Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the German Holy Roman Empire, not the classical Roman Empire.
After refusing to be conquered, the Germanic tribes took it very serious to pretend otherwise.
What have the Romans ever done for us?!
The last Romans are still around
101–110 of 245 posts
Re: The last Romans are still around
#102Just wait for Hollywood to create a film about Roman mythology and not cast a single Roman! But less tongue-in-cheek, the other thing is that the legacy of the Romans is pretty much all around us. The Roman Calendar (with July and August both referencing a Roman leader), the Latin alphabet (with the additional letters like 'y' being added later on to support Greek), the roads we can travel, etc.
Every modern law system has its roots in Roman one.
Also lb for Pounds come directly from Rome
And pre decimalisation. In the UK Pence was shortened to 'd' which I understood to refer to the Roman Dinari.
Re: The last Romans are still around
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not only July and August; January, May, June, and Mars, are named after Roman gods; February and April after Roman rituals; and September to December after Roman numerals (7 to 10th month, as they were when the calendar first started).
>Mars While not technically incorrect(?) I'm guessing you meant March?
Maybe they're French and forgot to translate that month (in French March = mars)
Re: The last Romans are still around
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't know why this was down voted. Most people ruled by the Roman empire weren't ethnic Romans. Even in the early days it started as a mix of Italic tribes like the Latins and Sabines. And in 212 AD the edict of Caracalla granted Roman citizenship to all free men throughout the empire. I imagined this was sort of the whole point of the article.
>Don't know why this was down voted I have noticed a trend of challenges to unspoken assumptions being down voted. I don't know if it's being read as being argumentative/low effort. I agree with you and the parent. How do you define ethnically Roman? Those from the city of Rome? Some average of the empire? What about when it split in 2? Is ethnicity even important? What ethnicity do you have to be, to be USian??? Bri…
Americans are whatever, British ethnicity is a thing though
Re: The last Romans are still around
#105Re: The last Romans are still around
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
> *English Common Law* has entered the chat
This brings to mind the wonderful Econtalk episode about Bruno Leoni [0]. The beginning of the podcast describes his untimely passing, which almost seems a Cohen brothers movie plot. So, we pore over Supreme Court cases on the First Amendment, for example, to try to interpret what tests we will use to determine whether something is going to be unconstitutional law. Leoni didn't want that. He argued that--and again, h…
Interesting. As an unhappy user of the court system I have made these same points. Although I linked it back to the enlightenment.
The law should be akin to the scientific method. Unfortunately like science it is full of humans, so reputation is important, etc, etc. unfortunately the judiciary is far worse than the scientific community.
Re: The last Romans are still around
#107Depending on who's legal fiction you believe, the Roman Empire was only dissolved in 1806 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsdeputationshauptschluss
Neither Holy nor Roman nor an empire
Voltaire gets quoted so often without ever mentioning that the German word "Reich" has a different meaning than the loose translation "empire". A "Reich" is not necessarily an empire, so no news here.
Re: The last Romans are still around
#108This is strictly about linguistic similarity and not genetic similarity. On a genetic map, a PCA plot, Romans and Romanians simply don't overlap. Romanians cluster with their Balkan neighbors, (1) on account of massive Slavic migration from around the 7th century AD, and (2) on account of strong historical and genetic evidence to suggest that the Roman colonists sent to Dacia were largely recruited from neighboring B…
[dead]
Re: The last Romans are still around
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Don't know why this was down voted I have noticed a trend of challenges to unspoken assumptions being down voted. I don't know if it's being read as being argumentative/low effort. I agree with you and the parent. How do you define ethnically Roman? Those from the city of Rome? Some average of the empire? What about when it split in 2? Is ethnicity even important? What ethnicity do you have to be, to be USian??? Bri…
Americans are whatever, British ethnicity is a thing though
[deleted]
Re: The last Romans are still around
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Don't know why this was down voted I have noticed a trend of challenges to unspoken assumptions being down voted. I don't know if it's being read as being argumentative/low effort. I agree with you and the parent. How do you define ethnically Roman? Those from the city of Rome? Some average of the empire? What about when it split in 2? Is ethnicity even important? What ethnicity do you have to be, to be USian??? Bri…
Americans are whatever, British ethnicity is a thing though
Ethnicity is hard to define and a term that spurs a lot of debate. Therefore I think it is best avoided in serious discussion.
For America (and in extension the american continent) it is quite clear who is ethnically native, actually it is probably one of the clearest examples there is partly because it is near in history. And already it gets messy when you dig deeper because of limited record keeping etc.
Broadly in the Americas anyone that was there before Columbus is considered native. Anyone that came after is considered migrant. Anyone born into native heritage can be considered descendant of native and thus native themselves.
British ethnicity is a thing though