|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What's the Terminus Ad Quem for this thread in terms of no longer ancient? Different times, it depends if you are posting about imperial rule, spinoffs or barbarians.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
chris christie didn't step down as governor of new jersey until january 2018, so arguably,
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
The fall of the Roman empire, so 1806
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
1435
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
the fall of the roman empire so like, probably pretty soon? i'll keep you posted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
If there's white smoke, 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
The extinguishment of the Imperial title, so 1566.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:33
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What's the Terminus Ad Quem for this thread in terms of no longer ancient? The Fall of the Roman Empire, so 2021ish. The senate still meets, but those old men do little of importance anymore. The political system of oligarchy founded on legalism and a large professional military hasn’t changed much since Augustus’s era, so it’s really beginning to fray. Then the Great Roni Plague swept through, and the Crisis of the 21st Century really got going. More serious answer: imo, somewhere around Diocletian or Constantine. Late third century to early fourth. That’s when several massive seismic shifts came together, such as more devolved proto-feudal/proto-serf power relationships, the rise of Christianity, and the shift from the principate to divine monarchy as the basis for legitimacy. All of those changes defined the following 1000+ years of European history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What's the Terminus Ad Quem for this thread in terms of no longer ancient? There isn't really one because no one bothered to make a medieval history thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
Rome is still there I visited it a few years back Italy even uses it as their capital
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
The Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, 1806.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:There isn't really one because no one bothered to make a medieval history thread. See, that's what I wanted to hear. Anyway, https://twitter.com/alloy_dr/status/1289053712057544707?s=20 I promise there will be some actual history! Kindof! Especially if people smarter than I contribute some! I'd really love especially if some medievalist art historians could comment on the costuming in Pyle's artwork.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
I went to Reggio Emilia a while back and they had SPQR on all their public buildings
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:I went to Reggio Emilia a while back and they had SPQR on all their public buildings I believe that's still the official seal for the modern municipal government of the city of Rome
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
Real answer, I think the mid/late 6th century is a useful dividing line. A century of German rule has transformed the west and new forces are rising in the east. The last gasp of antiquity is gone and the forces that will shape the medieval world are ascendant. This is a little bit later than the canonical start of the medieval period but I think it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
I've always thought that the canonical fall of Rome was just fine. It was such an inflection point that everything afterwards was affected by it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
I like the mid 7th century as the transition era. By that point it's fairly clear Rome isn't actually going to succeed in capturing the west, and the Islamic conquests completely disrupt the Mediterranean economy that was central to everything Roman. Sadly I feel like it's coincidentally yeilding some ground to chuds who see Islam as the great enemy of faith and reason or whatever, but needs must. cheetah7071 posted:Rome is still there I visited it a few years back huge if true
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
Yeah if we're seriously trying to nail down the end of antiquity to a short period, it has to be the rise of Islam. There's nothing else that creates such a major break in the Mediterranean world, not even the Plague of Justinian.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
The last Tsar of Bulgaria is still running around so Rome won't truly have fallen until he kicks the bucket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
Man, that, Once and Future King, and Ivanhoe accounted for a significant portion of my childhood.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
An Lushan Rebellion imho
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 02:30
|
|
|
I think the unification under Sui in 581 is a much more sensible date; the construction of the Grand Canal united the north and south and sowed the seeds for the latter's dominance that would define the later Medieval period; the transformation of the foreign influences that had marked the period of disunity into an inseparable part of Chinese culture--a fundamentally different one from that under the Han--through Emperor Wei's edicts. Also perhaps most importantly, the re-emergence of China as the supreme power in a period when its neighbors had actually emerged as states would see fundamental shifts in diplomacy and how they received Chinese culture that would define East Asia for the rest of its pre-modern history. The Tang by comparison was just following on from the seeds that the Sui had already planted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 03:40
|
|
|
Here's my guide about when do you think Roman people are no longer Roman, it's in order from 27 BC to 887 AD, spanning 914 years. Pick your point of divergence where "Byzantine" started. 1. Creation of the Principate 2. Majority of people who live under Roman authority are no longer native Latin speakers 3. First non-Italian Emperor 4. Extension of citizenship to all inhabitants of the Empire 5. Rome no longer the capital of Rome 6. Diocletian puts on the diadem 7. Establishment of Constantinople 8. Establishment of Nicene Christianity as the state religion 9. Theodosius dies, last time Rome is divided into Eastern and Western halves 10. Last Western Roman Emperor deposed, Empire is unified in name 11. Last claimant to the Western Empire is killed 12. Last native speaker of Latin as Emperor 13. Last major monument in the Roman Forum erected by an Emperor 14. Last Emperor visits Rome* 15. End of Roman control over Rome 16. Abolition of the Senate 17. Abolition of the title of Consul Teriyaki Hairpiece fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Aug 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
If they speak a language descended from Latin, they are Romans. so the Romans conquered Mexico, the Romans eat pizza and Despacito is a modern Roman tune.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 05:58
|
|
|
Basing the end of Rome on the end of Roman control over Rome sounds like circular logic. I think the classic answer by a lot of laymen's standards is that Rome was over after it was no longer involved with the people who would become their descendants. Or involved with the philosophical basis that would become part of the state that they live in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 06:20
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:The last Tsar of Bulgaria is still running around so Rome won't truly have fallen until he kicks the bucket. There's still no proof that Romulus Augustulus ever died!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 06:29
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Basing the end of Rome on the end of Roman control over Rome sounds like circular logic. quote:I think the classic answer by a lot of laymen's standards is that Rome was over after it was no longer involved with the people who would become their descendants. quote:Or involved with the philosophical basis that would become part of the state that they live in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
There was a whole thing where most of Western Europe had a very separate form of Christianity from Constantinople, and even that would be downplayed in a protestant nation. Whatever refugees kickstarted the Renaissance, I don't think they had famous names to get taught in history classes. I think they mostly did it with borrowed arab scholarship anyways. I don't really remember what highschool history was like, but it wouldn't surprise me if they just went up to Augustus and then right after generic barbarians trampled Rome. Who cares about what the germans were doing for a thousand years, all of that was over by the time Americans came back to Europe to take over. And I don't know what most asian countries think of Rome, but I do get the sense that Japan does a lot of memorizing names and dates for the sake of the challenge without giving any of them context.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 06:55
|
|
|
Rome was over when they removed the alter of victory from the Senate and then lost it. It was the one piece of continuity from the time of kings through to the crumbling of the West. I think it was under Theodosius?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 07:50
|
|
|
Wasn't the altar from the time of the republic not the kings?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:An Lushan Rebellion imho Using "Antiquity" and "Medieval" in relation to Chinese history feels wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
Honestly I think it's pretty apt to use the terms, East Asia shifted pretty fundamentally between the fall of Han and the rise of Sui/Tang. You started with a world in which China was really the only meaningful player geopolitically in its region, its cultural influences and developments had mostly been indigenous, and even aesthetically its cities would be dominated by rammed-earth buildings that look very different to what we picture as traditional Chinese architecture today; and as for its neighbors, Vietnam/Korea/Japan hadn't even emerged as proper states yet. On the other side, you end with the establishment of the Chinese-centered tributary system that would go on to define East Asia for the next thousand years; China's neighbors had emerged as true states that had taken on immense Chinese cultural influence, Buddhism and the foreign ideas that came along with it (along with centuries of foreign rule) had a profound cultural and spiritual impact, and the emergence of timber-frame architecture (and spread of it to China's neighbors) had transformed what an East Asian city looked like. It all happened in a very different way to the west, but if you're gonna mark a period shift in East Asia it definitely warrants one around that time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
As for when you can divide "Eastern Roman Empire" from "Byzantine" It's gotta be the Arab Conquests. It was a rapid and near total replacement of drat new everything. Religion, Ethnicity, Territory, Population, Culture, How the government worked, How the military worked, How the people saw themselves, etc. and was also apparent enough in its own time that we start seeing that other states start claiming they are Roman successor states and getting away with it. And before you mention the Goths in Italy they were still claiming nominal subservience to Constantinople, not being a equal or greater "Roman Empires". The switch from Republic to Principate pales in comparison. The only real way you could say it wasn't the end of Rome is if you say the Principate and Dominate are different states/empires. Which in my opinion is a legitimate argument to make, but then that just changes to statement to "The Roman Dominate fell during the Arab Conquests".
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:Religion, Ethnicity, Territory, Population, Culture, How the government worked, How the military worked, How the people saw themselves, etc. and was also apparent enough in its own time that we start seeing that other states start claiming they are Roman successor states and getting away with it. I'll go with you on the military, but not the rest of it. They were already Christian, the evolution of Roman into an ethnic group was an ongoing thing, losing territory doesn't make them any less Roman, the culture didn't change suddenly, and the people never started considering themselves anything but Roman until like the 1700s. They didn't have the strength to do anything about the HRE, but they made a fuss about it at every opportunity until much later--and even then, they were just offering to drop the issue in exchange for military aid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 06:09
|
|
|
Yeah I'm sympathetic to Rome losing control of Egypt for good as the dividing line - end of the grain dole! - but everything definitely did not change overnight. Weren't the conquests very much a replace-the-guys-at-the-top-with-ourselves affair, leaving the basic bureaucracy structure in place? (AKA how basically most successful conquests in history worked).
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 06:26
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:As for when you can divide "Eastern Roman Empire" from "Byzantine" It's gotta be the Arab Conquests. It was a rapid and near total replacement of drat new everything. Religion, Ethnicity, Territory, Population, Culture, How the government worked, How the military worked, How the people saw themselves, etc. and was also apparent enough in its own time that we start seeing that other states start claiming they are Roman successor states and getting away with it. And before you mention the Goths in Italy they were still claiming nominal subservience to Constantinople, not being a equal or greater "Roman Empires". The switch from Republic to Principate pales in comparison. The only real way you could say it wasn't the end of Rome is if you say the Principate and Dominate are different states/empires. Which in my opinion is a legitimate argument to make, but then that just changes to statement to "The Roman Dominate fell during the Arab Conquests". This is okay. I don't agree with it, but I get it. It's an informed opinion that is backed up by facts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 06:37
|
|
|
It was the extinguishing of the sacred fire of Vesta and disbanding of the Vestal Virgins don't @ me
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 07:05
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I'll go with you on the military, but not the rest of it. They were already Christian, the evolution of Roman into an ethnic group was an ongoing thing, losing territory doesn't make them any less Roman, the culture didn't change suddenly, and the people never started considering themselves anything but Roman until like the 1700s. They didn't have the strength to do anything about the HRE, but they made a fuss about it at every opportunity until much later--and even then, they were just offering to drop the issue in exchange for military aid. Eh, I think losing a humongous chunk of the Syriac/Aramaic/Coptic population along with dissident Miaphysite (and whatnots) counts as a large religious and ethnic shift as well, and to ignore that would seem to brush over one of the major running themes of the post-475 eastern empire till the arab conqeusts
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 07:15
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I'll go with you on the military, but not the rest of it. They were already Christian, the evolution of Roman into an ethnic group was an ongoing thing, losing territory doesn't make them any less Roman, the culture didn't change suddenly, and the people never started considering themselves anything but Roman until like the 1700s. They didn't have the strength to do anything about the HRE, but they made a fuss about it at every opportunity until much later--and even then, they were just offering to drop the issue in exchange for military aid. When I say religion I don't mean Pagan to Christian. Before the Arabs you had a polity of which huge chunks, maybe even half, were monophysites. And that tension will inform almost every action the State makes if you're basis of legitimacy is being the one true empire of the one true religion. Ethnically it turned an Empire that was multinational into something that was essentially Anatolian. And before you point out say the Macedonian Dynasty, no the Severans not being full blooded Romans did not make the Principate no longer Roman either. Culturally and governmentally it did indeed mean massive changes. The loss of the other big urban centers like Antioch and Alexandria made Constantinople part of a Unipolar system. Even during the height of the Principate Rome (the city) could not have dreamed of being so central. And them not being strong enough to do anything about guys like the HRE is part of my point. I'd say an Empire that loses any real ability to maintain exclusive claim to being the sole legitimate successor state isn't the same state. The very fact the Charlemagne could make that claim in a chunk of imperial territory just as large as the east and a critical mass of people say "Yeah sure you're the Emperor" is itself damning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
But why does it make them no longer Roman? Should we be calling English people something else because they don't have an empire anymore, regardless of how they see themselves? This is not an argument I can be convinced on, so maybe pointless to have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 16:47
|
|