• Rom [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Pretty sure there was a point in history when betting against the Roman Empire was a solid investment idk I’m not a historian

    • ourtimewillcome [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      which one?

      the unified roman empire lasted till 395 AD, the western either till 476 or 480, depending on your views regarding iulius nepos and the eastern till 1453.

      later on, several powers claimed to be the successors of either the western or eastern ones including, but not limited to, the carolingians (800-887) and the hre (962-1806) in the west and the russians (1453 to 1917) and ottomans (1453 to 1922) in the east.

      • depending on your views regarding iulius nepos and the eastern till 1453.

        If you don’t count all the times it fell apart before coming back as an end, there wasn’t much of Eastern Rome left when the crusaders took the Latin empire and Nicaea (just saying it’s a continuation doesn’t mean it is imo)

        • ourtimewillcome [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          5 months ago

          i mean, this is pretty much true for the west as well. towards the end, the western emperors wielded negligible controll over their de jure posessions and odoacers coup brought little qualitative change for the population, regnum italiae or not. and charlemagne three centuries later and his successors were essentially just larping, lets be honest.

          besides, all this continuation and succession nonsense was really just propaganda and intellectual masturbation by the various ruling classes trying to justify their rule.