Ultiumus Romanorum

[The Balbinater]

That's always the main point of contention/confusion. Some people have said, 'Rome is just an idea'. I don't really understand that, though. This isn't the movie Gladiator... Rome isn't an 'idea', it's an empire. You can talk about cultural legacy, architectural achievements, and whatever else... but when I think of 'Roman', I think of the actual 'apparatus', as it was just previously referred to as.

I completely agree. I like how this article here mentions Italy as a "cultural superpower" but in the view of many, including Italians themselves, they've "lost something" even since the WWII era:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_of_the_Great_Powers

It takes something more then the "idea". Being a cultural superpower is great and all, but nobody compares modern Italy to the Old Empire.

***

anyway my two cents: remember that Justinian I is believed to be the last roman emperor who spoke Latin, not Greek, as a first language...

 

[Palatinus Germanicus]

^ I think I'll change my answer to Justinian I, that was my first instinct -- but I got too technical. Because the question, "who is the last Roman"... is really implying more about culture, than the semantics of a continuously-held empire title, associated with an intact political apparatus.

And it's a good point about the language. We're talking about an empire that (culturally - which again, pertains to people not political powers) shifts from being Latin to Greek. So the 'last Roman' would have to be... the last Latin? Makes sense.

Also didn't Justinian actually retake Rome, along w/ most of Italy. Then very quickly, his successor got kicked out again. So that's another thing. He really was 'emperor of ROME', technically.


Post-Roman Italy is something I'd like to understand more about. Specifically, just how much did the demographics change? -With the Germanic invasions. There was a lengthy period of time when the Lombards had the entire country on lockdown. Basically, how much did the 'Italians' during Roman times change demographically, in the centuries following the Germanic invasions & occupations.

It's kind of like Iberia, in a way. After the Moorish invasion (& centuries of occupation), things were never really ever the same, demographically. But Italy as much more heavily populated than Iberia, & the Visigoths hadn't even been there very long. I guess I'm just wondering how much of a 'splash' the Germans made on the demographics. Certainly in the north, there are Italians that look exactly like Germans. And in the south, there are lots of Sicilians/Napolitans that look very... well, from the southeast, let's say. So what does it mean to be truly 'Roman'? -In Italy? The Umbrian culture? From the Latium area/region? And what actually remains of those people & their culture?

As an outsider, I've wondered about these things. I've also heard a few things that make me wonder just how 'unified' modern Italy really is. E.g., whenever there's a celebration of Italy's unification (1871 IIRC), many seem to respond... "well, that's news to us."

I think the real Romans were the ones who lost over 20% of their entire population in a single battle to Hannibal... and didn't even let it get them down. Instead, they bounced back & defeated him (finally), kept innovating & improving their military, & built the empire that inspires awe in so many, even to this day.

-Basically resilient, strong, tough... never give up. Always learning & improving. Are those people still in Italy? Well then they could still be Roman.


Man I type too much.

 

[Gurkhal]

If we're going with "last Roman Emperor" then its easily Constantine XI. No question about it.

 

[Galaahd]

^ I think I'll change my answer to Justinian I, that was my first instinct -- but I got too technical. Because the question, "who is the last Roman"... is really implying more about culture, than the semantics of a continuously-held empire title, associated with an intact political apparatus.

And it's a good point about the language. We're talking about an empire that (culturally - which again, pertains to people not political powers) shifts from being Latin to Greek. So the 'last Roman' would have to be... the last Latin? Makes sense.

Also didn't Justinian actually retake Rome, along w/ most of Italy. Then very quickly, his successor got kicked out again. So that's another thing. He really was 'emperor of ROME', technically.


Post-Roman Italy is something I'd like to understand more about. Specifically, just how much did the demographics change? -With the Germanic invasions. There was a lengthy period of time when the Lombards had the entire country on lockdown. Basically, how much did the 'Italians' during Roman times change demographically, in the centuries following the Germanic invasions & occupations.

It's kind of like Iberia, in a way. After the Moorish invasion (& centuries of occupation), things were never really ever the same, demographically. But Italy as much more heavily populated than Iberia, & the Visigoths hadn't even been there very long. I guess I'm just wondering how much of a 'splash' the Germans made on the demographics. Certainly in the north, there are Italians that look exactly like Germans. And in the south, there are lots of Sicilians/Napolitans that look very... well, from the southeast, let's say. So what does it mean to be truly 'Roman'? -In Italy? The Umbrian culture? From the Latium area/region? And what actually remains of those people & their culture?

As an outsider, I've wondered about these things. I've also heard a few things that make me wonder just how 'unified' modern Italy really is. E.g., whenever there's a celebration of Italy's unification (1871 IIRC), many seem to respond... "well, that's news to us."

I think the real Romans were the ones who lost over 20% of their entire population in a single battle to Hannibal... and didn't even let it get them down. Instead, they bounced back & defeated him (finally), kept innovating & improving their military, & built the empire that inspires awe in so many, even to this day.

-Basically resilient, strong, tough... never give up. Always learning & improving. Are those people still in Italy? Well then they could still be Roman.


Man I type too much.

I think modern geneticists agree that genetics of Europe didn't change much since the last age (with the exception of fringe areas)

 

[The Balbinater]

it's a good point about the language. We're talking about an empire that (culturally - which again, pertains to people not political powers) shifts from being Latin to Greek. So the 'last Roman' would have to be... the last Latin? Makes sense.

Also didn't Justinian actually retake Rome, along w/ most of Italy. Then very quickly, his successor got kicked out again. So that's another thing. He really was 'emperor of ROME', technically.

Post-Roman Italy is something I'd like to understand more about. Specifically, just how much did the demographics change? -With the Germanic invasions. There was a lengthy period of time when the Lombards had the entire country on lockdown. Basically, how much did the 'Italians' during Roman times change demographically, in the centuries following the Germanic invasions & occupations.

As an outsider, I've wondered about these things. I've also heard a few things that make me wonder just how 'unified' modern Italy really is. E.g., whenever there's a celebration of Italy's unification (1871 IIRC), many seem to respond... "well, that's news to us."

I think the real Romans were the ones who lost over 20% of their entire population in a single battle to Hannibal... and didn't even let it get them down. Instead, they bounced back & defeated him (finally), kept innovating & improving their military, & built the empire that inspires awe in so many, even to this day.

-Basically resilient, strong, tough... never give up. Always learning & improving. Are those people still in Italy? Well then they could still be Roman.

You and I would have plenty to discuss over a tall pint in a quiet pub... )))

You got a lot here I could say stuff about, but I think I can boil it down to a few things -->

The "Last Roman" could be thought of as a great man who was fully aware that The Empire (and the dream/idea along with it) rests on his shoulders and if he does not perform, the whole glory of Rome will be lost, not just for him, but for future generations. Considering the Empire slowly collapsed over many centuries, over many generations, there were many Last of the Romans, guys who refused to let it die, but wanted it to keep on going forever, and were willing to make sacrifices for it, up to and including his own life. These individuals may or not even have been actual Romans, like the numerous later empire generals who wanted the lives the romans were living and were willing to fight for it.

Justinian DID reconquer the western empire, and nearly succeeded in recreating The Empire as it had been. I believe it's because he considered himself the emperor of the West, not just of that of the East, and his people there needed him. He did so at great personal cost, nearly bankrupting the East and placing his Imperium in peril through the possibility of revolt at home due to his obsession of "getting it all back".

Modern Italy has much more influence from the "Second Rome" then any from the First. When I toured Rome in 1996, having dreamed of the Eternal City my whole life, I confess to being rather disappointed...I had expected much more of the Old Empire to still be present, but what I found is that the Italians had, over the course of many centuries, let the Old City die, become buried, or simply looted.

Modern Italy, post-Risorgimento, is a completely different incarnation then the previous First and Second Rome's. It's very true that it is a disjointed, non-homogenous mess. Italy is completely different from North to South, with different dialects, different custom, different people. But that has been true for many centuries. Those who study post-Risorgimento Italy have come to realize exactly what the Savoy Monarchy, managed to pull off: that they somehow united this disjoined peoples that had not been politically connected in many hundreds and hundreds of years. This "Unity" continued to grow until it became a Third Rome powerful enough to attempt an outward expansion that would have been worthy of the First Rome, had it succeeded.

In regards to you mentioning the demographics, that is nothing new for Italy and Italians. Italy even in the First Empire was extremely demographically diverse. There were Latin's, Gallic's, Greeks, on and on, rich and poor, free and slave, religious and atheist, pagan and christian....I could go on and on about how diverse the Empire actually was, and some say that like modern "melting pot" countries, that this gave the nation strength. The First Empire did not eliminate culture where it expanded, merely absorbed it.

There was an ancient roman saying about the poorest person in Rome living better then any foreign king. There were many people in the First Rome who totally believed it and would fight for it and protect it for their own children. But over the course of centuries, they became too soft, and had to rely on those of the outside to fill their armies. Though it has been many years since I read my Gibbon, this contributed greatly to his proposed theory that the Decline came about as the "triumph of barbarism and religion", where outside invasions and pacifist Christians would ultimately result in its collapse.

Damn. Just saw your wall of text and raised yours with my own in this poker game of blathering on too much ))))

 

[Avernite]

Which brings me to my favorite trivia question of all time.

Caesar Augustus was the first of many rulers on earth to hold the title of Caesar for the next 2,000 or so years. Who was the last ruler on earth to hold the title 'Caesar' in any of its myriad forms; Caesar, Kaiser, Czar, etc . . . ?

Spoiler

King George VI, who coughed up the title 'Kaizer Hindi' when he coughed up the Raj.

Oddly the Persian style "king of kings" outlasted the Caesars, in Ethiopia.

Goes to show who eventually won that eternal conflict

 

[The-Doc]

What has the Roman Empire ever done for us anyway?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

What has the Roman Empire ever done for us anyway?

 

[Caspoi]

Oddly the Persian style "king of kings" outlasted the Caesars, in Ethiopia.

Goes to show who eventually won that eternal conflict

Didn't the Iranian monarchy outlast the Ethiopian one by 6 years?

 

[Avernite]

Didn't the Iranian monarchy outlast the Ethiopian one by 6 years?

Apparently, he did.

I just see his name as 'Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi' so much I thought 'Shah' was his title.

 

[olm]

Hah, Imperator/Empereur outlasted Iranian monarchy by over half a year in the glorious Central African Empire, take that Persia fanboys!

 

[Caspoi]

Apparently, he did.

I just see his name as 'Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi' so much I thought 'Shah' was his title.

It was his father that had Shah in his name (Reza Shah as opposed to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) but both took on the title of Shahanshah (though the son took a while before he did so).

Hah, Imperator/Empereur outlasted Iranian monarchy by over half a year in the glorious Central African Empire, take that Persia fanboys!

No! So close. We will just have to restore the title of king of kings to establish that Iran is always the best of them all.