this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
424 points (96.5% liked)
History Memes
3223 readers
1066 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
1,000,000% counts and is not the same thing as the Roman Empire.
I'd argue it is the same thing, it's just that the Roman Empire lasted so long and it was changing the whole time, so it's often necessary to compartmentalise it to a degree
Then why call it the Eastern Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire if it's the same thing?
Sure, splitting the Empire in 286 was simply a practical matter, but by the time Constantine I moved the capitol and changed the state religion, just because they still called themselves "Romans" day to day until the Ottomans showed up in 1453, doesn't automatically mean they're the same empire. There were 2 emporors and 2 courts, effectively 2 separate governments. In very technical terms, the split was a legal loophole to maintain a "single" empire on paper for their own egos and to avoid conflict. In practice and in hindsight, they're 2 different things.
It's a bit like saying that any Commonwealth county is the same as the UK. It's not truly. Let's imagine that just before WWI, King George V decided to pick up and move to Australia and start calling it "The Southern United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," and leave another family member in charge as "co-regent" in London. Then watch as WWI tears Europe apart and the German Empire 50 years later invades London and takes it and colonial countries scatter away from George V's grip. Does the British Empire still exist? I would say no. What say you? Other than this would make some great alternate historical fiction.
Because it's helpful to compartmentalise something with so much history. We can refer to Capetian France and Valois France even though they're both still France, for example. It is unusual for such compartmentalisation to be used with a geographic aspect rather than (only) temporally, but the Roman Empire was unusually big, especially for its time
The two were, of course, independent from one another for basically all practical purposes. I just also think that both are equally the meaningful continuation of the united empire
Surely if we are going with the principle that only one of the two halves of the empire is the real continuation, it ought to be the one that kept the capital and administrative structure of the unified empire? Or if neither is the real continuation, did the empire die under Diocletian and then Constantine ruled over a separate entity altogether after the end of the tetrarchy?
To keep the analogy accurate here, we'd have to make a few changes. The British monarchy does not call itself the "Southern UK" - you pointed out yourself that the Romans did not call the ERE a different thing - and it'd also have to keep control of a substantial chunk of the colonies when Britain falls to Germany. I do think that, in that case of George V moving to Australia and continuing to rule, say, New Zealand, India, and South Africa from there, I would still consider it the same empire. This exact situation actually pretty much happened in real life with Portugal and Brazil, it just didn't happen in advance of the fall of Portugal and didn't last very long.
I think one of the big HOI4 mods, Kaiserreich, actually does do this! Although as I understand it, it was due to a communist revolution after a stalemated WWI. I do not know the details as I've never played it, I only found out because I had been chatting about ideas for an alt history WWI outcome with a friend and we found out that we had basically accidentally come up with Kaiserreich's version of Europe