Qusetion for Historians/Politically Minded People.

check the dictionary...but i don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

 

Not only was Rome a nation and a republic, it was also a country and a state.

Give that jerk a thesaurus.

 

I would add that Rome was not a republic for all that long.

 

and i would argue that's irrelevant to the question posed here today!

(sorry...the jackass lawyer in my rises up sometimes to make sarcastic comments like the one above!)

 

The Roman Republic was founded in 509 B.C., and edured until approx. 31 B.C., depending upon your interpretation it might not have been classified as defunct until Augustus declared an heir. Now my math's not very good, but that seems like roughly 470+ years, or 250 years more than the United States has existed. If that's not all that long, what is?

Second point...while Rome would have qualified as an empire, a Republic, or possibly a State, it would never have been classified as a 'nation', or a 'country'...both of which are relatively recent concepts. It was initially a city state that extended it's power, absorbed Italy, took on provinces, and pretty much maintained a system of rule based upon the city administration until the advent of the Principate.

Last point...the Republic, or res publica, was contemporarily seen as a system of government, not a geo-political power. We have since come to identify the pre-Principate with their system of government, but to call it the Republic in the identifying sense would be akin to calling us The Congress, etc...

 

Maybe you should just call an Empire like you see it. Rome, US of A, ... tomayto, tomahto. They were the first Reich, and maybe we can become something like the fourth. I'm not trying to make any political commentary, mind you. Just speaking objectively about history, of course.

 

You are correct Macbeth when you point out that Rome would never have been considered a country. Rome was a city state that held power over numerous other cities and nations.

However Dirt was completely correct in calling Rome a nation:
///////////////////////////////////
na·tion Pronunciation Key (nshn)
n.

A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
The government of a sovereign state.
A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).

A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.
//////////////////////////////////////

 

Rome == Nation && Nation == Country && Rome != Country
I think your logic broke down in there somewhere.

 

The key word is considered. What Macbeth was saying was that you would never have heard romans or anyone else call rome a country. I was merely trying to help Dirt out and point out the the word nation is a very broad term and he was right to use the word which was the topic of this thread. And you sir may tickle my nads.

 

stupid moniker - i don't think nation has to actually mean country...i'm thinking of nation like Nation of Islam, for example. a nation is a collection of people...a country has different geographic requirements that a nation may or may not have...right???

 

This reminds me. Can someone tell the President that the cia.gov fact book comfirms that Iraq is a Republic, not a Regime.

 

Well, I'd quibble with you about the founding date of Rome, because I think there are distinct entities which are blurred together, making the longevity a bit overstated. But, for some reason I don't quite have the energy to get into the history of it. So, instead I'll concede.

However, I will object to your objection, Macbeth, that Rome was not a 'country' or 'nation.' There is a notion that has been popular recently in poli-sci and elsewhere, that a nation-state is something the Europeans invented within the last 500 years. It sounds to me like you're appealing to this concept, but I find it to be complete bunk and get annoyed whenever someone brings it up .

Besides the academics of it though, in Dirt's original statement, he's just saying 'nation' as a general description of the entity that was Rome, not as some sort of socio-political definition of what that entity was. So there is no need for you or I or this fantasy football dork to try to make some kind of correction on the use of the term 'nation' when Dirt was using it in a perfectly legitimate way. It is especially silly for the fantasy football dork, as you pointed out, because 'nation' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive in any definition that I know of either term.

 

1) The founding date of Rome is traditionally put at 753 B.C., about which there is some doubt as to specifics, which is , I assume, the blurring you are refering to. But the inception of the Republic is held to be pretty much beyond doubt, as there are records of records. 509 B.C. There are records and dates of the original consuls, etc..There are even records of the consular appointments in the war with Veii a few years later....The earliest you could argue for the demise of the Republic is, as I stated, 31 B.C., with the battle of Actium, and Octavius' assumption to absolute power, although most would argue later...The longevity is not, nor could not be prolonged. It is simply a splash of cold water to those who think that America is always the best, longest, largest, etc...We have not lasted even a blink of the eye compared with some of the great empires of history.

2) Your argument about the notion of 'nations' not being the invention of Europenas in the last 500 years doesn't hold any water, as the actual terminology is founded in that time and place. Before that there had been kingdoms, empires, city-states, confederations of city-states, republics, shogunates, and even democracies, but there had been no nations. The concept of nation has to do with sovereignty being owed to the actual land and people, not the King/Queen/emperor, etc., and this is a concept which hadn't occurred before western Europe in the last few hundred years. The term itself comes from that period, although we have since post-applied it... I'll ask you this...can you give me an example of a nation before that period?

3) My point was not trying to prove Dirk incorrect...he asked for clarification which I thought was in my possession, as I study and teach Classics, amongst other things. My only real objection was to your statement that the Roman republic didn't last that long.