10-22-2012, 04:39 AM
Ave, Nikanor:
Thank you for presenting a unique perspective on this subject. While I agree with most of what you said there are a couple of points I'm confused about.
i.e. everything to tell us that there was no universal state law, thus in a very basic way no precise Empire in the sense we give it today and it is our definitions that are raising the trouble. We should thus rather see it more as the 'Roman system'.
While I agree there was a great deal of regionalism within the empire I'm not sure you can say that there was no universal state law imposed on the provinces. Take treason, for example. I don't believe the Romans officially tolerated any perceived form of treasonable activity among their subjects, hence, the crucifixtion of Christ in remote Judea. But, again, I would agree that there were far more local, ancestral laws that continued to be observed than those imposed by Rome.
Even so, a growing number of non-citizens obtained Latin Rights which Hadrian greatly expanded.
By 212, Caracalla granted Roman citizenship to all free people within the Empire, giving them more rights, privileges, and obligations.
- In this sense, there is absolutely no clear end to the Roman Empire, i.e. of the 'Roman System'. The finance and the power was almost since the beginning based in the East and by late 3rd AD century the capital of the Empire had already moved repeatedly in the East, and by early 4th century AD Constantine moved it permanently in Constantinople, i.e. at the Empire's most strategic position.
I think we can only say this with hindsight. At the time I don't think the move looked so permanent. After Constantine's death there was rarely a time when there was only a single emperor. So, there was no single capital. (As late as the mid-seventh century it was believed that Constans II contemplated moving the capital to Syracuse.)
Even in the fourth century Rome was still a powerful symbolic capital. Consuls were selected from each half of the empire, a Western and Eastern colleague.
But more important than the capital is the fact that each half of the empire was ruled by a single dynasty (with brief interuptions) and each half followed the same laws.
~Theo
Thank you for presenting a unique perspective on this subject. While I agree with most of what you said there are a couple of points I'm confused about.
i.e. everything to tell us that there was no universal state law, thus in a very basic way no precise Empire in the sense we give it today and it is our definitions that are raising the trouble. We should thus rather see it more as the 'Roman system'.
While I agree there was a great deal of regionalism within the empire I'm not sure you can say that there was no universal state law imposed on the provinces. Take treason, for example. I don't believe the Romans officially tolerated any perceived form of treasonable activity among their subjects, hence, the crucifixtion of Christ in remote Judea. But, again, I would agree that there were far more local, ancestral laws that continued to be observed than those imposed by Rome.
Even so, a growing number of non-citizens obtained Latin Rights which Hadrian greatly expanded.
By 212, Caracalla granted Roman citizenship to all free people within the Empire, giving them more rights, privileges, and obligations.
- In this sense, there is absolutely no clear end to the Roman Empire, i.e. of the 'Roman System'. The finance and the power was almost since the beginning based in the East and by late 3rd AD century the capital of the Empire had already moved repeatedly in the East, and by early 4th century AD Constantine moved it permanently in Constantinople, i.e. at the Empire's most strategic position.
I think we can only say this with hindsight. At the time I don't think the move looked so permanent. After Constantine's death there was rarely a time when there was only a single emperor. So, there was no single capital. (As late as the mid-seventh century it was believed that Constans II contemplated moving the capital to Syracuse.)
Even in the fourth century Rome was still a powerful symbolic capital. Consuls were selected from each half of the empire, a Western and Eastern colleague.
But more important than the capital is the fact that each half of the empire was ruled by a single dynasty (with brief interuptions) and each half followed the same laws.
~Theo
Jaime
