Was an eternal Roman Republic/Empire ever possible? What would

>>2319411
>eternal anything
>possible

>>2319433
Intriguing. Where can i read about this?

>>2319435
Infowars.com

What a stupid question.

States collapse and change, especially when the geopolitical situation was a lot less stable than it was now.

By the time the western Roman Empire fell, it was a loose confederation of cities held together by barely functioning infrastructure

By the time the eastern Roman Empire fell it consisted of one city and two tiny substatelets in Greece and Ukraine

You'd need to fundamentally change the history of the world to even hypothesise a modern day Roman state, and that's quite a lot more effort than I think anyone is willing to put in

>>2319411
>What would a modern day Roman world look like?
The EU.

Just like the last version of Rome, it's collapsing due to hordes of barbarians pouring in over uncontrolled borders.

>>2319454
That's not because of anything but a lack of strong leaders.

Everyone knows that a good monarchy can hold a state together for a long time. Why not a strong Roman family to lead the Empire?

The Republic of Turkey is the modern day descendant of the Roman Empire.

>>2319420
This, nothing last forever. Except Catholicism.

One of the great joys of life is watching all those who opposed the church die alone, in pain, and forgotten about forever.

Golden Dawn will take over Greece and restore Byzantium

File: a6254c6c314189cc70c0bf97c0819edc.jpg (77KB, 736x550px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 736x550px

>>2319411
It would change into something non recognizable to the classic image of Rome that we think of.

case and point is Byzantine soldiers in the final days of the Empire such as pic related compared to the image of a classic legionnaire, the state would change with the times and challenges that come.

Better case for states that exist today is something more along the lines of England, which of course is barely recognizable between 1066 and today, where even trying to read old/middle english is a chore since the people, language, and culture developed with the time.

>>2319505
Here's your (You)

the roman catholic church is a very real remnant of the roman state that still exists to this day in an almost identical form

>>2319675
>tfw wake up
>Feb. 5, 2017
>thank Jupiter for Emperor Francis
>walk to work
>pass imperial guard post
>damn, they're so cool. I'll be a legionaire one day and earn my citizenship
>finish collecting urine for the day
>head to the temple of Venus to bang a prostitute on my way home
>finally get home, drink local wine
>rest my head knowing that the frontier borders are safe under the yoke of the empire

>>2319433
>and use the Jews as a scapegoat to avoid attention to themselves.
Hmmmm, I wonder who could be behind this (((post)))

>>2319505
>republic
"No". Any claim the Ottoman empire might have had vanished when it stopped being an empire.

File: jupiter and thetis.png (460KB, 562x588px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 562x588px

>>2319411
I dunno. I took a course in Roman history, but it ended in the 3rd century. To truly understand this question, you'd have to go all the way to the Byzantines and ask why they fell. Which was actually the same reason why the Western Roman empire fell.

Both the Byzantines and the Western Romans experienced civil wars and foreign threats, but when either of them faced BOTH at the same time was when the lost BIGLY.

I'd also want to argue that Western Romanization was limited to the upper class, and hadn't spread to the lower classes. Aka, Western Rome was not a nation-state. However, I do think Byzantium was, at least Anatolia I think. They should've have had an easier time staying together.

I guess you could say the reason why Rome died was because the Roman nation hardly existed. There was a Roman state, but a Roman nation? Diluted by the globalism of an expanding empire.

We do still have a Pontifex Maximus though...

>>2320055
The republic paid the debts of the empire so we are pretty much romans you fucboi.

File: image.jpg (40KB, 400x473px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x473px

>>2319433
>mfw christfags are still worried about Gnostics

>>2319433
>formerly known as the Gnostics, formerly known as the Kabbalists
Kabbalists were never a thing.

>Was an eternal Roman Republic/Empire ever possible?

Oh, I don't know. What could we possibly test this against? Wasn't there something similar where all of this actually happened in reality and it fell apart in 27 BC and again in 400 AD?

>>2319433
>Rome
>Christianity
Pick one.

The adoption of Christianity was one of the leading factors in the fall of Rome. It's a slave ideology for the weak.

>>2320488
>i just read my first edward gibbon book

>>2320119
>To truly understand this question, you'd have to go all the way to the Byzantines and ask why they fell. Which was actually the same reason why the Western Roman empire fell.
Not ... really, man.

I mean, they both fell thanks to a complex slew of reasons: economic stagnation, outside military pressure, internal social unrest & cultural issues, but that describes almost every empire that's ever fallen. Their stories aren't that similar when it comes to the particulars. There's no Western Roman analogue for the Fourth Crusade, for instance, which is the point after which many people believe the ERE was moribund, even though they had a couple moments in the sun after that.

>I'd also want to argue that Western Romanization was limited to the upper class, and hadn't spread to the lower classes. Aka, Western Rome was not a nation-state.
Which is, I'm sure, why the descendants of their language are spoken by 200 million people across much of western and southern Europe and why their (eventual) state religion DEFINED European culture for over a millennium?

Of course the people they conquered were Romanized. Completely? Of course not, cultural influence/assimilation is never total. But it was pretty fucking significant.

>>2320488
>The adoption of Christianity was one of the leading factors in the fall of Rome.
The Roman Empire was a Pagan state for about 800 years and a Christian state for about 1100 years

>>2319433
WE WUZ ROMANZ N SHIETZZZ

K E K

>>2320488

If pagans were so strong why did they lose?

>>2320518
All of Rome's glory days existed during the time of Paganism. Also, the Byzantines don't count. After the fall of Rome, the Byzantines essentially became their own empire.

>>2320546
>I just read my second Edward Gibbon book

>>2320546
>All of Rome's glory days existed during the time of Paganism.
No.

File: tumblr_inline_nu7e0cAb951r1btxt_540.jpg (194KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 517x768px

>>2320490
>>2320547

Oh lawdy my sides

>>2319435
play Assassin's Creed

>>2319411
>Was an eternal Roman Republic/Empire ever possible?
The western empire was not economically or politically sustainable at the time of collapse.
>What would a modern day Roman world look like?
The European Union

>>2319411

Like the EU: a conglomerate of greedy stockholders running the show, with beheading barbarians flooding the countries.

>>2320546
>After the fall of Rome, the Byzantines essentially became their own empire.
How? People keep saying this but they never explain what they mean.

>>2320492
>re spoken by 200 million people across much of western and southern Europe
Don't forget much of Africa, half of North America, and all of South America.

>>2320618
The Byzantines had a whole separate legacy apart from that of Rome. I'm not trying to put down either one, I'm just saying that the Byzantine Empire should not be considered a part of the Roman Empire, which is what so many Byzaboos here on /his/ like to do.

>>2320750

There was no byzantine empire, it WAS the Roman Empire, of course in a thousand years it changed, but so did the late roman empire in regard to the early empire and the republic, only butthurt >h >r >e boos have a problem with that.

>>2319411
>What would a modern day Roman world look like?
pretty much india

brown manlets raping everything

>>2319420
ROMA INVICTA

>>2319696
Damn, now that's just too comfy. Tell me another bedtime story pls Anon

>>2319499
>Why not a strong Roman family to lead the Empire?
Maybe if Augustus had a few fucking sons things would have been a bit more stable. Unfortunately with great power comes great infertility

>>2319512
>Except Catholicism.
No, that'll die as well. Everything dies.

>>2320909
No, because it will live forever as the Church in Heaven.

>>2320919
I respectfully disagree with your statement and in return I will call you an oafish flamboyant homosexual man that has sexual intercourse with small children.

410 AD made it very clear that no, they couldn't. 14 things went wrong, whereas Rome could only survive 13 things going wrong.

In modern times, 20 things go wrong every day, but modern republics can endure 37

>>2320750
>I'm just saying that the Byzantine Empire should not be considered a part of the Roman Empire
Why? It was called the Roman Empire. Nobody called it the Byzantine Empire until well after it had fallen. Its citizens called themselves Romans and they were referred to as Romans by other neighbouring peoples.

It's such a fucking stupid thing to say. Would you refer to the eastern Roman Empire in the early 4th century as the "Byzantine Empire"? If not, when is the cutoff point?

Historians barely even use the term Byzantine Empire anymore, unless they're talking about the misunderstandings of 18th and 19th century historiography.

>>2319411
Like Iberians , they spread the roman way of life and the language

>>2320957
Are these real numbers or just for the sake of illustrating your argument?

>>2319411
Rome is still around, it just changed it's name to The Republic of Turkey.

>>2323327
Here's your (you).

File: blak-rome.jpg (85KB, 336x501px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 336x501px

>>2320981
>Why? It was called the Roman Empire. Nobody called it the Byzantine Empire until well after it had fallen. Its citizens called themselves Romans and they were referred to as Romans by other neighbouring peoples.
not him, but I could use that very same logic about the term "Roman Empire".

The Romans themselves never used it, nor did they use the term "Roman Republic." The Romans called it S.P.Q.R from the beginning till the end and at no point was the term "Emperor" ever uttered. We use it as a modern shorthand because it simplifies the discussion. In practice the Emperor had a host of official and nonofficial titles and powers as much effort was put into presenting the illusion of democratic rule during the "empire", and officially he presented himself as a preserver of the old ways. His power was de facto and went unchallenged by all but a tiny educated minority. It doesn't make sense to call the emperors by what their contemporaries called him because they simply didn't have a word to describe what he was, and one wouldn't exist until Charlemagne coined it (when the Pope crowned him "Emperor of the Romans" in 800 AD)

And as a modern shorthand we use the term "Byzantine Empire" so that you know that I'm referring to a different period of history than, say, the "Roman Republic" or the "Holy Roman Empire" or the "Carolingian Empire" or any other regime which referred to itself as Roman. It's useful because it's describing the regime built by Constantine out of what was once a minor trading port named Byzantium. It's useful because by 700 CE it was no longer recognizably Roman, not even half way into their existence Heraclius changed the official language from Latin to Greek, instead of a Dominus or Imperator they called him Basileus, a Greek word, and had exactly nothing in common with the classical Roman culture except for a claim of inheritance (considering the fact that Constantine basically drained Rome of wealth in order to build Constantinople).

>>2325147
>because they simply didn't have a word to describe what he was
Emperor. From impeare, "to command."

>>2325147
We wuz murals n shit

File: 91511-004-E7DA647B.jpg (134KB, 470x400px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 470x400px

>>2325154
>From impeare, "to command."
the proper Latin term would not have been 'emperor' but rather 'imperator', and it was a military title meaning "commander-in-chief" or "generalissimo".

The first use of the word 'emperor' was by Charlemagne.

>>2319433
Why are proddies so fucking butthurt at jesuits?

>>2325147
>It's useful because by 700 CE it was no longer recognizably Roman
Oh, fuck off. You were doing so well up until this point.

What do you mean "recognizably Roman"? It WAS Roman.

File: o-POPE-FRANCIS-facebook.jpg (245KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 2000x1000px

>>2325246
Because Jesuits build schools and teach science to poor children.

Protestants hate that. They think that those poor children should be taught the Bible and nothing else.

>>2325147
>hurr durr they wore trousers and spoke greek which that part of the empire had been doing for centuries so they weren't real romans!!!!
read Peter Heather you absolute and utter retardo

File: 127648a58b8affb60e691cefd9e7ae76.jpg (107KB, 800x581px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 800x581px

>>2325368
>Oh, fuck off. You were doing so well up until this point.
>What do you mean "recognizably Roman"? It WAS Roman.
They did not venerate the old gods

They did not speak the language

They did not use the same structure of government

They were not the same ethnic group

By 700 AD the Byzantine Empire had its own culture completely distinct from its Roman predecessor.

That's why we use the term "Byzantine Empire" as a modern shorthand to describe a very specific regional power player and time-frame for its existence. It's a descendant of classical Greco-Roman culture, an "offspring" of a culture which by 700 AD had been dead and gone for a long time.

>>2325373
>so they weren't real romans!!!!
That entire premise is retarded. Even in classical times people couldn't agree what a "real Roman" actually was, which is half of the reason why they collapsed into a military autocracy. At no point was there ever a consensus on who the "real Romans" actually were because we're talking about a concept of civilization which has outgrown the city from which it sprouted.

>>2325381
Not the anon you're replying to but everything you've listed is massively superficial and it's very clear to me that you've never studied Roman history in any serious capacity.

>>2325381
None of those things have any bearing on whether or not they were Romans. You're fucking retarded.

>>2325391
It's called 'painting with broad strokes'

You have to gloss over basically everything but the most vague details when you talk about how cultures change over such vast swathes of time.

>>2325395
>None of those things have any bearing on whether or not they were Romans. You're fucking retarded.
But if we call them all the same thing all that will do is lead to confusion down the road, so we invent terms to help us clarify what and who we are talking about.

When I say "Byzantine Empire", "Carolingian Empire", "Holy Roman Empire", or "Ottoman Empire" you know who I am talking about even though they all called themselves "Romans". At what point does your definition of Roman become so vague as to lose all meaning?

>>2325381
>They did not venerate the old gods

They actually did up until the 10th century, unless you're talking state-sanction in which case everything after 380AD is no longer Roman.

>They did not use the same structure of government

Read a fucking book l m a o

>They were not the same ethnic group

Neither were Faliscans, Etruscans, Umbrians, Venetics, Sardinians.

By 300BCE Rome had its own culture completely distinct from its Roman predecessor!

>>2325402
It's called 'making a fool of yourself online' and 'being an insufferable pseudo-intellectual'

>>2325402
>"Byzantine Empire", "Carolingian Empire", "Holy Roman Empire", or "Ottoman Empire" you know who I am talking about even though they all called themselves "Romans".
That's the thing though. They didn't call themselves Romans. Charlemagne himself was very eager to capture the spirit of Roman infrastructure and civic ability but the Franks didn't call themselves Romans. Nor did the Central European peoples who made up the Holy Roman Empire. They claimed the title for reasons of prestige and legitimacy but nobody there identified as Romans.

>Ottoman Empire
This is how I know for sure that you haven't read anything about the subject because the Ottomans never claimed to have any sort of relation to the Romans apart from Mehmed II himself.

The difference between the countries you mentioned and the "Byzantine Empire" is that the general populace actually called themselves Romans and were literally the same fucking state that had been established during the principate of Augustus.

File: romanoshalf.png (2MB, 2383x549px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2383x549px

>>2325381
>They did not venerate the old gods
I can tell by the way you've phrased this that you don't actually care about history in any meaningful way and that what knowledge you do have was probably gleaned from computer games or LARPing or something. The Roman state religion had new gods introduced to it practically every couple of days and the gods that they did have had so many various aspects to them that it's hard to keep track of them. The Mars that people worshipped in the 6th century BC was very different to the one that some people still worshipped in the 4th century AD.

>They did not speak the language
What "language"? Latin? The same Latin that was only spoken by a minority of the state's inhabitants at any given time?

>They did not use the same structure of government
Roman governmental structure changed every couple of centuries, what point is this supposed to be? You might've heard but England is no longer a heptarchy, should we stop calling them English people?

>They were not the same ethnic group
I'm absolutely baffled by this one. Do you seriously think that everyone who lived in the Roman Empire, which at its greatest extent comprised of 100 million people, was a Latin-speaking ethnic Italian? Are you fucking stupid?

>>2319411
>Roman soldier
>Facial hair

>>2325441
Lorica segmentata was used into the late 3rd century by which point beards were perfectly common among Roman soldiers

>>2320909
Even if it dies on earth, the church will reign forever with the saints up in heaven

>>2325368

Well the ERE (or whatever you want to call it) WAS Greek and not Latin in character. I agree it's not accurate to treat it as something entirely separate from the thing that existed before the West fell, but it definitely had a different character.

>>2325147
WE WUZ RHOMAIOI N SHEEIT

>>2325441
After Hadrian grew a beard they became incredibly fashionable, even in the army. This idea of a hairless appearance for Romans stops reflecting reality in the early 2nd century AD. Statues continue having them mostly hairless because that was the conservative idea at the time.

>>2325537
>Well the ERE (or whatever you want to call it) WAS Greek and not Latin in character
Whatever you mean by "character" is totally irrelevant. It was the same state. Whether its inhabitants spoke Greek or Latin doesn't matter.

File: scaevola.gif (301KB, 822x521px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 822x521px

>>2325381
>They did not venerate the old gods

I bet you're an atheist neckbeard. The old gods weren't worshiped loooong before the Empire split in two, like i said previously, foreign cults were pervasive and destroyed the old pantheon long before Christianity, the cults of Mythra, Isis, Sol Invictus and the Imperial cult were what replaced the old gods, not Christianity.

>They did not speak the language

They spoke Greek, which was the lingua franca basically in the east for a long time, and for a while Latin was still the official language of the administration, that doesn't make them any less Roman either way.

>By 700 AD the Byzantine Empire had its own culture completely distinct from its Roman predecessor.

As did the late Roman Empire from the Roman Republic. If you've read Livy's Early History of Rome you would know that the Early Republic and its culture were dead by the time of the Late Republic and Empire, let alone the later Roman Empire, yet we still cal the Roman Empire.

>>2325537
Roman "character" was fluid; A Roman from the Pax Romana would be equally as distinguishable to an Early Republican Roman as an ERE Roman would be.
We're talking about an state that lasted over two thousand years here. Cultural changes happen constantly and if the west had never fallen, it is likely we'd still be discussing the same problem.

>>2325381
>>2325402

I guess this the "well-spoken dumb person" that everyone is always talking about.

>>2325480
see
>>2320931

File: virginus maximus .jpg (59KB, 667x477px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 667x477px

this is what a modern roman looks like

>>2326893
kek

File: IMG_6911.jpg (169KB, 1252x1252px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1252x1252px

>>2319433
>10 Roman families/houses.

Not meming but I dating a girl born into one of those families.

She had a series of enormous castles in the countryside with her family's coat of arms everywhere. She would host enormous degenerate parties

She was also cute with a tight rear

I wish I can go back in time

File: 1473628151573.png (37KB, 337x338px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 337x338px

>>2319696
>ywn have this as your daily routine

>>2320488

you and your brainless regurgitation belong in the 18th century

>>2325621
>well-spoken

he isn't even using punctuation while at the same time taking the time to capitalize senpai

>>2319411
Like the EU, but better.

>>2319435
Chick tracts.

File: 11late roman infantry.jpg (52KB, 500x386px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x386px

>>2325407
>>2325621
>>2327201
Jesus you Byzaboos get so emotional over this issue. Change your tampons and stick to the facts or go back to /lit/

>>2325406
>everything after 380AD is no longer Roman.
That's actually my point. All societies are transitional societies so we invent modern terms when the distinctions between them become important enough to note, even if they themselves did not actually make them

'Rome' in the traditional sense is the regime which grew up around the city-state of Rome. It had a distinct character, a distinct culture, and a distinct heydey. By the last century B.C. this culture was already in a crisis and though the regime which emerged from the chaos made a concerted effort to maintain their legitimacy to the old ways, in practice it was different enough to warrant the modern invented term "Roman Empire" and was really more Greco-Roman in identity.

Do we care that the Romans themselves never used it? No, but we use it any way because it makes talking about it a heck of a lot simpler, and everyone actually knows that when you use the term "Roman Empire" you're referring to a specific regime and a specific period of history. If we call everyone and their mother "The Romans" then it becomes a meaningless term.

So by 380 CE we're well into the Dominate era and the emperor (both terms we use even though the Romans didn't) rules with naked authority which doesn't even pretend to answer to the senate or the people. The empire is dominated by a Middle Eastern Monotheist religion which represses the rest, a ruling dynasty from Moesia, and it has been many decades since Rome itself was anything but a symbol. But even this late in the Empire it remained a potent one until it was sacked twice in the 5th century, with the regime evaporating soon after, which is why we say the empire "fell" in 476 AD, and why we call the surviving Eastern portion the "Byzantine Empire".

File: 1486407275325.png (850KB, 1024x684px) Image search: [Google]

850KB, 1024x684px

>>2319411

File: Narses.jpg (170KB, 509x700px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 509x700px

>>2325440
>I can tell by the way you've phrased this that you don't actually care about history...
I can tell by the way you phrase that that you're an insufferable prick with a pathological need to ridicule anything he disagrees with.

Try keeping it civil, next time. We're all here for the same reason.

>. The Roman state religion had new gods introduced to it practically every couple of days and the gods that they did have had so many various aspects to them that it's hard to keep track of them.
This all goes away when Aurelian makes Sun worship the state religion and is one aspect of how their society fundamentally changes during the crisis of the third century

>The Mars that people worshipped in the 6th century BC was very different to the one that some people still worshipped in the 4th century AD.
By the 4th century they were hold outs, the last few die-hards from old families in a sea of squabbling factions of Christians.

>What "language"? Latin? The same Latin that was only spoken by a minority of the state's inhabitants at any given time?
The official language of the government was Latin until Heraclius changed it to Greek, and it was at a point in history when everyone in western Europe was speaking some form of Germanic.

>what point is this supposed to be?
That making the distinction "Byzantine Empire" is a valid one even while acknowledging its similarities to earlier regimes.

>'m absolutely baffled by this one.
Well then, I'll try to make it nice and simple for you

>Do you seriously think that everyone who lived in the Roman Empire... was a Latin-speaking ethnic Italian?
No, in fact I would go so far as to say one of the primary reasons why the Republic fell was because there was such a huge number of non-citizens or second-class citizens which the ethnic Latins refused to fully Romanize. But when we talk about "the Republic" we're specifically talking about a regime built around the citizens of Rome itself.

>>2328148
>>2328228
>muh bywords

the argument

how about this: Stop being a fat, lazy shit and type the extra characters. You wasted more time trying to justify yourself, because pseuds like you love the sound of your own typing.

File: Pertinax.jpg (60KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 400x600px

>>2325568
>I bet you're an atheist neckbeard. The old gods weren't worshiped loooong before the Empire split in two, like i said previously, foreign cults were pervasive and destroyed the old pantheon long before Christianity, the cults of Mythra, Isis, Sol Invictus and the Imperial cult were what replaced the old gods, not Christianity.

Catholic, actually. And I'm old enough for my beard to be full.

And you're exactly reinforcing my point: the old gods of classical Rome were long gone by the time of the Byzantine Empire. I fully acknowledge that there were other monotheistic state cults before Christianity, and that their societies changed quite profoundly over the course of time.

>They spoke Greek, which was the lingua franca basically in the east for a long time, and for a while Latin was still the official language of the administration,
Which is what made the switch to Greek as the official language of government such a sensible decision.
>that doesn't make them any less Roman either way.
But it does make them different from the Romans of the Republic's heydey.

>As did the late Roman Empire from the Roman Republic.
And that's why we are both in agreement: these terms remain useful for us to use because we're referring to distinct periods. But I think it's also worth noting that the Romans themselves did not in fact make this distinction because the Principate went to great lengths to present a republican facade.

File: 3659259050_bfa86fa14a.jpg (20KB, 296x354px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 296x354px

>>2328245
you seem really upset over nothing. Maybe you should try taking a break from the internet for a while, go be social for a bit, try gaining a little perspective on life before sperging out so severely about a simple conversation.

>>2319433
Why do I think this bait is beautiful?


There is something about this bait that feels poetic, aesthetic. What the fuck?

Beautiful bait... this is a whole new level of b8ing

>>2320473
DELET THIS.

My family owns a ~2100 year old heirloom that proves we descendent from a formerly Kabbalist family that was banished from the Herodian Triarchy.

>>2328252
They made the official language greek after the arabs and slavs took the non greek speaking areas

>>2327212
>Have you ever read the Jesuit oath of initiation?
Yes but I can't find a source.

>>2320579
lmfao

Byzantine empire can't be a successor of the Roman empire because it actually coexisted with it and was already a different entity by the time the half that was actually Roman fell.

>>2320899
>strong empires always collapsing because the heirs are almost always fuckups that were more useful shot and thrown into the tiber river
really makes me sad at how so many people can just fuck it up

>>2319499
Roman politics was backstabby as fuck, not even good capable rulers can hold off the sheer mess that was the roman bureaucracy for too long.

also checked

>>2325177
>imperator
in bolanese this is valid term and i think it's synonymous with cesarz/emperor

File: 015.png (217KB, 470x664px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 470x664px

>>2319411
>republic
yes
>empire
no
The roman republic could have kept going. It had client states, rather than an empire. If something went rotten it could just disassociate itself from that rotten part. It had a dynamic leadership that was never stuck on a retard, even if it meant a bit less consistency.
It had a central government that didn't have to spread itself thin, it had such a strong reputation that kings would be brought to their knees by diplomats. the republic was absolutely 10/10. It's kinda like Israel today, but lawful good instead of lawful evil

File: Constantinople-Banner.png (6KB, 504x504px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 504x504px

>>2319505
>>2320055

This. We wuz Romanz. Even the flag is the banner of Constantinople. Is your flag a Roman flag? That's right fuck off.

File: China will grow larger (and smaller sometimes).gif (323KB, 556x537px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 556x537px

>>2319411
If China could do it: yes. You just have to become a meme everyone in your borders agrees *must exist.*

Unfortunately Roman meme game wasn't as strong.

>>2319411
It wouldn't have a guy like Trump as its emperor. That's for sure.

>>2319411
>Was an eternal
>eternal
No.

>>2320456
underrated

>>2329995
The China meme was because it was a civilization before it was a state
The Roman meme couldn't pull that because it was a state before it was a civilization

>>2328148
>Do we care that the Romans themselves never used it?

Do you care that the large majority of the inhabitants of the Byzantine empire called themselves "Romans"?

Well, with all the billionaires disappearing, I'm wondering if the new, about-to-fall rome is china; and the rest of the world won't be much better off. there is way too much fighting for diminishing resources and "money" to rule out a war to end all war.

>>2331044
China has been "about to fall" for the past 30 years.
Also >>2330661

>>2331044
>all the billionaires
Doesn't Beijing literally have more billionaires than New York these days

>>2320492
>There's no Western Roman analogue for the Fourth Crusade, for instance, which is the point after which many people believe the ERE was moribund

This is wrong. The Byzantine Empire had just barely experienced a huge resurgence in all fields due to the Komnenian Restoration, and the moribund state you're referring to didn't even begin until after the Sack of 1204 and the splitting of the Empire into three rump states.

>>2319411
>Everyone and their fucking grandmother have claimed to be the Heirs of Rome
>Donald Trump was inaugurated in front of a Roman style building
Rome survives just not in the way you think.

>>2331169
Saying the Byzantines declined after the Sack of 1204 is literally the same thing as saying they declined after the Fourth Crusade.

>>2331169
You mean they got their shit stomped in when they tried to retake the interior of Anatolia under Manuel I and then suffered retardation, mysticism (MUH AIMA PROPHESY GOTTA NAME MY KIDS THIS BULLSHIT OR ELSE), and court intrigue that lead to the rise of the Angeloi who subsequently pissed away everything the Komnenoi worked for, losing Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Cilicia defunding the military when it needed it the most, triggering infighting throughout the nobility of the empire and inflaming tensions between the Latins and the rhomaoi

Probably like the inside of a Minecraft Creeper's asshole

>>2332892
...

File: greater_rome_and_her_colonies_by_moxn-d9xqfv7.png (228KB, 2297x1784px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 2297x1784px

>>2319411
Yes

File: the day is ours.jpg (46KB, 500x380px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x380px

>>2333263

>that map

File: 1459813322735.jpg (25KB, 490x313px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 490x313px

>>2319420
o rly

>>2333263
>>2333407
time to play eu4

>>2319696
>wine
*posca

File: 1466461983566.jpg (54KB, 505x604px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 505x604px

>>2333263
If only.

>>2331006
>Do you care that the large majority of the inhabitants of the Byzantine empire called themselves "Romans"?
Of course we do because it's history.

The question is, what does it add to the conversation if we call everyone a Roman who calls themselves a Roman and drop distinctions like "classical Roman" or "Byzantine Empire"? Shit would probably get confusing real fast

>>2333263

I really want to see what Roman jungle equipment and Mesoamerican auxilias look like

>>2333263
>Persia is gone
No.
Bad anon.

>>2325552
It was easier to sculpt a bust that way too.