4 ms·

I've spent almost the entire 3 weeks of my vacation in Turkey in 2015 visiting Roman archeological sites... From the Library of Celsus in Ephesus, to the entir

I've spent almost the entire 3 weeks of my vacation in Turkey in 2015 visiting Roman archeological sites... From the Library of Celsus in Ephesus, to the entire hilltop in Bergama, to the cemetary and fantastic amphitheatre in Pamukkale, to the caves in Cappadocia (okay, those are post-Roman, but they're Christian)... Then there's the mind-blowing Hittite and Akkadian stuff at the Museum of Anatolian civilizations in Ankara... Walking along the Lycian way...

cat199 6y ago
> okay, those are post-Roman Despite the spin from post-enlightement historians recasting everything between ~600-1600 into the 'dark ages', 'rome' as in 'the roman empire' didn't end in the east until 1453 (or possibly 1917, depending on how Romanov you go), and didn't end in the west until 1806 (or possibly 1914, depending on how Hapsburg you go). Not 'ancient rome', but still self-styled as 'rome' with a direct lineage in some form or fashion. Polemic aside, certainly cappadocian caves would fall under the 'eastern roman empire' category, albeit post-pagan as you point out.
- bhaak 6y ago
  I agree with you on the eastern part of the Roman empire but what is the "direct lineage in some form or fashion" than brings you to 1806 for the western part? As Voltaire quipped: "The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman, nor an Empire" Just assuming the title of the Roman emperor is not really a direct lineage.
  - vmh1928 6y ago
    I believe he's referring to when the last Holy Roman Emperor abdicated in 1806. "The empire was dissolved on 6 August 1806, when the last Holy Roman Emperor Francis II (from 1804, Emperor Francis I of Austria) abdicated, following a military defeat by the French under Napoleon at Austerlitz (see Treaty of Pressburg)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire Although you could make an argument that the Roman Empire in the west ended in 476 C.E. when the last Roman emperor, Romulus, was overthrown by the Germanic leader Odoacer, who became the first Barbarian to rule in Rome. In 800 the Pope gave Charlemagne the title of Roman Emperor so there's a gap of 324 years with no emperor in the west. Meanwhile, the Roman Empire in the east continued to function.
    - Bayart 6y ago
      Odoacer was a career general in the Roman army, while "Romulus Augustus" was the kid of a former secretary of Attila. Odoacer took power with the benediction of the Senate and ruled in the name of the actual Emperor in Constantinople. It's not any more or any less the end of the Western Roman Empire than the political troubles that occurred in the earlier and later centuries. The Gothic, Frankish or Vandalic kingdoms very much thought of themselves as belonging to a Roman world.
    - bhaak 6y ago
      I agree that the date 476 CE was probably not as much of a devastating blow to the Roman empire and their contemporary population as it was made out to be later. But in those 324 years a lot happened that make the case of a direct lineage questionable. The Gothic wars destroyed a lot of remaining infrastructure and Roman culture, the Roman senate was no more after 600 CE, the long term population loss, and the Christian Pope was the defacto ruler of the city (if you could still call that what was left a city). The coronation of Charlemagne was also considered illegitimate by the Eastern Roman emperor at first, until they couldn't ignore Charlemagne's military power anymore.

cat199 6y ago

> okay, those are post-Roman Despite the spin from post-enlightement historians recasting everything between ~600-1600 into the 'dark ages', 'rome' as in 'the roman empire' didn't end in the east until 1453 (or possibly 1917, depending on how Romanov you go), and didn't end in the west until 1806 (or possibly 1914, depending on how Hapsburg you go). Not 'ancient rome', but still self-styled as 'rome' with a direct lineage in some form or fashion. Polemic aside, certainly cappadocian caves would fall under the 'eastern roman empire' category, albeit post-pagan as you point out.

bhaak 6y ago
I agree with you on the eastern part of the Roman empire but what is the "direct lineage in some form or fashion" than brings you to 1806 for the western part? As Voltaire quipped: "The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman, nor an Empire" Just assuming the title of the Roman emperor is not really a direct lineage.
- vmh1928 6y ago
  I believe he's referring to when the last Holy Roman Emperor abdicated in 1806. "The empire was dissolved on 6 August 1806, when the last Holy Roman Emperor Francis II (from 1804, Emperor Francis I of Austria) abdicated, following a military defeat by the French under Napoleon at Austerlitz (see Treaty of Pressburg)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire Although you could make an argument that the Roman Empire in the west ended in 476 C.E. when the last Roman emperor, Romulus, was overthrown by the Germanic leader Odoacer, who became the first Barbarian to rule in Rome. In 800 the Pope gave Charlemagne the title of Roman Emperor so there's a gap of 324 years with no emperor in the west. Meanwhile, the Roman Empire in the east continued to function.
  - Bayart 6y ago
    Odoacer was a career general in the Roman army, while "Romulus Augustus" was the kid of a former secretary of Attila. Odoacer took power with the benediction of the Senate and ruled in the name of the actual Emperor in Constantinople. It's not any more or any less the end of the Western Roman Empire than the political troubles that occurred in the earlier and later centuries. The Gothic, Frankish or Vandalic kingdoms very much thought of themselves as belonging to a Roman world.
  - bhaak 6y ago
    I agree that the date 476 CE was probably not as much of a devastating blow to the Roman empire and their contemporary population as it was made out to be later. But in those 324 years a lot happened that make the case of a direct lineage questionable. The Gothic wars destroyed a lot of remaining infrastructure and Roman culture, the Roman senate was no more after 600 CE, the long term population loss, and the Christian Pope was the defacto ruler of the city (if you could still call that what was left a city). The coronation of Charlemagne was also considered illegitimate by the Eastern Roman emperor at first, until they couldn't ignore Charlemagne's military power anymore.