did have that denarius with the latin inscription &quot;Karolus Imperator Augustus&quot;. </p><p><br /></p><p>So I think the use of Imperial Porphyry, extended beyond roman tradition, and had already become a Christian tradition.[/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