- cross-posted to:
- roughromanmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- roughromanmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Explanation: The Eastern Roman Empire survived after the fall of the Western Empire. But they were FAKE and GREEK and DIDN’T EVEN OWN THE CITY OF ROME
I had to look up why there were two empires. I took a guess and thought it had something to do with a split of the Catholic Church. I was about a thousand years off.
In 286 CE, Emperor Diocletian decided to divide Rome into two sections to try and stabilize the empire. For a hundred years Rome experienced even more divisions until the empire was finally divided in 395 CE and became the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire.
This division changed Roman life and government forever. There were now two emperors in each empire, and they governed independently. The capital of the Western Empire was Rome, and the capital of the Eastern Empire was Constantinople. Following this split, the Eastern Empire thrived. Constantinople was well-protected because it was on a peninsula that could be easily defended. It was also located on the frontiers of the empire allowing imperial armies to respond more easily to external attacks and threats.
As for the split of the Catholic Church, it happened in 1378:
The Western Great Schism began on September 20, 1378 with the election of Clement VII in Avignon, France. He was the second pope elected by the same college of cardinals in six months, and for the first time in history there were two “legitimate” claimants to be head of the church in Rome.
Source: Christian History for Everyman
Please note: I just search for these events and have no idea how accurate these websites are. “Christian History for Everyman” sounds a little sketchy…
First is mostly accurate! Diocletian actually split the Empire into four sections, but there were two senior Emperors and two junior. The capital in the Western Empire was actually Ravenna, though Rome remained important.
Second is true, but referring to a different schism than the one you’re probably thinking of. The schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which predominated in Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire, respectively, was a slow process, but is generally considered to be complete by the Great Schism of 1054
How did you read my mind about the Great Schism of 1054?! Yes, that is the one I was thinking about and I should’ve looked for the most popular one initially but I am working/procrastinating right now.
Also I just want to say I appreciate this community you built and these interesting post.
Always happy to offer a little entertainment and trivia to the good folk of the Fediverse! 🙏
Splitting up and then one of the division conquering all the others is what Rome did.
Other way around - divide et impera means that Rome attempted to divide their enemies so they could conquer them one at a time (or rule them peaceably while they were focused on hating each other, since ‘impera’ means ‘rule’).
Hum… People do have a really strong bias toward looking at only the republic era and the first few decades of the empire.
… what?
The Roman Kingdom certainly didn’t divide itself to conquer its enemies. The Crisis of the Third Century included some of the Empire dividing itself, but certainly not conquering anyone - Rome lost territory during the Crisis. The Dominate likewise was a period in which land was largely lost, not gained.
Where you got that it was to conquer its enemies? (Edit: Oh, reading my post again I see where you got that idea.)
It was always dividing itself and conquering itself again. Unless you count parts of it as enemies (what would be reasonable).
ConstanRomeople
What is this Justinian slander?, my man Belisarius didn’t hold Rome and the 50 or so people inside it who hadn’t died of plague for a good 5 minutes for you to diss his empire.
Not enough room for Rome
It’s in the name Nova Roma (Constantinople)
