What made Rome great?

4 including the Ottoman Empire

So if WRE and ERE are male and female, HRE are nu-males and the Ottomans are.. whatever r9k calls women these days

Romes are more like a spectrum than a binary choice

I'm a early-imperium Augustus-kin. My pronouns are Caesar, Princeps, and Apollo. DO NOT CALL ME REX. This offensive to all imperator-kin

And eventually you get the Latin empire going it for it

What are Russia, the British, Nazi Germany, Finland and America then?

T. Chen

Are you saying that there are 0 genders?

Rome was one empire ruled by two emperors, you stupid cuck. Or do you also think that there were 4 Roman empires during the tetrarchy?

That's very forward-thinking of you, op. I have trouble thinking of 10+ genders.

>how to have no sense of humour

no one is desu since it's still subject of debate how did the manipular formation developed tactically during melee

The gamification of politics in the republic. It created buy in and loyalty in the elite and motivated them to conquer the world.

>you will never ascend the cursum honorum at the top of the polls in suo anno.
>you will never have a year named after you.
>you will never walk to the forum surrounded by sycophantic clients.
>you will never celebrate a triumph.
>you will never bully kings. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Popillius_Laenas

Their Celtic background made them a superior state militarily, all those Cisalpine warriors allowed them to conquer Gaul and everyone they fought.

The professional standing army did not come until later, after Rome had already achieved greatness.

Rome was lightning in a bottle. The right men and circumstances coming together at exactly the right time.

>In 788, Irene herself broke off the engagement of Constantine with Rotrude, a daughter of Charlemagne. Turning against Charlemagne, the Byzantines now supported Lombard pretender Adalgis, who had been forced into exile after the Frankish invasion of Italy. Adalgis was given command of a Byzantine expeditionary corps, landing in Calabria towards the end of 788 but was defeated by the united armies of the Lombard dukes Hildeprand of Spoleto and Grimoald III of Benevento as well as Frankish troops under Winiges

Could the eastern roman empire have been saved if Byzantine Empress Irene never interfered with the marriage between Constantine VI and Rotrude

Irene herself was supposed to marry Charlemagne. In a later era a personal union might have sufficed, but the Roman court would most likely have enacted a coup to prevent it, thus giving Charles a causus belli to invade the entire empire. It would essentially have been a repeat of Atilla's "marriage proposal."

REEEEEE LATE ANTIQUITY FEDORAS GET OUT

This is a pure Republican thread. Consul and Censor NOT Augustus and Basileus, ok?

WE

Drill and discipline

>What made Rome great?
>rome
>great

>Byzantines
>Rome
This is what Byzaboos actually believe

>Thinks you need Rome to be the Roman Empire

user, I hate to burst your bubble, but the capital of the Roman Empire was Constantinople from 330AD to 1204AD, and again from 1261AD to 1453AD. The "Byzantines" were, in fact, the Roman Empire, albeit the Eastern half.

>Holy
>Roman
>Empire

Turks aren't people tho

I don't get the pic? Is it saying there's only one gender? That's objectively false

:DDDDDDD

It is possible that there was a unique moment in time when, for reasons not in evidence, the time was perfect for a large empire to form, and Rome just happened to be the city that did it.

Every year some team makes it through the NFL season into the playoffs, wins every playoff game and wins the Super Bowl. Maybe they are objectively the best team, but even if all teams are exactly equally skilled, the format produces a winner anyway. The emergence of SOME winner is written into the rules.

moro moro moro

The irony is that every man and his dog claims to be the successor to the Roman Empire.

>implying san marino isn't the one true heir to rome

the OP doesn't even mention the republic...

>Byzantine
>Roman

this.

The mongols had the biggest and most threatening empire in history.

>Implying they didn't consider themselves Roman
>Implying they weren't

Underrated

Keked

Charlemagne was never crowned Roman Emperor, that's Otto.

>Implying they were Roman

HRE is the tranny

Rome became great during the republic. The Empire just rounded off the borders.

There are a few possible responses to this but no one is really sure of exactly how it worked. Bear in mind that the boxes were only about 15 paces apart so they were definitely close enough to support. One theory is that something interest happens when a checker board collides with a solid line. If the two are charging each other then the prepared boxes collide with a prepared line, but the portion of the line in between the boxes becomes disorganized. Some men turn to fight the boxes that are engaged, some continue to charge forward but either way they aren't disciples enough to act in concert. The second line of boxes then collides with this disorganized group about 3 seconds later.

>collapsed in under a century
>no lasting cultural impact
Whatever you say, Zhang

reminder for all you contrarians out there

spanish emperors were quite peaceful and reasonable with conflicts. the only mistake was making a wall in Britannia that actually angered northern tribes more. if all roman emperors were as wise as them... but commodus happened.

Keep repeating to everyone that you are Donald Trump does not make you the Donald Trump

>implying the western Roman empire didn't have even bigger social and administrative shifts during it's millennia of existance.

Since Ancient Finns were also the founders of the Italian peninsular civilizations due to their colonial efforts before the outbreak of Hyper War (Romulus and Remus (latinized from Roope and Risto) were part of the Finnic LEO Assault Squadron) one could argue that the title returned home after 2000 or so years.

Oh my god just stop

>well recorded ancient history post on a history board
>"oh my god just stop"

game about the great finnish empire when

>What made Rome great?
> What allowed one city state to ascend to create an empire many have tried and failed to recreate?

They fought the hardest possible enemy first. In three wars they took on the Samnites, firce hill people of the Appenines who would swear blood oaths to conqer the lowlands or die trying. They would rebel thrice, first during Pyrrhus' invasion of Italy, then during Hannibal's invasion and again during the Social War after they were denied voting rights. On that last occasion they marched all the way to Rome itself. But they were defeated by Sulla, who subsequently destroyed all their cities.

Fighting the Samnites early on sharpened the Roman military like no other opponent. A fanatical enemy who used javelins and rough terrain to disorganize and bleed their opponent forced the Romans to develop better infantry tactics, taller and sturdier shields and finally to adopt and incorporate many of the aspects of their adversary. The Roman tactic of throwing a pilum before charging into battle was most likely developed from Samnite tactics.

Once you've come to grips with such a tenacious enemy, no other enemy is as fierce or menacing.

In the Romans own estimation their worst defeat was the Battle of the Caudine Forks in the 2nd Samnite War. There they had surrendered and were forced to pass under a yoke as a sign of submission. They would never forget that humiliation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Caudine_Forks

Mongols ruled from 1100-1500 despite the propaganda, longer than most Empires.

And they did not collapse any more than the division in OP's picture is a collapse. Blatant double standards are shown when western and eastern civil wars are compared.

>My pronouns are Caesar, Princeps, and Apollo. DO NOT CALL ME REX. This offensive to all imperator-kin
You don't like REX? Okay, Tyrannus (Greek for absolute ruler Tyrant, was used before Rex for king)

I assume tyrannus is into dominatrix stuff, more about power than gender.

Also, byzantines were not roman. The empire might have been started by a roman, but the people were not roman.

The exact same thing applies to Ptolemy I, Ptolemy II, Ptolemy III... etc in Egypt. Egyptians are not Macedonians just because a Macedonian dynasty was pharoah for a while. They're still just Egyptians and any victories or screw-ups they have aren't Macedonian victory/defeats.

>this triggers the roach
>implying that we don't claim third rome through mehmet the conquerors byzantine lineage and the title "caesar of rome" through the patriarch of constantinople

If you know what kind of people Wikipedia editors tend to be then you know that this means nothing

400 years is pretty average desu.

Anyway, Rome was just under 2000 years.

The fracturing of the Mongols into the Ilkhans, the Golden Horde, the Yuans, and the Chaghatai is far more significant than any divisions in Rome.

Also get off your SJW >muh orientalism high horse. No one ignores the dramatic fracturing of Alexander's empire.

Lol @ all the roach/kraut butthurt you caused

Eat shit. There was ever only one Rome

>Rome was just under 2000 years
Eh. That depends on a lot of fuckery. You have to be willing to consider the kingdom to be the same as the republic and the republic to be the same as the empire and then considering the ERE and WRE to both be equally valid continuations of the same empire and willing to completely overlook social and religious revolutions that occurred within them and the fact that one incarnation completely lacked the "Rome" part of Roman but called themsekves "Roman" therefore its ok plus traditions and government simarities therefore also ok but still no actual "Rome" part...still ok though.

Though at that point you might as well say China has been China since idk 5000 bc or something? Idk China

> formalism
> conservatism
> discipline
> Greek wisdom ( from phalanx to ethics )
> widespread patriotism

The "checkerboard" would form into a solid line before contact.

>phalanxes
No, and fuck off. We have good reaosn to believe that maniples were formed very loosely as a matter of policy, with men expected ot leave it entirely on a regular basis.

nationalism

Not really. Rome until the fall of the ERE after the Fourth Crusade was a constant continuation state never to be conquered. Their political system may have been changed, but the society was the same, the culture was the same, the people were teh same, everything was the same, just the type of government was different. With China it's different - the Chinese had different dynasties and the people associated themselves with those dynasties, not with the modern "Chinese" identity. And China got conquered by the Mongols and ruled by them, does that make the Mongols Chinese?

Continuation state means dick when the Romans actually had some form of constitution and the Principate shat on it and the Dominate basically erased it. The Roman state was never a stable apparatus that endured, it was a combination of elements, only one of which was the institutions of government.

The peoples that conformed Rome were always in a process of change but they definitely lost their link to the original Romans somewhere in the second century. The territory changed and the cultural bed and seat of Rome was lost with the west, and the city itself lost relevance befor, when emperors did not even visit the city let alone rule from it.

But that's not a sound logic considering that every culture changes over time due. Whether it was Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Chinese, whatever - all changed over time. You think the Han dynasty was the same as the Tang? No. It was vastly different. The point is that Rome survived as a state from the old kingdom from which it was born to the fall of the first ERE during the Fourth Crusade. It was never interrupted, never conquered and taken back - it always existed. That's vastly different from any other nation in world history.

I am just hopping in to suggest you all to watch the Historia Civilis, in order to have some insightful information about the greatness of the Roman Empire

youtube.com/channel/UCv_vLHiWVBh_FR9vbeuiY-A/videos

underrated comment

my nigger