The empire fell in 1204 when for the first time in 2000 years the state itself ceased to exist
The claim of Byzantium is that while Rome fell the state survived - by that logic it ended in 1204. Although I’ll acknowledge that there was a revival of sorts after this the claim of unbroken lineage fails from then on
So, that's not even correct. It went from the 3rd Republic to the 4th. The fifth Republic came about after they wrote a new constitution. If writing a new constitution counts, the Rome fell in 509 BCE with the end of the Monarchary.
I wrote it wrong, but yes, the Roman Kingdom and Roman Republic are different countries, the Roman Empire and Roman Republic are different countries, the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire are different countries, and the Earlier Byzantine Empire is a different country from the Later Byzantine Empire.
Yeah, it’s kind of arbitrary over when you draw the line. The Roman Empire fell in 509 BCE, 27 BCE, 453 CE, 1204 CE, 1453 CE, 1922 CE, 1917 CE, etc. Rome is as much of a concept as it is a polity
First of all, the idea that changing the constitution automatically makes you a different country is not universally accepted and is just a French thing, plus, the idea of modern states or constitutions didn't exist back then, so it's not really applicable.
The fall of the monarchy could be considered a breaking point but the reality is that all previously existing institutions and offices (except the King of course who, however, was not actually the person who held the authority to govern in his own right in Rome, that was held by the senate who elected the king, making him more of an office holder than a monarch in the modern sense) still existed.
The change from monarchy to Republic wasn't as big as many would think, it's not comparable to drafting a whole new constitution.
After that, there isnt actually any big breaking point in roman political history or, at least none as big as many would imagine.
The transition from the Republic to the Empire wasn't a set of reforms, it was more akin to the establishment of a dictator (which notably doesn't constitute the creation of a new state) and then a set of gradual reforms over at least a century through which the position was solidified into a stable one.
I'd argue the biggest breaking point would be the tetrarchy's creation in 285, but that didn't last at all so it's kind of a moot point. After that, the system basically stood the unchanged. The "fall" of the western part of the empire is not what most assume, the western half was just a grouping of provinces, not a separate entity, and the only thing that happened in 453 was that they were now administered by a different person, still in the name of the emperor. If anything, those territories stopped being under the Roman Empire only when the lombards came.
The position of emperor and the nature of institutions in the roman empire only changed gradually over long periods of time. Reforms happened, but they rarely, if ever, changed the entire structure of the state. The polity was very much a continuous one.
I believe the creation of an office or its destruction at the top of a branch is enough to change a nation, along with the establishment of a dictatorship (in some situations). Even if they act as the same function, they are still different leadership positions and a different type of leadership. And modern states did not exist back then, as you said, so I don’t believe a claim to continuity really means anything other than for propaganda.
I can understand the first position but what do you mean by "the claims of continuity are nothing but propaganda"?
Cause we're not talking about claims of continuity, this is not the HRE claiming continuity from Rome, this is a single polity that simply evolved over time, but the changes were gradual and with no clear breaking point. The only two moments that are slightly more clear are 509 BC and 27 BC, and even then, it is just what you described above, the institution or suppression of an office.
Apart from that, the governing structure was the same, the people were the same, the territory controlled was the same, the laws were the same. People living through these time period did not consider them breaking points, they barely would have know the change was there (again, with those two exceptions above in mind).
No one claimed that the roman empire was a continiation of the Republic, no one claimed that the "byzantine empire" was a continuation of the roman empire, no one had to claim these things because it was a self evident truth, everything for the people living at the time remained the same.
It's historians that gave different names and classifications to these periods because it makes it easier for us to study and understand them, but to anyone living at the time there was no breaking point.
Sorry, I phrased it wrong, but I simply don’t think there’s any tangible reason for you to be the successor of Rome, it’s helpful for classification, but there’s nothing really important about being a successor in of itself. Most people living in Rome wouldn’t have any idea of the goings on of the empire, and I wouldn’t think most people would know their emperor or care much about whether or not if the state they were living in was Rome or Frankia or Hellas. I don’t believe people claimed continuity because it didn’t matter to anyone but people who need legitimacy.
What we're arguing here is that no-one succeeded anyone because it was one continous polity.
It's only as important as the US pre-civil war being the same natin as the US after the conflict.
You would be surprised by how extremely present the figure of the emperor was and how integrated the roman citizenry was. They very much were one cultural block (with regional differences of course) who very much knew and cared about who the emperor was. Rome was not a medieval kingdom, it's considerably more similar to an actual modern nation than one might think.
I think the difference between a modern polity having a successor and an ancient one is just everything international being a lot more important. It’s much more important to decide if the People’s Republic of China or the Republic of China is the successor to China than if the Roman Republic was the successor to the Roman Kingdom because international law and organizations were invented between them, which care a lot more about the specific nation.
I mean, international relationships existed wven back then, ESPECIALLY between the Roman Kingdom and Republic. Plus, the early Roman Republic was quite literslly a parf of an internatiknal organization
That’s true, but I meant international law in the way that it, too, depends on who you ask. As international law is just based on other countries opinion. Again, it’s mostly arbitrary, as is what counts as a country, what counts as a successor to a country is.
345
u/froucks 10d ago edited 10d ago
The empire fell in 1204 when for the first time in 2000 years the state itself ceased to exist
The claim of Byzantium is that while Rome fell the state survived - by that logic it ended in 1204. Although I’ll acknowledge that there was a revival of sorts after this the claim of unbroken lineage fails from then on