Which of these Empires do you have a higher opinion of: British, or Roman?

[KaiserDave]

I would personally say the British Empire as the Roman Empire contributed very little to the world beyond spreading Christianity.

......

[KaiserDave]

This is a long pattern of Mr. TheReckoning's pointless arbitrary distinctions, horrible assumptions, and dogmatism in interpreting history.

[KaiserDave]

Adding to Conservatopia's point. The transition of the Ottoman empire to Turkey involved a massive territorial restructuring; waves of genocide and ethnic cleansing; a complete reorientation of the institusions of state; the place of religion and of national identity. That's quite... different.

On the other point, about half of the modern English lexicon consists of originally Latin, principally French ones. Just to cite a few example in your recent posts: "modern", "influence", "people", "romance", "influence", "election" and "Britain" all come from Latin originally. All bar the last coming through the medium of medieval French. It's why English is so distinct from other germanic language.

England was also ruled by a French speaking (ie romance) ruling class for centuries - which can still be seen in the names of many of it's modern institutions. You know "parliament", "prime minister", the "city" of London. That's quite a lot of influence; or "contribution" to what makes modern Britain Britain.

It's a large part of why English is so distinct from every other germanic language

Latin was already widespread in France before the formation of the Roman Empire. While the Roman Empire continued it’s use and further solidified it, the reason why it got there was the Roman Republic, which contrary to what your saying, was absolutely a very distinct political entity from the Roman Empire, with a very turbulent transition between the two.

This is a long pattern of Mr. TheReckoning's pointless arbitrary distinctions, horrible assumptions, and dogmatism in interpreting history.

The question said “Roman Empire” not “Ancient Rome.” I don’t think it’s asking too much brain power for someone with any grasp of ancient history to seperate those two things in their head when deciding their answer.

The Roman Republic was an Empire. It was a political unit governing varying groups of people governed by a central authority. It was governed by a select group of privileged citizens as opposed to a single ruler, which changed with the ascension of Augustus Caesar. In terms of the question you pose, the distinction between the day before Augustus became "Emperor" and the day after is rather unimportant. The differences between the Republic and Empire, but only as it relates to the internal political affairs of the contiguous Roman political unit that lasted for 2,000 years. Not in a comparative question to other empires.

Essentially, the Roman Republic was an Empire and should be included in any comparison.

Even if you didn't include the Roman Republic, the answer is still obviously the Roman Empire. All modern conceptions of "empire" come from Rome.

[KaiserDave]

Adding to Conservatopia's point. The transition of the Ottoman empire to Turkey involved a massive territorial restructuring; waves of genocide and ethnic cleansing; a complete reorientation of the institusions of state; the place of religion and of national identity. That's quite... different.

On the other point, about half of the modern English lexicon consists of originally Latin, principally French ones. Just to cite a few example in your recent posts: "modern", "influence", "people", "romance", "influence", "election" and "Britain" all come from Latin originally. All bar the last coming through the medium of medieval French. It's why English is so distinct from other germanic language.

England was also ruled by a French speaking (ie romance) ruling class for centuries - which can still be seen in the names of many of it's modern institutions. You know "parliament", "prime minister", the "city" of London. That's quite a lot of influence; or "contribution" to what makes modern Britain Britain.

It's a large part of why English is so distinct from every other germanic language

Latin was already widespread in France before the formation of the Roman Empire. While the Roman Empire continued it’s use and further solidified it, the reason why it got there was the Roman Republic, which contrary to what your saying, was absolutely a very distinct political entity from the Roman Empire, with a very turbulent transition between the two.

This is a long pattern of Mr. TheReckoning's pointless arbitrary distinctions, horrible assumptions, and dogmatism in interpreting history.

The question said “Roman Empire” not “Ancient Rome.” I don’t think it’s asking too much brain power for someone with any grasp of ancient history to seperate those two things in their head when deciding their answer.

The Roman Republic was an Empire. It was a political unit governing varying groups of people governed by a central authority. It was governed by a select group of privileged citizens as opposed to a single ruler.

So the United States is an empire?

Well, yes somewhat? There is an American empire. Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and so on. Various peoples governed by a distant central authority. Pretty small Empire comparably though.

You are trying to distinguish between the Roman Republic and Empire just as you would the Kingdom of France and the French Republic. I do not think this is a distinction worth making in this kind of question you are posing, nor is it the same as Kingdom of France vs. French Republic.

[KaiserDave]

This is such a hysterically stupid argument that I’m not surprised you made it.

Sigged!

[KaiserDave]

The Roman Republic was an Empire. It was a political unit governing varying groups of people governed by a central authority. It was governed by a select group of privileged citizens as opposed to a single ruler, which changed with the ascension of Augustus Caesar. In terms of the question you pose, the distinction between the day before Augustus became "Emperor" and the day after is rather unimportant. The differences between the Republic and Empire, but only as it relates to the internal political affairs of the contiguous Roman political unit that lasted for 2,000 years. Not in a comparative question to other empires.

Essentially, the Roman Republic was an Empire and should be included in any comparison.

Even if you didn't include the Roman Republic, the answer is still obviously the Roman Empire. All modern conceptions of "empire" come from Rome.

By this logic, since the Russian Federation has multiple different groups in it, historical discussions about the  “Russian Empire” as it is used ought to include modern day Russia.

The only mistake is that I should have said empire instead of Empire. One can talk about the Putinist Russian empire that exists today without referring to the Tsarist Russian Empire. The Roman Republic was not an Empire, but it was an empire. The distinction should be obvious.

My earlier point stands, and it was substantiated by bloggers such as Conservatopia, Parochial Boy, and Al, who are considerably wiser than you. None of them have made such tremendous contributions to my signature though. Nor do any of them stalk my old posts to resurrect two year old arguments that I won.

[KaiserDave]

The Roman Republic was an Empire. It was a political unit governing varying groups of people governed by a central authority. It was governed by a select group of privileged citizens as opposed to a single ruler, which changed with the ascension of Augustus Caesar. In terms of the question you pose, the distinction between the day before Augustus became "Emperor" and the day after is rather unimportant. The differences between the Republic and Empire, but only as it relates to the internal political affairs of the contiguous Roman political unit that lasted for 2,000 years. Not in a comparative question to other empires.

Essentially, the Roman Republic was an Empire and should be included in any comparison.

Even if you didn't include the Roman Republic, the answer is still obviously the Roman Empire. All modern conceptions of "empire" come from Rome.

By this logic, since the Russian Federation has multiple different groups in it, historical discussions about the  “Russian Empire” as it is used ought to include modern day Russia.

The only mistake is that I should have said empire instead of Empire. One can talk about the Putinist Russian empire that exists today without referring to the Tsarist Russian Empire. The Roman Republic was not an Empire, but it was an empire. The distinction should be obvious.

The title uses the capital “Empire”. It should have been obvious.

As was explained two years ago, the distinction between the Republic and the Empire is more nuanced and complicated than the distinction between the present-day Russian Federation and the Petrine Russian Empire. Frankly it's very arguable that a clear-cut singular change from Republic to Empire never occurred. I am aware you struggle with this.

[KaiserDave]

The Roman Republic was an Empire. It was a political unit governing varying groups of people governed by a central authority. It was governed by a select group of privileged citizens as opposed to a single ruler, which changed with the ascension of Augustus Caesar. In terms of the question you pose, the distinction between the day before Augustus became "Emperor" and the day after is rather unimportant. The differences between the Republic and Empire, but only as it relates to the internal political affairs of the contiguous Roman political unit that lasted for 2,000 years. Not in a comparative question to other empires.

Essentially, the Roman Republic was an Empire and should be included in any comparison.

Even if you didn't include the Roman Republic, the answer is still obviously the Roman Empire. All modern conceptions of "empire" come from Rome.

By this logic, since the Russian Federation has multiple different groups in it, historical discussions about the  “Russian Empire” as it is used ought to include modern day Russia.

The only mistake is that I should have said empire instead of Empire. One can talk about the Putinist Russian empire that exists today without referring to the Tsarist Russian Empire. The Roman Republic was not an Empire, but it was an empire. The distinction should be obvious.

The title uses the capital “Empire”. It should have been obvious.

As was explained two years ago, the distinction between the Republic and the Empire is more nuanced and complicated than the distinction between the present-day Russian Federation and the Petrine Russian Empire. Frankly it's very arguable that a clear-cut singular change from Republic to Empire never occurred. I am aware you struggle with this.

Please refer me to an academic single source that refers to Julius Caesar, or any of his predecessors, as ruler of the “Roman Empire.” You won’t, because the Roman Empire did not exist then.

You have to make it harder than this.