Territories of the Roman Empire by the approximate number of years in the empire (see comment for description) : r/MapPorn

[*skriptis]

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/voeivc/territories_of_the_roman_empire_by_the/


a very cool map.

"who is most Roman" could be another name for it.


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

[The Iceberg]

On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 07:21:27 UTC, *skriptis wrote:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/voeivc/territories_of_the_roman_empire_by_the/
>
>
> a very cool map.
>
> "who is most Roman" could be another name for it.

probably a stupid question as not an expert in Roman history, but why is Croatia under "Roman" rule for 1550 years which is longer than Rome itself (on the map at 1150years)?

[joh]

Nobody told the Croats when the Roman empire ended. They were under Roman rule until the jews took over.

[The Iceberg]

wasn't your country owned by Romans for a very long time too?

[joh]

No. Don't you know how to read a map?
Just some Roman visitors now and again. Probably headed for the sex museum.

[*skriptis]

The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message

> probably a stupid question as not an expert in Roman history, but why is Croatia under "Roman" rule for 1550 years which is longer than Rome itself (on the map at 1150years)?

Not stupid, it's a good question. It's the crux of the matter and the reason why I posted this map.

As you correctly pointed out, "years" don't match, so what's going on here?

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 24.11.2022 16.55, *skriptis wrote:
> The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message
>> probably a stupid question as not an expert in Roman history, but why is Croatia under "Roman" rule for 1550 years which is longer than Rome itself (on the map at 1150years)?
>
>
> Not stupid, it's a good question. It's the crux of the matter and the reason why I posted this map.
>
> As you correctly pointed out, "years" don't match, so what's going on here?

It takes one minute to refresh your memory. The empire of Rome as in
where football is, lasted only for a relatively short period. Then it
was split in two, the Western Empire fell, and Byzantine survived.

But is Byzantine the same as Rome where football is.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

[*skriptis]

Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
> It takes one minute to refresh your memory. The empire of Rome as in where football is, lasted only for a relatively short period. Then it was split in two, the Western Empire fell, and Byzantine survived.But is Byzantine the same as Rome where football is.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional



US national tennis championships was in Newport, on grass.

Nowadays it's in New York, on hard court.

Big change, no?

Basically when you account for professionalism (amateurs vs pros) everything has changed since those times.

Then. Amateurs, grass, Newport.
Now. Professionals, hard court, New York.

But it's still US national championships.



So our case being, if Romans moved their capitol from Rome to New Rome (Constantinople) and if they became Christians, and spoke more Greek than Latin, does that change their nationality?

Imagine the absurdity.

Nowadays we "respect" self-identification of men who say they're women, but we take Roman documents from middle ages and tell those people they weren't Romans?

Funny, no?

Capitols move. Moscow to St. Petersburg and back. Berlin to Bonn and back. Kyoto to Tokyo and so on.

Even after seat was moved from Rome to New Rome, Roman people continued to consider themselves Romans, and emperor was crowned as Roman emperor, who are we 1000 years later to say they weren't Romans?

If you find their coins, or documents, they all say "Roman". The invaders were saying they wanted to conquer Roman empire and so on.

It's just slome German asshole from 16th century, who coined the term "Byzantine" to take away the legitimacy of the medieval Roman empire.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Wolf


It's due to Germanic - Mediterranean rivalry and broadly western-eastern schism.



So you get these fake maps for year cca 1050.


https://whbailey.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/3/15738528/europe-and-kievan-rus-1050-a-d_orig.jpg


German medieval realm is titled with not just being Roman, but "holy Roman" empire, lol, whilst Roman empire is falsely named as Byzantine.

Germans at the time didn't hold city of Rome, and it was them who burned it couple of centuries ago anyway.

But they're "Holy Romans"?

Haha.


Meanwhile, Roman goverment in New Rome (Constantinople), which moved there in 330, and was there for more than 7 centuries is some "Byzantine" empire?

Sure, sure...




Would Canada stop being Canada if capitol moved from Ottawa to some city French speaking part of the country and people became atheists and mostly brown?

I get the idea that it's quite different Canada, but it's still legal continuation of Canada.

It's a lie to claim otherwise.

[Sawfish]

On 11/23/22 11:21 PM, *skriptis wrote:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/voeivc/territories_of_the_roman_empire_by_the/
>
>
> a very cool map.
>
> "who is most Roman" could be another name for it.
>
>

It *is* a very neat map.

There is an oddity in it's naming, it looks like. Since the greatest
number of years in the Roman empire seems to be the Hellenic
territories. maybe the actual intent of this maps was to show combined
greco-roman cultural influence.

What do you think?

--
"It is Pointless, and endless Trouble, to cast a stone at every dog
that barks at you."

--Sawfish

[Sawfish]

On 11/24/22 7:41 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 24.11.2022 16.55, *skriptis wrote:
>> The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message
>>> probably a stupid question as not an expert in Roman history, but
>>> why is Croatia under "Roman" rule for 1550 years which is longer
>>> than Rome itself (on the map at 1150years)?
>>
>>
>> Not stupid, it's a good question. It's the crux of the matter and the
>> reason why I posted this map.
>>
>> As you correctly pointed out, "years" don't match, so what's going on
>> here?
>
> It takes one minute to refresh your memory. The empire of Rome as in
> where football is, lasted only for a relatively short period. Then it
> was split in two, the Western Empire fell, and Byzantine survived.

More precisely, the primary ruler was based in Constantinople. The west
still existed by as a sort of subsidiary division, with one or two times
where an easter emperor wanted to go back to Rome. This never lasted
lnger than his lifetime.

Funny thing, too, but the western part was what evolved to the Holy
Roman Empire, which lasted until Napoleon.

>
> But is Byzantine the same as Rome where football is.
>

Maybe.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Favorite tattoo:

BORN TOULOUSE


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[*skriptis]

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> It *is* a very neat map. There is an oddity in it's naming, it looks like.

Oddity I notice is that they use the term "empire" to cover for all the periods which is also wrong.

Roman state would be more accurate, but perhaps it's nitpicking.

> Since the greatest number of years in the Roman empire seems to be the Hellenic territories. maybe the actual intent of this maps was to show combined greco-roman cultural influence. What do you think?

Of course, what else.

And I'd say Greco-Latin culture is more correct term. Greeks were in the east, Latins in the west.


But there is no one who would fight for historical truth.

Greeks are destroyed as a people, they're irrelevant, they number mere 10 millions today in Greece, all of their territories were overrun by the Turks since 11 century, they never regained Constantinople, only got back Athens and through time and ethnic cleansing and genocide and normal assimilation processes, Christians got purged from most of areas in this map in the east. Historically most Christians areas and first Christian areas, that have also been Greek for millennias, are nowadays Turkish and Moslem.


OTOH Latin areas evolved into Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese nations, you have 150 million people and powerful nations.

West did take Greece under its own and touting it as the craddle of western civilisation but the bargain came at a huge price, basically Greeks get credit and recognition for their antiquity period, they get to mention Athens, but their medieval period that is Christian (and closer to present day Greeks in terms of language and culture) and which would be all about Constantinople is at best ignored, at worst vilified by the west. Because it's "Byzantine".

The ones who could somewhat defend real history would be Russia, because they're the biggest Christian orthodox power following collapse of Roman empire in the east, but they're only spiritual successors to the "Byzantines" or mediaeval (greek Christian) Roman empire.

It's not really their job, or their right.


Constantinople fell in 1453 and that was de facto end, and last scattered remnants of Roman state were subjugated by the 1461.

So...

753 BC - 1461 AD is time period depicted on the map. Or at least it should be that.



Bottom line, Byzantine (medieval Roman Christians) and Russia vilification in the West is chicken and egg thing and you can pinpoint which one is the chicken (comes first) and which one is the egg (comes second).

When Russia is irrationally hated, it's because they're seen as the new Byzantines.

Of course, powerful empires and entities will always fight for more power. Nothing irrational about that.


But do think about it more.

How man Hollywood movies in the west are there about Greek antiquity? You have those. Troy, Sparta etc.

Latin Rome? Plenty of those.

... And how many do you know that have covered medieval Christian Roman state (based in Constantinople). I know none.

And it's a period of more than 1100 years.

Capital was moved there in 324 and city fell in 1453.


At least there could have been a good movie about fall of Constantinople, greatest tragedy in history of Christendom?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople

Constantinople is generally considered to be the center and the "cradle of Orthodox Christian civilization". From the mid-5th century to the early 13th century, Constantinople was the largest and wealthiest city in Europe.

The city became famous for its architectural masterpieces, such as Hagia Sophia, the cathedral of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which served as the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the sacred Imperial Palace where the Emperors lived, the Hippodrome, the Golden Gate of the Land Walls, and opulent aristocratic palaces.

The University of Constantinople was founded in the fifth century and contained artistic and literary treasures before it was sacked in 1204 and 1453, including its vast Imperial Library which contained the remnants of the Library of Alexandria and had 100,000 volumes.

The city was the home of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and guardian of Christendom's holiest relics such as the Crown of thorns and the True Cross.



https://9gag.com/gag/aQ4o8Mq

[Sawfish]

On 11/24/22 12:32 PM, *skriptis wrote:
> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> It *is* a very neat map. There is an oddity in it's naming, it looks like.
>
> Oddity I notice is that they use the term "empire" to cover for all the periods which is also wrong.
>
> Roman state would be more accurate, but perhaps it's nitpicking.

No. It's good to distinguish between pre-Octavian and the official
empire starting with Octavian.

You had those oddball outliers, like Sulla, who were damned close to
becoming a de facto emperor, holding the dictatorship without the
6-month time limit.

He was sort of an oligarch, I think, and Pompey followed in his path,
while Caesar was supported by the populare faction.

So Caesar was a multi-year dictator, like Sulla, and after Caesar
Octavian became emperor, which was the end of the republic.

>
>
>
>
>> Since the greatest number of years in the Roman empire seems to be the Hellenic territories. maybe the actual intent of this maps was to show combined greco-roman cultural influence. What do you think?
>
> Of course, what else.
>
> And I'd say Greco-Latin culture is more correct term. Greeks were in the east, Latins in the west.
>
>
> But there is no one who would fight for historical truth.
>
> Greeks are destroyed as a people, they're irrelevant, they number mere 10 millions today in Greece, all of their territories were overrun by the Turks since 11 century, they never regained Constantinople, only got back Athens and through time and ethnic cleansing and genocide and normal assimilation processes, Christians got purged from most of areas in this map in the east. Historically most Christians areas and first Christian areas, that have also been Greek for millennias, are nowadays Turkish and Moslem.
>
>
> OTOH Latin areas evolved into Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese nations, you have 150 million people and powerful nations.
>
> West did take Greece under its own and touting it as the craddle of western civilisation but the bargain came at a huge price, basically Greeks get credit and recognition for their antiquity period, they get to mention Athens, but their medieval period that is Christian (and closer to present day Greeks in terms of language and culture) and which would be all about Constantinople is at best ignored, at worst vilified by the west. Because it's "Byzantine".
>
> The ones who could somewhat defend real history would be Russia, because they're the biggest Christian orthodox power following collapse of Roman empire in the east, but they're only spiritual successors to the "Byzantines" or mediaeval (greek Christian) Roman empire.

Yes. tsar = caesar

>
> It's not really their job, or their right.
>
>
> Constantinople fell in 1453 and that was de facto end, and last scattered remnants of Roman state were subjugated by the 1461.
>
> So...
>
> 753 BC - 1461 AD is time period depicted on the map. Or at least it should be that.
>
>
>
> Bottom line, Byzantine (medieval Roman Christians) and Russia vilification in the West is chicken and egg thing and you can pinpoint which one is the chicken (comes first) and which one is the egg (comes second).
>
> When Russia is irrationally hated, it's because they're seen as the new Byzantines.
>
> Of course, powerful empires and entities will always fight for more power. Nothing irrational about that.
>
>
> But do think about it more.
>
> How man Hollywood movies in the west are there about Greek antiquity? You have those. Troy, Sparta etc.
>
> Latin Rome? Plenty of those.
>
> ... And how many do you know that have covered medieval Christian Roman state (based in Constantinople). I know none.
>
> And it's a period of more than 1100 years.
>
> Capital was moved there in 324 and city fell in 1453.
>
>
> At least there could have been a good movie about fall of Constantinople, greatest tragedy in history of Christendom?
>
>
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople
>
> Constantinople is generally considered to be the center and the "cradle of Orthodox Christian civilization". From the mid-5th century to the early 13th century, Constantinople was the largest and wealthiest city in Europe.
>
> The city became famous for its architectural masterpieces, such as Hagia Sophia, the cathedral of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which served as the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the sacred Imperial Palace where the Emperors lived, the Hippodrome, the Golden Gate of the Land Walls, and opulent aristocratic palaces.
>
> The University of Constantinople was founded in the fifth century and contained artistic and literary treasures before it was sacked in 1204 and 1453, including its vast Imperial Library which contained the remnants of the Library of Alexandria and had 100,000 volumes.
>
> The city was the home of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and guardian of Christendom's holiest relics such as the Crown of thorns and the True Cross.
>
>
>
> https://9gag.com/gag/aQ4o8Mq
>
>
>
>
>

It's weird about  the technology/engineering of the Constantine period
vs the Roman period. Art also. It looks decadent, in notable decline as
compared to the Roman times (pre-Constantine).

The actual nature of the eventual schism between the Roman Catholic and
the eastern orthodox hierarchies is also, to me, odd. I think the
biggest single wedge was the icon thingie, where a small group of
eastern rulers favored the prohibition of representation of holy persons
as images of worship. I think that this was bogus--an extremist view
even in the east. The west was looking to split, simply the political
aspect of being the boss of the religion, and they jumped at the
provocation.

The images were also very popular among the common folk, giving them a
concrete focus for worship. They liked/needed that, which to me is
understandable.

Too, if I'm remembering correctly, there was some level of quibbling
about the nature of the trinity. This had come up before in radical
different views (Arianism), and this one at schism time was less radical.

There was also that thingie about leavened vs unleavened.

To my reading, the whole thing looked like finding rationales to split
off, which was the *real* reason: it was political rather than theological.

And I think that right there at the end, in the 1440-50s, the eastern
rulers were prepared to make theological concession, to try to gain some
military support.

Interesting stuff, huh?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.

Barbecue grills on fire behind the condominiums that line the 9th fairway.

I watched casual strollers slip on dog excrement on the boardwalk near the amusement pier.

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

Time for lunch.

--Sawfish