0
There wasn't. The empire was so large, that it was split in half, the western empire and the eastern (Byzantine). The Byzantine empire lasted till 1492. In both empires, Greek was considered an elite language, just like speaking French or Italian was in the American colonies in the 1700's. Most Roman libraries had two sections- one section in Latin and one in Greek. The Byzantine empire used Greek as the main language after the Western empire broke apart in 476. Vandals from the north came into Italy and took it over, crowning them the emperor of rome. Later on, a great king from France, Charles the Great, formed a new empire, the Frankish empire, and named himself Emperor. At this time, the Latin in territories evolved. Modern English, called Germanic, is 40% Germanic and 50% Latin. French, Italian, Sicilian, Romanian, Spanish, Portuguese all have evolved from original latin. Sicilian and Romanian are the least evolved from Latin. Don't forget that most modern Europeans speak several languages.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why did the civilization crash before the renaissance?
Loss of the Roman empire
How did citizen indifference and loss of patriotism lead to the fall of the roman empire?
People were being less loyal to Rome. Soldiers from Rome began to fight agenst Rome.
How did the Roman Empire develop after the Fall of Rome in 476?
At the time of the "fall of Rome," the empire was divided into the East Roman Empire and the West Roman Empire. The event called the fall was actually the abdication of the last emperor of the West Roman Empire in favor of the emperor in Constantinople. In theory, this reunified the empire, but the areas of the West actually under imperial command consisted mostly of an area in the north of modern France, a part of what is now Morocco and Algeria, most of Italy, and a bit of Croatia. In practice, however, it only meant that the East Roman Empire had lost control of Italy to a man who recognized the emperor, but did not pay attention to him otherwise. Under indirect control, however, was most of the old empire, not including north Africa and Britain, because the Germanic kings accepted the nominal leadership of the empire, though they did not give the empire any real support. This continued for quite a while. Justinian I sent armies to get the old empire back. This succeeded in regaining most of Italy, a bit of southeastern Spain, and North Africa. But the advance was stemmed again and was never renewed after Justinian died in 565. Later, the loss of Egypt and the Holy Land to the Arabs made the East Roman Empire, which in this later period we now call the Byzantine Empire, merely as shadow of its former self. Separately, Charlemagne built the Kingdom of the Franks into an extensive empire of his own, and on Christmas Day, 800, Pope Leo III crowned him Emperor of the West. This title was clearly intended to bring about the resurrection of the old West Roman Empire, and was very much resented by the Byzantines, who believed Empress Irene should have agreed to such a thing before any such action was taken. Charlemagne's Empire, which we call the Carolingian, was divided after his death, and was ancestral to the Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire. The reason the Holy Roman Empire was called Roman, was not because it was centered in Rome, or even because Rome was in it (which it usually was not), but because the rulers of it were claiming to be the rightful heirs to the Empire of the West, and, through it, to the West Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire barely survived the ravages of the Crusaders, and remained an ever decreasing state until it finally fell in 1453. The Byzantines called themselves the Empire of the Roman people to the last. The Holy Roman Empire, also claiming to be heirs to the Roman Empire, but with somewhat more uncertain legality, survived until it was destroyed by Napoleon.
What were the causes of decline of loyalty and discipline in military that led to the fall of the Roman empire?
The fall of the western part of the Roman Empire was precipitated by the invasions of this part of the empire by the Germanic peoples, rather than citizens indifference and loss of patriotism. It was said that many citizens were indifferent to these invasions because they were not worse than the Roman government. This attitude was due to resentment towards the oppressive taxation regime which the Roman state needed to fund a large army and a bloated bureaucracy.
What challenges did Europe face after the collapse of the Roman Empire?
When the western Roman empire collapsed in 476 AD, the unifying force for most of Europe was gone. Along with the loss of the government, much of the engineering abilities and "modern amenities" were also lost. The "barbarians" of Europe did not, for the most part, have the abilities or knowledge to build roads, aqueducts or the other marvels of the Roman Empire, which is why the period immediately after Rome's collapse is often referred to as the "Dark Ages".The only unifying force of any sort left would be Constantine's Roman Catholic church, which did manage to preserve some of the knowledge and vestiges of the empire. As the only thing left really, it became the main power in the European world throughout the Middle Ages, functioning almost as an imperial government until Luther set off the Reformation in 1546.
Who is considered the founder of the Eastern Roman Empire?
There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.
When did the roman empire loss discipline in miltary?
ad 417
Why did the civilization crash before the renaissance?
Loss of the Roman empire
How are the Roman and Byzantine Empires alike?
During the latter part of the history of the Roman Empire, it was divided for administrative purposes into eastern and western halves. The western half was overrun by the Goths in the 5th century, but the eastern half continued to exist until the Turks finally conquered it in the 15th century. The eastern half of the Roman Empire evolved into what we call the Byzantine Empire, inheriting all the Roman Empire's practices and customs. The main change was that Greek (replacing Latin) gradually became the official langauge. So, the Byzantine Empire is the continuation of the eastern half of the Roman Empire.
Did the ancient roman army lose its discipline and thus endanger the empire and cause it to be overrun?
Yes, the loss of discipline of the army was one of the reasons for the fall of the empire.
Who conquered constinteneople?
Constantinople was conquered by the Ottomans in 1453. It marked the fall of the Roman Empire, with the loss of the 'Second Rome'.
What were the causes of citizen indifference and loss of patriotism that led to the fall of the roman empire?
The fall of the western part of the Roman Empire was precipitated by the invasions of this part of the empire by the Germanic peoples, rather than citizens indifference and loss of patriotism. It was said that many citizens were indifferent to these invasions because they were not worse than the Roman government. This attitude was due to resentment towards the oppressive taxation regime which the Roman state needed to fund a large army and a bloated bureaucracy.
Why the deline in population was so harmful to the roman empire?
The decline in population was harmful to the Roman Empire because it led to a decrease in available labor, which impacted the agricultural and economic productivity of the empire. The loss of population also weakened the military strength of the empire, making it vulnerable to external threats. Additionally, with fewer people to pay taxes, the empire struggled to fund its administration and defense.
Why do you think the roman emperor split in two?
There has never been a Roman emperor who was split in two. If you mean the Roman empire, that too, was never split. The terms Western and Eastern regarding the Roman empire was/is a devise used by historians in their writings so that their readers are able to understand them more clearly. When the western part of the empire fell, the empire continued despite the loss of its western territories. The closest that the empire ever came to being "split" was when Diocletian divided it into four areas with his two Caesars and two Augusti, which were supposed to make the vast Roman territory easier to rule.
What effect did the Fall of Rome have on the East Byzantium?
The fall of Rome caused control of much of Europe to be up for grabs, and this enabled the Byzantine and Arab empires to seize nations they needed strategically or wanted for resources. The fall of Rome also brought about the dissemination of Roman art and knowledge across the world.
When acquiring a second language results in the loss of a child's first language it is referred to as?
language loss or language attrition.
What is the definition of language loss?
Language loss is an overarching term which includes both language shift and language attrition.
