It’s pretty much memetic that there is no agreed-on date.
Like, You could go 1456 and not be wrong, and in multiple ways Russia inherited a lot of Byzantium. At the other end, Rome was in decline loong before it was sacked, like centuries, and actually had had brushes with instability pretty early in it’s Empire period, like the year of four emperors in 69.
Uh, that was France. Or maybe I’m missing what you mean there.
Anyway, I’ll copy in what I replied with as well:
In some ways, this is worse, because they hit metaphorical stairs the whole way up as well, and where the “top” is is a matter of what you want to measure.
It’s very not-the-circlejerk, but maybe 13 should be “Rome never existed in the first place”.
Basically, you’d have to be more specific about what measure you’re using. If you go by population they peaked in the 100’s, and infrastructure construction peaked around the same time IIRC. Territorial expansion was actually slower in the Empire than the Republic from the start.
It’s not clear what caused Rome to decline, either, to complicate things.
The only people that say Russia inherited Byzantium are the Russians, and the people who definitely wouldn’t have agreed are the Byzantines, once they figured out you were talking about them with that nonsense made-up word instead of an actual translation of “Roman”
Tl;d saying Russia inherited Rome is as valid and accurate as saying the Germans are the heirs of the Aryans, and the people saying either have similar goals.
It’s pretty much memetic that there is no agreed-on date.
Like, You could go 1456 and not be wrong, and in multiple ways Russia inherited a lot of Byzantium. At the other end, Rome was in decline loong before it was sacked, like centuries, and actually had had brushes with instability pretty early in it’s Empire period, like the year of four emperors in 69.
Good question, when would you say the trip was, “Let them eat cake” or something?
Uh, that was France. Or maybe I’m missing what you mean there.
Anyway, I’ll copy in what I replied with as well:
Basically, you’d have to be more specific about what measure you’re using. If you go by population they peaked in the 100’s, and infrastructure construction peaked around the same time IIRC. Territorial expansion was actually slower in the Empire than the Republic from the start.
It’s not clear what caused Rome to decline, either, to complicate things.
The only people that say Russia inherited Byzantium are the Russians, and the people who definitely wouldn’t have agreed are the Byzantines, once they figured out you were talking about them with that nonsense made-up word instead of an actual translation of “Roman”
Tl;d saying Russia inherited Rome is as valid and accurate as saying the Germans are the heirs of the Aryans, and the people saying either have similar goals.
Remind me where the eastern Church moved, when Byzantium was still there but in decline? There’s also the cultural and aristocratic connections.
Like, you can easily argue the other way as well, since they’re not Greek, but it’s not as totally groundless as most of Russian nationalism.
Okay buddy Russian
It’s the facts. You don’t have to pay any attention to them if you don’t want, I guess.
Got em right from RT so they and all conclusions derived from them must be true amirite
The pope holds a title associated with the roman emperor and controlled Rome until the unification of Italy.