Template talk:Roman Empire infobox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] "Constitutional monarchy with autocratic reserve powers"?

I find that entry widely misleading. It may describe the illusion Augustus and his immediate successors wanted to uphold, but it doesn't do justice to reality. For a military dictatorship with monarchical appearance and leftover republican institutions as a fig leaf, like the Roman Empire, there's no single term that does justice to this. ;) I would replace it with (preferably) "monarchy" or even "autocracy". Varana 15:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is still not very clear or accurate. "Monarchy" seems wrong. Maybe: "Authoritarian regime; officially oligarchical republican form of government" N-edits 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Which would be true only for the 1st and maybe 2nd century. Honestly, I doubt that it is useful, in an infobox, to mention the pretense of a republican form of government at all. It is described in the article, in the article on Augustus, and most probably at other places, too; that's more than enough prominence. The construct had political significance maybe during the first half of the 1st century; after that, it had served its purpose.

On a related note: I reverted your "head of state" entry ("princeps senatus, often described as (emperor)", which I think is simply wrong. Princeps senatus was no office, and certainly no official "head of state" (it's somewhat difficult to apply modern categories to ancient political bodies, but for the Republic, that would most probably be the consuls). And while the emperor was regarded as princeps senatus, as well (because they took care of being princeps in everything), that was not a position was the basis of their power (that would have been consular and proconsular imperium and tribunicia potestas). Completely misleading is the notion that princeps senatus was the head of state from the (at least) 3rd century onwards, when the Senate was rendered more and more ineffectual. Varana 18:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Varana,

• though you are right about later on (actually beginning with Tiberius and Caligula and then growing and growing), I wouldn't want to call the republican forms under Augustus "figleaf" or "illusion" - it just was an entirely new form of government. Not that I think that it could have worked in the long run, Tiberius had republican leanings and still people crawled before him, but Augustus did go the extra mile to include the nobility and the senate. So I don't think that it served its purpose but that it had outlived its moment.
• Of course you are right on the Princeps senatus - he was the head of the senate in the Republic (whether there was a separate princeps senatus in the Principate I do not know - the last of which I know is the younger Cato). The Princeps (civium), as the Emperor was called at first, was something different. The head of state of Rome were always the Consuls, ever since the beginning of the Republic, even if the power was yielded by a Dictator, and this officially lasted at least during the Principate as well. Of course, the Emperor gained more and more prestige under rulers less modest than Augustus. The Princeps Senatus was never head of the state and only held an honorary position among the senators. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You cannot call the emperor head of state since the office of Emperor did not actually exist. N-edits 22:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, you have just said "The head of state of Rome were always the Consuls, ever since the beginning of the Republic, even if the power was yielded by a Dictator, and this officially lasted at least during the Principate as well." If you think that is the case, you must think the infobox should not show the emperor as head of state, but the consuls? N-edits 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Now we're definitely going into territory where the application of our modern concept of a defined "head of state" becomes questionable. Rome had no written constitution; during the first half of the 1st century, "emperor" became a de facto office, at the latest with the Flavians. In principle, the "office" was created by the investment of Augustus with several (pseudo-constitutional) powers, and then by transferring them onto Tiberius, and the continuation of that practice. We just see the gradual development of an "office".

Regarding the "head of state": When we look, for instance, at the 2nd century, we have every political and military power without dispute in the hands of the emperor. The highest and most prestigious civilian office was that of consul ordinarius, who were also appointed by the emperor, and didn't have any actual power (even less than other offices). I would write "Head of state: Emperor, nominally also two consuls", if we were to name the consuls at all. Varana 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that: "Head of state: Emperor, nominally also two consuls" is a fine solution. Make it so. Flamarande 09:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

N-edit, my comments were focused largely on the Republic before its "restoration" by Augustus.

Now, at the beginning of the principate the consuls clearly still were the "heads of state" (if we use this modern term) - in the "dominate" the Emperor would be considered that. At one point the Emperor eclipsed the role of the consuls, but it's hard to tell when.

All in all, I think Flam's proposal to be a good solution. I anyway thougt the distinction between "head of state" and "head of government" to be even more anachronistic and artificial. Today not even all states makes that distinction (just take the US). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag???

Somewhere I found a flag for the Roman Empire... could someone try to find it and put it up?--IAMTHEEGGMAN 20:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

While the Romans used several symbols for their power (fasces, eagle...), there was no flag in the modern sense of the word, i.e. one banner that always and only symbolized the Empire. If there is a "flag" somewhere on the Internet, it's probably one of the mentioned symbols put upon a rectangular "cloth" - nothing that the Romans would have used as a national flag in this form.

[edit] Let's debate this in a open and civilized manner

I am quite willing to compromise in many issues. But sometimes I simply have to disagree. The Ottoman Turks did conquer the Eastern Roman Empire whithout "destroying and anhaliting" it and did in fact continue many Roman/Byzantine traditions, laws, etc. They are in fact a rightful successor state of the ERE. So they were of a diffrent religion (Islam), but so what? That fact doesn't exclude them of their successornes (probably spelled wrong). I mean are I am detecting some Islamophobia here or something?

The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation is at best a "spiritual descendant". Quite some time had passed since the fall of the WRE and the creation of the HRE, and in truth it was more an empty claim and a poor copy than anything else.

Alternativly we can erase all later medieveal successors, leaving only the WRE and the ERE (whose status is beyound any doubt). Flamarande 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think it a bit rich to complain about a lack of discussion. I cannot see discussion on your part either. So, now let's start it:

The Ottonman Turks, whose state started around 1300 conquered Constantinople in 1453, thus annhihalting the last vestiges of the Roman Empire (east). It is inconceivable that they are called "Successors" for that. Are the Romans the successors of the Carthaginians? The Mongols of the Caliphate? I don't think so.

That is not islamophobia (and please consider WP:AGF - I do not accuse you of anti-medievalism, despite your crude and insulting remarks, a prejudice that is much more widespread than Islamophobia) but protecting the article against fallacies. Religion is of some importance though, as the Turks were not only of a different religion, but more importantly they were not Romans, had no connection with the Roman tradition (of which Christianity was a part by that date). Yes, for centuries there still lived Romans under Ottoman rule but these were not the Turks but what we today call Greeks (Romaioi).

As for the 476 event: it is difficult to find a single word, since the event itself is so strange. Nothing important happened on that day, actually. Just a figure head Emperor recently proclaimed by his father, the military leader Orestes, was deprived of this new found dignity. The previous Emperor Julius still considered himself Emperor. No Empire ended, as there was still the Emperor in Constantinople, now alone again. The point being; not the Western Empire ended but the line of Western Emperors ended. Certainly it wasn't conquered (Rome was conquered in 410 and 455, without the Empire ending) or fell.

After 476, the Eastern Emperor was supreme over the lands ruled by Odoacar, he was later supreme over the Ostrogoths. Then he reconquered Italy, only to lose much (but not all) to the Langobards, Imperial officials resided at Rome and Ravenna. In the 8th century, the Eastern Empire neglected Italy, which forced the Romans to look for alternative aid, finding it in the Franks. Charles Martel reveived a letter from the Pope, Pippin was made Patricius of Rome (normally the highest Imperial representative). Charles was crowned Emperor, an act later accepted by Emperor Michael, as long as his supremacy was safeguarded.

This also explains how the HRE can be a successor to the Western Empire. The HRE itself lived completely in the Western Roman tradition. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, let me answer that I propossed that we debate this matter. If that is not an indication that I willing to discuss this, I don't know what would be clearer indication. As for WP:AGF I can only apolagize. I can only say that I am a honest person; and politically incorrect.

Some might consider that the Western Roman Empire faded away, but the Eastern Roman Emperor could claim all he wanted; his empire was not the succesor of the WRE.

I am not going to debate the diffrence of a conquest and a anhihalation. Normally the first is a simple conquest and the second term is more understood on the lines of great massacres with the intent of wipping a people completly out (more or less a la extermination). The Romans are not the successors of the Carthaginans, they are the conquerers of the Carthaginians. The Mongols killed the last Caliph, but they didn't end the Caliphate or conquer it. It simply continued under several diffrent rulers with other titles (one of the titles of the Ottoman sultan was Caliph I think). It is primarely a diffrence of linguistics.

As for : "It is inconceivable that they are called "Successors" for that" I beg to difer. The Ottoman Turks continued Roman/Byzantine Imperial traditions and their Ottoman Empire is certainly a successor state. The fact that they ended the same, doesn't even matter in the issue. They conquered the state and continued its traditions. They did inherit it and therefore are its successors.

You must distinguish between relativly "empty" political claims of the ERE and true political realities. The Eastern emperor could claim souveranity over Odoacer and Italy, and indeed Odoacer could even make a proper statement, proclaiming his humble loyalty towards the emperor. But in reality Odoacer was an full independent ruler who only had had made an empty political gesture to appease another ruler. It it was a true statement, why did the ERE send Theodosius (and in reality they had only bought Theodosius off and presented him with a weaker target of conquest) against Odoacer? Valentinan simply conquered the Ostrogothic Kingdom (and here an anhihalation might had taken place if we believe the Germanic massacres by order of Narses) which had been a full independent state for more than 100 years. It wasn't any reconquest of the WRE. The same logic apllies to Charlemagne. Full independent ruler of a fully independent state. He was even only crowned in 800 and the WRE vanished in 476, so much for his Roman identity. He had some some Roman titles for sure, but his real power came from his Frankish warriors, and certainly not from his Roman titles.

As for the HRE I simply don't agree with you. It did NOT live completly in the Western Roman tradition. Were they Romans or Roman descendands or were they Germans? Did they speak Latin or a Romance language or (several) Germanic languages? It could claim a "Roman" title all it wanted, but it was simply a German Empire during the Middle Ages who possessed large teritories in Italy. And did not conquer the WRE and did not therefore not inherit that state, unlike the Turks who did conquer the ERE and continued its traditions. Flamarande 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Flam,

apologies accepted (my ire was directed not on your post above but on what you wrote in the edit summary. And I don't mind political incorrectness (I should edit my dislikes, come to think of it), only that your objection seemed a bit too PC to me. Put that's spilled milk. Let's move on.

I don't the Eastern Emperor's claim was only that. Odoacar and Julius accepted his supremacy and after Odocar seemed unreliable, the Emperor send Theodoric to do away with him. And Theodoric mostly accepted the supremacy as well, sending envoys and having some of his Roman ministers (most famously Boethius) appointed as consuls. But no, the ERE is not successor to the WRE, as these are mutually exclusive. The ERE however is a (or the) successor state to the RE (and one could argue that under Justinian it wasn't Eastern, at least not for some time)

There is a difference between conquest and annhilation. With the latter I mainly referred to the political entity that was conquered. You can conquere a polity without destroying it, leaving after a peace treaty (e.g. Iraq in 1991) - but you can also destroy that polity, e.g. Carthage. In the case of the ERE, the Ottomans did destroy the polity they conquered. And mind, they also massacred the inhabitants of Constantinople. (The Mongols with the Caliphate is a bit more complicated, as they in effect ended the Caliphate of Bagdad ... the later Caliphs were figure heads for the Mamluks until the Ottomans conquered Egypt and adopted the title - though the de facto more important title remained Sultan.)

Your "The Ottoman Turks continued Roman/Byzantine Imperial traditions and their Ottoman Empire is certainly a successor state." is merely stating your opinion, not arguing it. What is it that they inherited. If I am not mistaken, the Sultan did not change his rule much in Constantinople.

And no, the claims of the ERE (see above) were not empty.

Yes, the people of the HRE were Germanic but they were also Romans - the Franks did enter into the Roman Empire unter Julian Apostata, Merowech, Childeric were Roman generals, and Clovis honorary consul. And yes, they did speak Latin, so much that one half (the more central one)the Frankish people adopted the language, thereby creating the French language. And, lest we forget, it was centred at Rome - each ruler had to come to Rome to become Emperor (note, the HRE is not identical to its chief component, the German Kingdom). It did not conquer the WRE but it ruled over Rome and Italy and had an Imperial title approved of by the locals at Rome and the Emperor at Constantinople (later, and not always easily).

The HRE actually did continued Roman tradtions, whereas the Turks smashed the Empire. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Heya.

First: In my edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ARoman_Empire_infobox&diff=66165096&oldid=66164767

something went wrong; I think I unintentionally edited an older version, thus in effect reverting much of your changes. As the edit summary says - all I wanted to do is to change the dates for Theodosius from his life to his rulership, as with the other emperors in the list. I therefore reverted back to Flamarande's version of 13:58, and re-introduced what I really wanted to edit. *rolleyes* The result of the debate on successors and 476 can be added when we have one. (If you disagree, please revert.)

Regarding the debate:

First, I think Str1977's "ending on Sept. 4, 476" is most appropriate, as it neatly avoids specifying how exactly it ended.

Second: Before debating which states are "successor states", we'd need a definition of what exactly is meant by "successor". ;) For the East, it's clear ("Byzantium"), and the category quite adequate. It's not that clear-cut for the West. Generally, I'd vote in favour of a rather strict definition, so that we don't need to name every state that later existed on Roman soil. For the East, mentioning the Eastern Roman Empire (ERE) should imho be enough. What happened later, is part of Byzantine Empire. In the West after the WRE, I'd vote for the Frankish empire of Charlemagne. What happened later, is part of the Frankish Empire, or HRE articles. Varana 19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting complicated, and all of us have even forgotten the claim of Moscow as the Third Rome. This list is getting quite long, and perhaps too long. Here is what I propose. We only accept the WRE and the ERE (aka BE) as successor states of the Roman Empire. After all these two followed the old RE. All the other claimants came much later, and claimed descent of only one of these two empires, but not of the two empires at the same time.

Examples: the Frankish empire and later the HRE claimed descend only of the WRE, and none of them claimed descend of the ERE as that empire was still alive and kicking. The Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire claimed succession of the ERE (the HRE was still there). What do you think? I rather think that it is a good solution, perhaps a bit of a compromise but also fair to all sides. Flamarande 21:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. :) Varana 13:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should take into account what the respective realms called themselves, indicating whether they considered their state to be Roman, and what they are called by historians, indicating the craft's consensus. We have Holy Roman Empire, but Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the Russians considered (and even today they do) themselves to be the cultural heirs of Byzantium, and Moscow to be the Third Rome. And the Ottoman sultans claimed to be the heirs of Byzantium and even pretended to be interested in re-uniting the (Roman) empire as they launched some campaigns into the west of Europe. In the end, countries largely claim names and ancestors to have a credible excuse for political purposes. Like: "We are the heirs of X and those lands belonged to X, now we want them back." Of course it isn't soo easy as that, but the trend is there. Flamarande 14:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But neither called their state Roman, nor are they called thus by historiography, nor does either state have a basis in the Roman Empire (the French King also claimed to be the successor to the Eastern Emperor, so why favour the Russian). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, the power of a name :) notice that the "Democratic" of Kongo was anything but democratic (recent elections were made a lot of years since the name came to be) and the "Popular" Republic of China is a single party dictatorship (ok it isn't a plain dictatorship, but you can get my drift). The Ottoman Empire had all the provinces of the ERE (aka BE) and had even the same city as a capital (Constantinople = Istanbul). I don't favour anyone except the WRE and ERE, as these two are undeniable Roman in any way we can think of. But all the other empires largely claim heritage of only one of these two. Therefore, I think it quite fair to leave these two (WRE and ERE) here, and the other ones as heirs of the respective one (i.e. in the articles of the WRE or the ERE, but not here). Flamarande 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, but that is why i also added the historians' consensus, as a safeguard against propaganda. And my point was, why consider the Romanness of someone or something that doesn't claim it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, to have "Roman" in the state's name is not the only way to claim "Romanness". Historiography usually agrees that the Russian empire claimed to be the Third Rome at a certain time, and it usually agrees, as well, that the "Holy Roman Empire"'s claim didn't have a that much better foundation. The category is called (at the moment) "Succeeding states", for which WRE and ERE are adequate answers. If we open the can on "claiming successor status", every choice becomes a somewhat arbitrary one. This is supposed to be an entry in an overview template, which is imho a good reason to keep it as short as possible. A detailed discussion of who claimed to be "Roman" when, where and in what aspect should take place within the respective articles, or a specialized one if someone could be bothered to write it. Varana 20:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I have to disagree again but the Russian Empire called itself Russian Empire and never Roman. They claim some succession, but so did medieval Serbia and modern Greece. The HRE on the other hand did claim to be the Roman Empire and without that it have been a non-entity.

However, maybe you are right about keeping it short in the info box. Of course, this only moves the issue somewhere else. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)