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

[KaiserDave]

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

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The Roman Empire wins this one.

[TheReckoning]

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.

[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.

[TheReckoning]

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?

[parochial boy]

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.

The transition from the Kingdom of France to the first republic was also famously "turbulent". Still does not mean we consider post revolution France as a separate entity. In fact part of the propaganda of many of the early Roman empires was even centred around the need to "protect" or "restore" republican institutions; the senate still existed, etc, etc. They saw themselves as a continuation of the Republic, shall we say.

As for Latin. As anyone who has ever read an Asterix book would know, Gaul was finally conquered by Rome in about 50 BC. Does not leave much time for the local population to become romanised in the two odd decades before the Republic fell.

In fact, it was only by the second century AD that Latin really became a vehicular language used across the empire. A long time after Rome started having emperors.

[TheReckoning]

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.

The transition from the Kingdom of France to the first republic was also famously "turbulent". Still does not mean we consider post revolution France as a separate entity. In fact part of the propaganda of many of the early Roman empires was even centred around the need to "protect" or "restore" republican institutions; the senate still existed, etc, etc. They saw themselves as a continuation of the Republic, shall we say.

I feel like you’re disagreeing with me just to disagree. If someone says “French Republic” that explicitly excludes the Kingdom of France. Similarly, if someone says “Roman Empire” that explicitly excludes the Roman Republic. Yes, both were Roman, just as both the French Republic and Kingdom of France were both France. But they are distinct political entities which can be differentiated by clarifying “Republic” or “Empire.”

[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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

There’s a difference between “contributing” and “influencing.” Nazi Germany influenced the modern world greatly- it’s pretty difficult to imagine what the world would be like has it never existed, and it hasn’t even been 80 years since their fall. But Nazi Germany didn’t “contribute” anything to the modern world.

Why are you always thinking about Hitler.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

Obviously. Once again, Mr. TheReckoning's weird obsession with rules and authority leads him to maintain a position no serious academic would defend. When I studied the Roman Empire in college, my professors said exactly what Dave is saying here. "I don’t think it’s asking too much brain power for someone with any grasp of ancient history" to recognize the Roman empire began long before the republic met its end: indeed, absent a pre-existing imperialism, the Roman emperorship would probably have never existed!

[TheReckoning]

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.

Obviously. Once again, Mr. TheReckoning's weird obsession with rules and authority leads him to maintain a position no serious academic would defend. When I studied the Roman Empire in college, my professors said exactly what Dave is saying here. "I don’t think it’s asking too much brain power for someone with any grasp of ancient history" to recognize the Roman empire began long before the republic met its end: indeed, absent a pre-existing imperialism, the Roman emperorship would probably have never existed!

First line from Wikipedia:

The Roman Empire was the post-Republican period of Ancient Rome.

The idea that the term “Roman Empire” only refers to Roman Civilization post-27 BC is not a fringe position.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

Obviously. Once again, Mr. TheReckoning's weird obsession with rules and authority leads him to maintain a position no serious academic would defend. When I studied the Roman Empire in college, my professors said exactly what Dave is saying here. "I don’t think it’s asking too much brain power for someone with any grasp of ancient history" to recognize the Roman empire began long before the republic met its end: indeed, absent a pre-existing imperialism, the Roman emperorship would probably have never existed!

First line from Wikipedia:

ahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[John Dule]

I think it's pretty obvious that (A) Pre-Caesar Rome essentially functioned as an empire in many respects, and (B) Having said that, the Empire represented a devolution towards autocracy compared to the Republic before.

[Cassius]

The Roman Empire effectively came into being with the establishment of Sicily as the first province after the 1st Punic War in the late third century BC, so well before the establishment of the Principate. Whilst 27 BC is typically treated as the start of the Principate and the de hire end of the Roman Republic (although, of course, all republican institutions remained formally in place), in reality it’s probably best to think of the period from 49 BC to AD 14 as belonging to one long transitional period, with autocratic rule already de facto entrenched long before Augustus’ so-called ‘first settlement’ with the Senate in 27 BC. Obviously, you can trace the decline of ‘Republican governance’ to well before this period (the murder of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC is typically given as the earliest start date, although realistically you could argue that the establishment of overseas provinces marked the beginning of the end for traditional republicanism), but I think prior to 49 BC there was still enough free electoral competition (punctuated by periods of autocratic rule) to justify that date as being the beginning of the end for the Republic.

[Person Man]

Why is this even a question?

There's another great clip from this movie relevant to... other threads that have gained traction lately. I almost hesitate to post it, but I will just as a reminder that some of these new ideas about gender are indeed VERY new to most people. And if you wanna sell them on these ideas which are hard to grasp for generations of people who were raised to believe strongly that sex=gender, you probably are gonna have to do a little better than trying to brow-beat everyone who raises any questions about these concepts and contradictions at all into submission. (Very stark contrast to the much smarter approach activists took to get people sympathetic to the idea of gay marriage.) Even a clearly left-leaning group like Monty Python could make a clip like this back in the day which would get them canceled on arrival today. Really telling how much and how rapidly things have changed:

The Flying Circus started in 1966 and the Meaning of Life was in 1982. This clip reminds me of the skit in the Flying Circus with the transvestite Canadian lumberjacks. These issues are nothing new.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Let's clear this up, shall we? The word 'Empire' in the conventional usage of the terms 'British Empire' and 'Roman Empire' does not actually refer to exactly the same thing. In the context of the Roman Empire, it does not refer to Rome's possessions outside Italy but to the system of government established after the total victory of Augustus as contrasted with the previous Republican system of government.* In the context of the British Empire it does not refer to the system of government in Britain (a constitutional monarchy with increasingly strong - and eventually entirely dominant - democratic aspects), but to the overseas possessions of the United Kingdom.

_{*Although, as already noted in this thread, the idea that there was a very sharp distinction between the two is historically dubious.}

[Conservatopia]

To summarize what I and others since have said:

The transition between Republic and Principate was, in a legal sense, non-existent and in a practical sense, seamless.

The Roman Republic is the early Roman Empire.

It's similar to the transition from England to Great Britain to the United Kingdom. In fact the changes between England and Great Britain were far greater than the changes between the Republic and the Empire.

[NYDem]

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.

The transition from the Kingdom of France to the first republic was also famously "turbulent". Still does not mean we consider post revolution France as a separate entity. In fact part of the propaganda of many of the early Roman empires was even centred around the need to "protect" or "restore" republican institutions; the senate still existed, etc, etc. They saw themselves as a continuation of the Republic, shall we say.

I feel like you’re disagreeing with me just to disagree. If someone says “French Republic” that explicitly excludes the Kingdom of France. Similarly, if someone says “Roman Empire” that explicitly excludes the Roman Republic. Yes, both were Roman, just as both the French Republic and Kingdom of France were both France. But they are distinct political entities which can be differentiated by clarifying “Republic” or “Empire.”

The Roman Empire and Roman Republic really weren't distinct political entities. While you can draw a line at 27 BC, there was a long transitional period, and there was continuity between governments. The people we call Emperors today did not officially hold any monarchical position. Augustus held a variety of positions throughout his term as "emperor" (consul, tribune, pontifex, etc.) in order to maintain his power. De jure not that much actually changed between the late Republic and the early Empire. One could even make the case that the Principate was more similar to the Republic than the Dominate.

Contrast this to the difference between the Kingdom of France and the French Republic. In 1788 France was a near-absolute monarchy under Louis XVI with no real legislature and a large noble class. Fast forward 5 years: The king and queen are dead, all the nobility have died or fled, France has a new republican Constitution (which has already been suspended), and is being ruled by a committee chosen by an elected legislature. Catholicism went from being the national religion to being nearly illegal, replaced by a bizarre Atheistic cult. The Gregorian calendar was replaced by a new Revolutionary Calendar which did not line up with the old one in any way. Time was measured decimally instead of sexagesimally. Every system of units and measures was changed. Every level lower level of government was completely reorganized. France went from peace to being at war with nearly all of Europe.

The transition from the French Kingdom to the First French Republic during the Revolution is one of the hardest, most complete governmental and social changes in history. It honestly works much better as a counterexample to the transition between Roman Empire and Roman Republic.

[TheReckoning]

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.

The transition from the Kingdom of France to the first republic was also famously "turbulent". Still does not mean we consider post revolution France as a separate entity. In fact part of the propaganda of many of the early Roman empires was even centred around the need to "protect" or "restore" republican institutions; the senate still existed, etc, etc. They saw themselves as a continuation of the Republic, shall we say.

I feel like you’re disagreeing with me just to disagree. If someone says “French Republic” that explicitly excludes the Kingdom of France. Similarly, if someone says “Roman Empire” that explicitly excludes the Roman Republic. Yes, both were Roman, just as both the French Republic and Kingdom of France were both France. But they are distinct political entities which can be differentiated by clarifying “Republic” or “Empire.”

The Roman Empire and Roman Republic really weren't distinct political entities. While you can draw a line at 27 BC, there was a long transitional period, and there was continuity between governments. The people we call Emperors today did not officially hold any monarchical position. Augustus held a variety of positions throughout his term as "emperor" (consul, tribune, pontifex, etc.) in order to maintain his power. De jure not that much actually changed between the late Republic and the early Empire. One could even make the case that the Principate was more similar to the Republic than the Dominate.

Contrast this to the difference between the Kingdom of France and the French Republic. In 1788 France was a near-absolute monarchy under Louis XVI with no real legislature and a large noble class. Fast forward 5 years: The king and queen are dead, all the nobility have died or fled, France has a new republican Constitution (which has already been suspended), and is being ruled by a committee chosen by an elected legislature. Catholicism went from being the national religion to being nearly illegal, replaced by a bizarre Atheistic cult. The Gregorian calendar was replaced by a new Revolutionary Calendar which did not line up with the old one in any way. Time was measured decimally instead of sexagesimally. Every system of units and measures was changed. Every level lower level of government was completely reorganized. France went from peace to being at war with nearly all of Europe.

The transition from the French Kingdom to the First French Republic during the Revolution is one of the hardest, most complete governmental and social changes in history. It honestly works much better as a counterexample to the transition between Roman Empire and Roman Republic.

Are you seriously saying defining “Roman Empire” as a political entity which came about in 27 BC is not something that is done?

[NYDem]

I feel like you’re disagreeing with me just to disagree. If someone says “French Republic” that explicitly excludes the Kingdom of France. Similarly, if someone says “Roman Empire” that explicitly excludes the Roman Republic. Yes, both were Roman, just as both the French Republic and Kingdom of France were both France. But they are distinct political entities which can be differentiated by clarifying “Republic” or “Empire.”

The Roman Empire and Roman Republic really weren't distinct political entities. While you can draw a line at 27 BC, there was a long transitional period, and there was continuity between governments. The people we call Emperors today did not officially hold any monarchical position. Augustus held a variety of positions throughout his term as "emperor" (consul, tribune, pontifex, etc.) in order to maintain his power. De jure not that much actually changed between the late Republic and the early Empire. One could even make the case that the Principate was more similar to the Republic than the Dominate.

Contrast this to the difference between the Kingdom of France and the French Republic. In 1788 France was a near-absolute monarchy under Louis XVI with no real legislature and a large noble class. Fast forward 5 years: The king and queen are dead, all the nobility have died or fled, France has a new republican Constitution (which has already been suspended), and is being ruled by a committee chosen by an elected legislature. Catholicism went from being the national religion to being nearly illegal, replaced by a bizarre Atheistic cult. The Gregorian calendar was replaced by a new Revolutionary Calendar which did not line up with the old one in any way. Time was measured decimally instead of sexagesimally. Every system of units and measures was changed. Every level lower level of government was completely reorganized. France went from peace to being at war with nearly all of Europe.

The transition from the French Kingdom to the First French Republic during the Revolution is one of the hardest, most complete governmental and social changes in history. It honestly works much better as a counterexample to the transition between Roman Empire and Roman Republic.

Are you seriously saying defining “Roman Empire” as a political entity which came about in 27 BC is not something that is done?

Well, if you'd actually read the post you're responding to, you'll see the following line:

...you can draw a line at 27 BC...

The way you ask these questions really betrays the fact that you have no experience with history other than Wikipedia pages and Youtube videos. Nothing wrong with that per se, but don't condescend to people who actually have experience and know what they are talking about (Truman for example). In actual history not everything has a simple one line answer, not everything can be perfectly separated into neat little boxes, and not everything has sharply defined and known beginning and end dates.

To answer your question, historians do often refer to the Roman Empire and the Roman Republic, and the First Settlement in 27 BC makes a convenient demarcation point between them. It is "something that is done". However, such demarcations are used for historical convenience. As any historian who has actually studied the period could tell you, there was a lot of continuity between the Roman Empire and the Republic, and many place the line between "Empire" and "Republic" in other places.

[TheReckoning]

]
Well, if you'd actually read the post you're responding to, you'll see the following line:

...you can draw a line at 27 BC...

The way you ask these questions really betrays the fact that you have no experience with history other than Wikipedia pages and Youtube videos. Nothing wrong with that per se, but don't condescend to people who actually have experience and know what they are talking about (Truman for example). In actual history not everything has a simple one line answer, not everything can be perfectly separated into neat little boxes, and not everything has sharply defined and known beginning and end dates.

To answer your question, historians do often refer to the Roman Empire and the Roman Republic, and the First Settlement in 27 BC makes a convenient demarcation point between them. It is "something that is done". However, such demarcations are used for historical convenience. As any historian who has actually studied the period could tell you, there was a lot of continuity between the Roman Empire and the Republic, and many place the line between "Empire" and "Republic" in other places.

That does not change the fact that using the term “Roman Empire” in a question to only refer to Rome post-27 BC is not unreasonable, which is what I did in this question.

[NYDem]

]
Well, if you'd actually read the post you're responding to, you'll see the following line:

...you can draw a line at 27 BC...

The way you ask these questions really betrays the fact that you have no experience with history other than Wikipedia pages and Youtube videos. Nothing wrong with that per se, but don't condescend to people who actually have experience and know what they are talking about (Truman for example). In actual history not everything has a simple one line answer, not everything can be perfectly separated into neat little boxes, and not everything has sharply defined and known beginning and end dates.

To answer your question, historians do often refer to the Roman Empire and the Roman Republic, and the First Settlement in 27 BC makes a convenient demarcation point between them. It is "something that is done". However, such demarcations are used for historical convenience. As any historian who has actually studied the period could tell you, there was a lot of continuity between the Roman Empire and the Republic, and many place the line between "Empire" and "Republic" in other places.

That does not change the fact that using the term “Roman Empire” in a question to only refer to Rome post-27 BC is not unreasonable, which is what I did in this question.

If you're focusing on just the question at the top of the thread it makes even less sense. When comparing "British Empire" to "Roman Empire" the 27 BC demarcation is irrelevant. The British Empire wasn't officially an empire, and was an almost totally neutered constitutional monarchy when it reached its greatest extent.

When referring to the British Empire, people are using the definition of the word that refers less to any particular form of domestic government, and more in the sense that the states in question were imperial. It refers to the way they expanded and controlled territory. In the same way that the British Empire existed long after then British kings had lost real power, the Roman Empire existed before there was ever a Princeps or an Augustus.

I don't know why I let myself get pulled into these arguments, but as happened last time, I'm just going to stop here. Progressing further is almost certainly not going to be helpful.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As any historian who has actually studied the period could tell you, there was a lot of continuity between the Roman Empire and the Republic, and many place the line between "Empire" and "Republic" in other places.

Not just any historian of the period, but anyone who has ever read an Asterix comic.

[Aurelius]

The Roman empire was more historically impactful. The British empire was cooler IMO.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Arguably the demarcation after the Diocletian reforms is more important than the transition between Republic and Principate.