Message no. 1

From:	Evans Tania-Ann <Tania-Ann.Evans@****.UNI-REGENSBURG.DE>
Subject:	Re: Roman Empire (OT)
Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:23:45 +0200

>At 12:23 21/09/98 +0000, Martin Steffens wrote:
>> The Roman empire lasted for roughly
>>2,000 years in on form or another.
>
At 0:12 Sep 22, Peter Palmer wrote
>Umm where do you get this figure from?
(snipped)
>Even if one were to take the fall of Constantinople in 1453
>as the final end of all remnants of the Roman empire, one
>gets maybe 1500 years,

Hold it. This is Byzantine Empire collapsing. Until then,
successorship to the Roman Empire had been a point of dispute between
the Franconian kings and emperors and Byzance.

> but this is really stretching credibility
>to the max, and even remotely considering the Holy Roman Empire
>of Charlemagne through Frederick The Great is just laughable.

Is it? What about the way the emperors saw themselves? (See legal
system, theory of state, documents, esp. titles - "rex romanorum" and
" imperator semper augustus". "King of the Romans" and "Emperor,
always embetterer (of the Empire). BTW isn't "Frederick the Great"
the Prussian "king of soldiers"?? That's absolutism, 18th cent., not
medieval times.

Just for sake of accuracy .-)

Tania
Tania-Ann.Evans@****.uni-regensburg.de

Am Protzenweiher 19c
93059 Regensburg