IIRC the French Republics are also a re-introduction of democratic principles after a period of monarchy. First republic gives way to first empire and the bourbon restoration, second appears afterwards and dies with the second empire, third appears after the empire, fourth after Nazi occupation and Vichy France. Only really the fourth to fifth transition was a concerned constitutional and political change, the rest were entire regime changes out of a new form of government.
Good points, but I do feel that the political changes, especially between the first, third, fourth and fifth republics were more significant than the cultural changes, since there were many immediate changes in the way politics worked in France between these eras, while the cultural shifts were more gradual, though still driven by the political changes.
I'm kinda putting the two empires and the occupation aside here, which is somewhat not-good, but then I'm just comparing the individual periods, not looking at the evolution of France in total.
In that regard you get something similar with the third reich. The first was the HRE, the second the Prussian empire, and the third Nazi Germany. Each is punctuated by a period of democracy. Between first and second was the German Confederation rather than an empire, and between the second and third was the Weimar Republic.
Exactly: I'm saying that France is a *bad* comparison, and Germany is even worse.
The Roman Empires don't seem to be all that punctuated by anything. Just dynasty changes. It's still a continuous empire, much like the HRE was despite constant dynasty changes.
I would disagree. The empire as an institution, as an idea, was indeed continuous. But what it is, what it stood for, what it means to the average Roman, what it means to the imperator: that changed. Not sharply, yes; but it changed, and that change is easily perceived.
I think it'd make more sense to see Augustus until Constantine as the First empire, since after Constantine the fundamental nature of the Roman Empire changed to a very real hereditary system organized by Christianity. It's an actual change in government rather than just a dynastic one.
My personal opinion is that the Romans see this period as the classical empire: the time when the empire was Latin and revolved around the actual city of Rome.
In the same regard I don't think Basil II would be a real shift either. The Nicenean Empire restoring native rule would be a better demarcation for the start of a third empire.
Well, from Basil II the empire went nowhere but down. Nothing changed inside the empire politically, but remember that this demarcation is being made in the future ahead of 1025, which remembers most clearly that from Basil to Theodoros the general direction of the empire was down. Turkish invasion, Crusader pillaging, bloody Bulgarians, damned-to-hell Old Venetians, the whole lot pillaged the empire in this time, after Basil.
The Ascention of Helena Drakina I also don't think is a real shift either for the same reasons but I can recognize that this is the point when the empire is reorganized into a more early modern state than a medieval one. But that wouldn't really be a new 'empire' but instead more akin to the difference between medieval and early modern England
I don't actually remember what happened in the reign of Helena Drakina, so... *shrug*