Roman Empire questions?

Question

1. Is it ok to consider the roman republic a part of the Roman empire? I mean the romans did spread dominion and culture to other regions of Europe and held britain and the Iberian, etc.

2. Is the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire considered part of the roman empire?

3. Is the Holy Roman Empire considered part of the Roman Empire?

I dont understand why 2 different forms of government means you cant have an empire. Not all empires had/have a dictatorship.

Answer 1

1. No. Republic and empire are two separate historical periods. You wouldn't claim that Weimar Republic was a part of the Third Reich, would you? Same logic applies to Rome...

2. Depends on the period. The Roman empire eventually split into the East and the West. By the time the Eastern empire morphed into Byzantium, it had very little in common with the Rome that begot it. Greek rather than Latin was the official language, Christianity rather than the Roman pantheon was the official religion, etc. Almost every aspect of culture was significantly different.

3. Hell no. As someone (I am tempted to say Friedrich Engels, but I may be wrong) once put it, Holy Roman Empire was none of those things.

Answer 2

1. They were both nominally the same culture. The distinction is drawn for the purposes of categorizing their system of government. The Republic was ruled by a senate, who were elected officials, similar to the democracies of today. The Empire was distinguished by the presence of the Emperors, autocrats who gradually diminished the power and influence of the Senate until Rome was an absolute monarchy in all but name. It should be noted that the Romans themselves never made any such distinction, and intially refered to the emperors by a euphemism: they called them Princep, or "First Citizen".

2. Yes. They called themselves the Rhomaioi, the Roman people, and right up until Constantinople's fall, they refered to themselves as the Roman Empire. Both the "Eastern" title and the "Byzantine" name are modern constructs, but there is a reason for it. The Byzantine Empire was so significantly different than the old Roman Empire that renaming it is done to avoid confusion. The Byzantine culture has more in common with modern Russia than ancient Rome.

3. Depends on who you ask. Generally speaking, no. As Voltaire once famously quipped "The Holy Roman Empire is neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire." The Frankish Empire established by Charlemagne was Frankish in nature, not Roman, so the link is tenous.About the only claim to the legacy of the Roman Empire that the HRE had was that on Christmas Day, 800 A.D, Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Romans by the Pope.

EDIT - in response to your added question:

it's just semantics when we call Rome a Republic or Empire. There are real differences, political, legal, and cultural, between the Republican government and the Imperial one, and that is why the distinction is made. As I said, Empire and Republic are modern constructs; the Romans would not have drawn this distinction. Remember in the beginning the Emperor was called "First Citizen", and acted as more of a Speaker of the House than a monarch. It took centuries before Emperors became the absolute monarch that such a title beckons. When we think of emperors, we think of, say, Napoleon Bonaparte, who truly was an absolute dictator. This was not the case with the Roman emperors, at least not in the beginning.

One of the main criticisms of the movie "Gladiator" was that it showed the Romans as being torn between an imperial and Republican government. This just wasn't the case, only a very small minority of senators recognized the death of the Republic and sought to restore it, and they were ultimately unsuccessful and faded away in less than a century.

Answer 3

Rome was a Empire in the name of a Republic from 753 BC to 1453 AD. It always considered itself a republic but never was. The eastern empire, The Byzantine Empire, was just as "Roman" as the western part was but in the 8th century AD it switched it's official language to Greek. The Holy Roman Empire had no real connection to the first Roman Empire. It was only called that because of the mythical reputation of the originally great Roman Empire. The Roman Empire still exists in a way; with our language, our dress, our customs and laws, our religion, and in the fact that still, today, many millions refer to "Rome" (the Catholic Church") for many answers. The Pope, who inherited many of the titles of the Emperors, is still, in many ways, the "Emperor".

Answer 4

Rome was 'an empire' during much of the Roman Republic. It expanded its empire beginning in the 3rd century BC. However, the 'Empire' (as was noted) was a different form of government initiated by Julius Caesar and finalized by Augustus, who began the 'Principate,' which we refer to as the Roman Empire.

The Byzantines considered themselves Roman. Byzantine is a modern term. They were in fact part of the old Roman empire but from a historic standpoint it is studied indepedently because it paralleled the Medieval world in the West, thus it was a different era.

The Holy Roman Empire was an empire, but not related to the old Roman Empire. Charlemagne, who founded the early version, and Otto the Great, who founded the later version, both ruled parts of Italy including Rome, thus they considered their empire to be 'Roman.' They were 'holy' in the sense that the pope (Leo III) crowned Charlemagne, and thus sponsored the empire itself, just as many HR emperors sponsored the spread of Christianity throughout their lands and were responsible for converting many of the Germanic peoples to the religion. In reality, the Holy Roman Empire(s) were Frankish and German, not Roman.

Answer 5

It is not ok to think of the republic as part of the roman empire.And no the holy roman empire is not part of the Roman empire.

Answer 6

1 The Republic predates the Empire and effectively ended with the rise of Octavian (Emperor Augustus) following the death of Julius Ceasar (Ceasar- never was an "Emperor", he was "Dictator of Rome") The senate led by an elected triumverate ruled the Republic

2 The Byzantine Empire was indeed part of the Roman Empire proper, it became a seperate entity after internal divisions caused by multiple heirs to the imperial succession.

3 Not really, it was a title given to the Franco/German region by the Pope to give "overlordship" to one ruler (effectively making him gods enforcer), the title was used because all rulers of the period aspired to the Roman imperial model

Answer 7

1) No, they were two separate governmental forms.

2) It started out that way but for most purposes is considered to have been a separate entity after the fall of the western half.

3) No. As one wit once remarked, it was neither "holy" nor "Roman", nor in fact much of an empire.

Answer 8

answer = no person knows how the roman empire fell. its between the mysteries of historic previous. there are a number of theories, which i recommend you look up someplace different than yahoo solutions; some being the repeated rule of fool and egocentric emperors, the moving of the capital of rome from around italia to around turkey, effectively splitting the empire up in 2, additionally numerous wars from outsiders from the north, the east, and south, one in each and every of which they destoryed the aqueducts and the availability of water into the then best city of rome on the time, to no longer point out the empire grow to be in simple terms to big to be run by employing one emperor. there are an ABUNDANCE of theories. discover some! additionally, the roman squaddies couldnt do **** without somebody in command or without different squaddies to back them up. there are comments of roman squaddies that have been given lost, wandered into china and have been beat into submission be4 settling down someplace an looking a sparkling city that translated from chinese language meant "rome". theres yet another record of them encountering warriors interior the midsection east yet i dont remember how that went.