10-02-2012, 07:28 AM
Quote:Lost their identity or no longer identified with Rome, due to being christians or barbarians. Both sides cooperated to an extent but neither could relate very well to the Roman Empire. It wasn't at the top of their priority list--far from it, so they let it go down the tubes.Orosius, writing around the 420s after being driven from his native province in Iberia by barbarians, makes quite clear his sympathies for the Roman Empire from a Christian perspective. He saw the Empire as the primary instrument for disseminating Christianity since its founding by Augustus and up to his present day.
Ever since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem the Christians made great efforts to distinguish themselves from the Jews by disavowing violent rebellion against the state to avoid suspicion and persecution. So, one could argue that being pro-Roman was the traditional Christian position.
Quote:You can still argue that the Eastern Empire survived for nearly a thousand years longer, but that is a whole other story.Opinions can be argued, sure. But facts are facts. What is there to dispute with the Empire's continuity in the East? Roman military discipline went on as before. The government didn't collapse.
Although the official language of the Empire was changed Latin to Greek it was called Romaike, which literally means "the Roman language". So, I see no evidence of any lack of identity with Rome among the populace. Just the opposite. I think Christianity gave the populace a sense of Roman identity that wasn't there before as David pointed out. (Or, at least, it greatly strengthened Roman identity.)
Quote:While the Ottoman sultan added the "emperor" to his titles, I did not mean the Ottoman Empire, but Russia, the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome.My mistake. Maybe I misread it as 1918
~Theo
Jaime