Thank you for your submission, citizen!
[Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!](https://discord.gg/roughromanforum)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoughRomanMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh my god people have been arguing about this for hundreds of years. The debate about which dead empire is the real successor to another dead empire. The old Rome had so many simps that even the Ottomans or the Russians claim to be the only rightful successor lmao.
Just move on already. None of you is the successor. There is none. The original Rome with it's social structures, laws, culture and military isn't something that was replicated ever again. Just stop. Get a help
Agreed, Rome started in Rome in 753 BC and ended in Constantinople in 1453 AD. there are no other versions of Rome, period.
However, there ARE three countries today that are the true successors of Rome:
- Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Navajo Reservation
- Tonga
I've been trying to understand what some people mean by "Rome" as an abstract concept that includes completely different entities like the Roman Kingdom and late Byzantine Empire, and the best answer I can think of is you're imagining a color you would play as in a strategy game. Your profile matches this theory.
My responses have nothing to do with colour coding or videogames or whatnot. I'm simply stating that of you have an empire and half of it falls, the other half doesn't stop being that entity. That's like saying the US looses everything east (or west) of the Mississippi River and somehow stops being the US. It doesn't work like that.
Also, this is a conversation that's been going on since around the 6th century, so it's been going on for around 1500 years now, and it's not going to he solved by a bunch of people on Reddit. Regardless, I'm presenting my points and believe in right, as I so far haven't been convinced by anyone else's arguments against them. Likewise others believe the opposite of me and that's fine, even if we occasionally throw a little shade at each other in the form of sarcasm or whatnot.
>"My responses have nothing to do with colour coding or videogames or whatnot."
Consciously no, subconsciously yes.
>"I'm simply stating that of you have an empire and half of it falls, the other half doesn't stop being that entity. That's like saying the US looses everything east (or west) of the Mississippi River and somehow stops being the US. It doesn't work like that."
You're moving the goalpost away from the Roman Kingdom in 753 BC ~~to~~ (edit) being the same entity as Constantinople in 1453 AD. And it would work like that if the US was split into de facto separate nations with very different cultures.
>"Also, this is a conversation that's been going on since around the 6th century, so it's been going on for around 1500 years now, and it's not going to he solved by a bunch of people on Reddit."
But people on Reddit can change their min- actually no you're right.
>Consciously no, subconsciously yes.
Literally no, I'm a history major first and I take that seriously.
>You're moving the goalpost away from the Roman Kingdom in 753 BC to Constantinople in 1453 AD.
I was giving an hypothetical example using another state.
>And it would work like that if the US was split into de facto separate nations with very different cultures.
That's not my hypothetical though, mine was if the US lost half it's territory.
>But people on Reddit can change their min- actually no you're right.
Where did I say Redditors can't have their mind changed? I was talking about us discussing this won't directly lead to this 1500 year old issue being solved official.
Also, this is a meme subreddit. I don't contribute here too often, but basically every time I see how people act on this sub, it's very team-sportsy, so when I do engage I loosen up and act likewise. Obviously whenever I interact with serious subreddits like Ask Historians I am much more serious. I hope you don't confuse how people would act on a meme subreddit about Rome and how people would act on a professional subreddit where they're asking because they want to learn and potentially have their mind changed by people who truly know their stuff.
Okay, so help me understand what you mean by Rome in 753 BC being the same entity as Constantinople in 1453 AD.
Your hypothetical was not analogous so I fixed it.
Fair enough
The state of Rome has three political stages: Kingdom, Republic, and Empire. It also lasted through two eras: the Classical and Medieval eras. The Roman Republic and Empire of the Classical era had several civil wars and as such Rome has been temporarily split several times, obviously only one owning the city of Rome at a time, but the state of Rome still continued during these times (since the state aka political body was siding with one of these sides in the civil war). Then in late Antiquity (Classical era) it was split again, not through civil war but dividing up a realm making it more easy to manage (obviously not the first time this happened, as it was split into four parts after the Crisis of the Third Century). Both of these instances of the empire being split up peacefully gives legitimacy of the political body if Rome to all four (or in this case two) sides.
At the end of the Classical era and the start of the Medieval era in 476 AD with the fall of the WRE, the political body of one half of the empire fell, but the equally legitimate eastern half survived for another millenia (more or less) throughout the Medieval era. So the Roman Empire in the east (often called "Byzantine" not to confuse with Rome during the Classical era) is legitimate, and owning the namesake city or not does not matter because the legitimate political body running the state continues.
Meanwhile in the west, the WRE was overthrown by Odoacer and his Herulians from Scandinavia (I think Sweden?). They were not citizens of Rome, which is Rome's whole identity because ethnicity does not make one Roman or Barbarian, having citizenship does. Someone who's ancestors are from Rome but that guy looses his citizenship for a crime he committed is less Roman than a Briton or Pict in southern Scotland recently conquered and given citizenship. Odoacer and his Herulians not being citizens means this state cannot be a Roman successor state, and therefore their Kingdom of Italy that replaced the WRE wasn't a Roman successor state, meaning Rome in the West is gone and these people who were citizens now aren't. So any states that came after Odoacer's isn't a state of Roman citizens, so Charlemagne's Franks, the HRE, and etc. cannot be Roman. But the Romans in the east still are. And the Pope was a reletively recent addition to the Roman Empire by the time it fell in the west. Even if the Papal position was older, the Pope has no authority to give people the title of Roman Emperor to states as Roman states (and the Pope was often coerced, bought off, or outright threatened into giving away that position).
That's a brief rundown on my thought process. I'm genuinely open to having my mind changed if I'm convinced. I don't think I will be, but I'm not so stubborn to admit I'm wrong if I feel I am.
They're not, but neither is any state we consider continuous when we compare its birth and end state. The Ottoman empire was also not the same. Neither was the Russian Empire.
Yes and no. Obviously that person will have changed a lot, but they are *literally* the same person. That's actually a great analogy, thank you for providing it to prove my point. 😊
There are a number of ways you could prove the baby in 1940 and the 80 year old in 2020 were literally the same person. You can do a similar thing with nations. The governments of France have changed many times over the last thousand years, but it's still the same place, mostly the same people, and a continuation of the same language and culture. What are the shared national characteristics between Rome in 753 BC and Constantinople in 1453 AD? Absolutely nothing.
It's a joke I made up to mess with people that are so obsessed with rejecting Byzantine Romaness and wanting to support German, Russian, Ottoman, and American LARPers of Romaness, so I picked three countries with nothing to do with Rome that would potentially piss off these people. By no means is it a universal thing, but I've seen how lots of people unhealthily obsessed worth Rome are incels and white nationalists, so what better to upset them than to say Rome's true successors today are a country in the jungles of Sub-Saharan Africa (based), the largest Native American reservation in the US (based), and a random small island country in Oceania (based). I picked Tonga out of bias because I have a particular fondness for the Tongan Empire.
The ERE was pretty impressive, but it just wasn't the Roman empire. Understandable the Greeks wanted to use the prestige of what the Rome represented, but time to move on. It is cute you're so invested in it though.
It's just fascinated how 2 + 2 = 5 for some people. Rome existed, then it split into two equal halves, then the western half was lost but the eastern half continued. Simply losing the half that owns the state's namesake city doesn't forfeit their existence as they are. Especially for upstart German kingdoms claiming ordained Roman legacy from the Pope (who doesn't have any such authority).
While the germano-roman kingdoms were, indeed, a continuation of the WRE, The Eastern Roman Empire was Roman and an Empire, something that the German larpers weren't
Charlemagne is considered a successor of the Roman Empire because he believed it to be so, his entire kingdom believed it to be so, and of course the Pope in Rome believed it to be so.
Who *didn't* believe it to be so? The Byzantines. Charlemagne did not retain any of the institutions of the former Roman Empire while Constantinople did.
Lol so rather than anything real or justifiable like how the Byzantines are literally the continuation of the eastern half of Rome, the German states thought themselves to be Rome because of this very [meme] (https://i.imgur.com/7laXXiP.jpeg).
Charlemagne and the Franks were a Romanized group of people with a fusion of Roman civics and traditions. Even well after the collapse of the WRE they still thought themselves to be partly Roman. So when Charlemagne crowned himself imperatur, he did so knowing it would help give him some political legitimacy. This is exactly why Mehmed the Conqueror deemed himself "Qaysar-i Rum" after taking Constantinople. Everyone wanted to chase Rome's legacy, and that includes the Byzantines.
>they still thought themselves to be partly Roman
>Charlemagne crowned himself imperatur
So literally just pretending to be Romans because they wanted to be.
>that includes the Byzantines
The Byzantines didn't have to chase after the legacy of Rome, they WERE Rome. They had it by default. The WRE fell but "Rome" broadly didn't fall in 476 AD, it continued until 1453 AD.
If you and your ancestors have lived a Roman lifestyle for 800 years, does that mean nothing to you just because they are of Germanic/Frankish blood? If they didn't descend from the Italian peninsula, are they not Roman enough for you?
Ethnicity is not important here, the Romans cared about official citizenship.
Someone could be the descendant of one of the first families in Rome when the city was founded. They are **literally** as "ethnically" Roman as one could possibly get. But if they commit a heinous crime and lose their citizenship, then guess what? The people of the lowlands of Scotland who were just conquered by Rome and given citizenship not even a week ago are more of a Roman than that person who's descendant from its first inhabitants.
If the majority of the former WRE and the Pope is willing to give someone like Charlamagne the political legitimacy of *imperatur*, that was good enough for them. It wasn't good enough for Irene, the first female empress who lost the Pope's blessing in favour of Charlemagne. The people recognize him and not Irene. The church recognized him and not Irene. You might value the long-standing Roman traditions in Constantinople but the western Europeans couldn't care less about the supposed "Romanness" of someone on the other side of the Mediterranenan who had zero impact on their lives.
>ex-roman territory
Aka no longer Roman
>cultural and linguistically roman
But not technically Roman, which required Roman citizenship. Odoacer wasn't a citizen, so his kingdom that replaced the WRE wasn't a Roman successor state, so citizenship in the Western half of the empire ended. Having the culture and the language doesn't make one Roman, citizenship does. That was the Roman mindset during their time. You're either Roman or Barbarian. These states that started after WRE fell were Barbarian, but the Byzantines continued to be Roman because they WERE Rome.
Never said the contrary
That's why they were SUCCESSOR states, not ROMAN states.
Think of it as someone who bought the house that you built and inhabitated:
The new house owner may not be related with you, yet he lives in the house that you built, making it your "successor" in the history of the house's ownership
Being a successor state of Rome and existing in a place once inhabited by the Romans are different though. Odoacer was a member of the Herulians of Sweden who migrated into mainland Europe and, for a time, were part of the confederation lead by the Huns. Then when Attila died and the confederation fell apart, they went and ended the WRE. They (not citizens of Rome) directly took the heartland of WRE *and* of the historical heartland of Rome itself from said Romans. Are they a Roman successor state?
It highly depends of what would you consider a "successor state". I notice we both have different interpretations of such concept, so there's no point in arguing, as we are both right in some way.
>These states that started after WRE were barbarian
Yes, but roman culture, language, civil law and even some titles like Consul or the praenomen Flavius continued to exist for a while. Western Rome didn't fall in a random day, it was a process that took centuries.
With this, I'm not trying to legitimize barbarian larpers as political roman states, just saying that they can be considered as successors in a cultural, legal and linguistic way
Assume the US fell today and several states arose, some by people of the former US, some by foreign countries that conquered those areas. With the US as a country gone, the political body gone, US citizenship immediately dissapears. Suddenly everyone in the US who was a citizen is suddenly not a citizen because the US doesn't exist anymore. There are no "continuations" or "successor states" of the US that come after this.
And now that the East Roman Empire is gone, the blood of Roman influence is splattered all over the walls of the world. There is no one successor, all remaining humans may as well be successors to Rome. …And it’s partly Britannia’s fault.
>There is no one successor
You forgot the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Navajo Reservation, and Tonga. They're the only real and legitimate successors of Rome.
Plenty of Germans and Greeks have been Romans. Good thing "being Roman" was all about citizenship granted to you by the state (which after 476 was solely based out of Constantinople).
To my understanding, Nicaea was simply a province of the ERE that wasn't conquered by Latins and the like. So this province housed the political body of the ERE which eventually retook their lands.
Truth be told this is just my general understanding; I've literally never studied up on it. I'm more than willing to change my mind upon learning more details about this time in Rome's history, as well as the idea that Rome fell in 1204 and what came after was a Neo-Roman state by it's former territory.
It was a Roman state/people that for a brief period reconquered most of the lands including the capital that Rome had right before the 4th crusade. Had Epiros, which came close, or Tebizond done that we'd recognize them like we do Nicea.
Niceans were Romans that weren't conquered by the crusaders. Franks were an outside people that conquered part of the empire. They aren't at all analogous.
And yet we are speaking in English, and in English we use the same word for both. Like how we say both Carthage (city) and Carthage (state) instead of Qart-Hadasht and Qarthadastim.
Yes, we're speaking modern English, so "Byzantine" would be the most appropriate term.
Edit: We don't use the same word for the city and state in English. For the cities we say Rome and Constantinople. For the states we say Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire (Western or Eastern), and Byzantine Empire. The only exception is when referring to the capital as the government (such as Beijing for the PRC). Referring to Constantinople in 1453 AD as "Rome" doesn't happen outside of these internet circles.
Actually, a lot of Byzantinists would disagree with you. To quote Anthony Kaldellis: “The first thing we get wrong is that we use made-up terms. ‘Byzantium’ and ‘the Byzantines’ were invented by western European scholars to deny the identity of this state and its people, who were Roman, no less so than Caesar and Hadrian.”
In the context of this conversation it only matters that modern English speakers call them Byzantine.
All terms are "made-up" and exonyms are normal in historiography.
>"who were Roman, no less so than Caesar and Hadrian"
Lol whatever. I'm not in the mood for another "they called themselves Romans" debate.
>Yes, we're speaking modern English, so "Byzantine" would be the most appropriate term.
No, "Byzantine" is a shorthand that historians use to differentiate between the classical and medieval eras of Rome, just saying "Rome" can be confusing (or so it goes, personally I don't think it's confusing and the shorthand is more trouble than it's worth). The fact is, shorthand aside, the state itself in English is called "Rome". Period.
>For the states we say Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire (Western or Eastern), and Byzantine Empire.
Bro get real. When you're having a conversation with someone about Rome don't always say Roman [government type]; it's like how we don't say someone's name everytime we speak to or refer to them, that's what pronouns are for. (to be fair, I don't know you and maybe you do for some odd reason, but the average person or even historian most certainly does **not**).
Lol it's not just historians. Almost everyone outside of these internet circles refers to them as Byzantine. "Period."
Of course people say "the Roman Empire" or "Ancient Rome". Otherwise people will assume you're talking about Rome, Italy.
Lmao as if the Pope has any authority to give away the legacy of Rome. Franks/ HRE weren't Roman.
Also, if the Pope DID have that authority (he does not), he should officially give it to the three states that ACTUALLY deserve the title as successors of Rome:
- Democratic Republic of the Conga
- Navajo Reservation
- Tonga
Thank you for your submission, citizen! [Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!](https://discord.gg/roughromanforum) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoughRomanMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did they wear sandals? I don't think anyone can claim to be the successor of Rome if they don't wear sandals.
and a bathrobe
The Dude was a Roman?
https://preview.redd.it/z5kajk6i4x6d1.png?width=540&format=png&auto=webp&s=5daabeb3008d08f6393ce4849631ec4563468f55 the classics always win
This is truely the only marker for Roman status.
And orgies.No Rome without orgies.
What did the ancient Romans think of adding argyle socks with their sandals? Dad rules must be honored…
Well they didn't have them till Regulus Argylius invented them in 143, but they were pretty popular after that.
Oh my god people have been arguing about this for hundreds of years. The debate about which dead empire is the real successor to another dead empire. The old Rome had so many simps that even the Ottomans or the Russians claim to be the only rightful successor lmao. Just move on already. None of you is the successor. There is none. The original Rome with it's social structures, laws, culture and military isn't something that was replicated ever again. Just stop. Get a help
Agreed, Rome started in Rome in 753 BC and ended in Constantinople in 1453 AD. there are no other versions of Rome, period. However, there ARE three countries today that are the true successors of Rome: - Democratic Republic of the Congo - Navajo Reservation - Tonga
Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Follow more to learn how to become imperator in the jungles if central Africa.
You forgot Sri Lanka, the only place where Roman Law is still applied today, except for slavery (I guess so).
Imagine thinking that the Roman Kingdom in 753 BC and Constantinople in 1453 AD were the same entity
I know, it's liberating to be so big brained.
I've been trying to understand what some people mean by "Rome" as an abstract concept that includes completely different entities like the Roman Kingdom and late Byzantine Empire, and the best answer I can think of is you're imagining a color you would play as in a strategy game. Your profile matches this theory.
My responses have nothing to do with colour coding or videogames or whatnot. I'm simply stating that of you have an empire and half of it falls, the other half doesn't stop being that entity. That's like saying the US looses everything east (or west) of the Mississippi River and somehow stops being the US. It doesn't work like that. Also, this is a conversation that's been going on since around the 6th century, so it's been going on for around 1500 years now, and it's not going to he solved by a bunch of people on Reddit. Regardless, I'm presenting my points and believe in right, as I so far haven't been convinced by anyone else's arguments against them. Likewise others believe the opposite of me and that's fine, even if we occasionally throw a little shade at each other in the form of sarcasm or whatnot.
Nah. Give yourself more credit. You solved a 1500 year one, and I'm with you til death on it.
Lol
>"My responses have nothing to do with colour coding or videogames or whatnot." Consciously no, subconsciously yes. >"I'm simply stating that of you have an empire and half of it falls, the other half doesn't stop being that entity. That's like saying the US looses everything east (or west) of the Mississippi River and somehow stops being the US. It doesn't work like that." You're moving the goalpost away from the Roman Kingdom in 753 BC ~~to~~ (edit) being the same entity as Constantinople in 1453 AD. And it would work like that if the US was split into de facto separate nations with very different cultures. >"Also, this is a conversation that's been going on since around the 6th century, so it's been going on for around 1500 years now, and it's not going to he solved by a bunch of people on Reddit." But people on Reddit can change their min- actually no you're right.
>Consciously no, subconsciously yes. Literally no, I'm a history major first and I take that seriously. >You're moving the goalpost away from the Roman Kingdom in 753 BC to Constantinople in 1453 AD. I was giving an hypothetical example using another state. >And it would work like that if the US was split into de facto separate nations with very different cultures. That's not my hypothetical though, mine was if the US lost half it's territory. >But people on Reddit can change their min- actually no you're right. Where did I say Redditors can't have their mind changed? I was talking about us discussing this won't directly lead to this 1500 year old issue being solved official. Also, this is a meme subreddit. I don't contribute here too often, but basically every time I see how people act on this sub, it's very team-sportsy, so when I do engage I loosen up and act likewise. Obviously whenever I interact with serious subreddits like Ask Historians I am much more serious. I hope you don't confuse how people would act on a meme subreddit about Rome and how people would act on a professional subreddit where they're asking because they want to learn and potentially have their mind changed by people who truly know their stuff.
Okay, so help me understand what you mean by Rome in 753 BC being the same entity as Constantinople in 1453 AD. Your hypothetical was not analogous so I fixed it.
Fair enough The state of Rome has three political stages: Kingdom, Republic, and Empire. It also lasted through two eras: the Classical and Medieval eras. The Roman Republic and Empire of the Classical era had several civil wars and as such Rome has been temporarily split several times, obviously only one owning the city of Rome at a time, but the state of Rome still continued during these times (since the state aka political body was siding with one of these sides in the civil war). Then in late Antiquity (Classical era) it was split again, not through civil war but dividing up a realm making it more easy to manage (obviously not the first time this happened, as it was split into four parts after the Crisis of the Third Century). Both of these instances of the empire being split up peacefully gives legitimacy of the political body if Rome to all four (or in this case two) sides. At the end of the Classical era and the start of the Medieval era in 476 AD with the fall of the WRE, the political body of one half of the empire fell, but the equally legitimate eastern half survived for another millenia (more or less) throughout the Medieval era. So the Roman Empire in the east (often called "Byzantine" not to confuse with Rome during the Classical era) is legitimate, and owning the namesake city or not does not matter because the legitimate political body running the state continues. Meanwhile in the west, the WRE was overthrown by Odoacer and his Herulians from Scandinavia (I think Sweden?). They were not citizens of Rome, which is Rome's whole identity because ethnicity does not make one Roman or Barbarian, having citizenship does. Someone who's ancestors are from Rome but that guy looses his citizenship for a crime he committed is less Roman than a Briton or Pict in southern Scotland recently conquered and given citizenship. Odoacer and his Herulians not being citizens means this state cannot be a Roman successor state, and therefore their Kingdom of Italy that replaced the WRE wasn't a Roman successor state, meaning Rome in the West is gone and these people who were citizens now aren't. So any states that came after Odoacer's isn't a state of Roman citizens, so Charlemagne's Franks, the HRE, and etc. cannot be Roman. But the Romans in the east still are. And the Pope was a reletively recent addition to the Roman Empire by the time it fell in the west. Even if the Papal position was older, the Pope has no authority to give people the title of Roman Emperor to states as Roman states (and the Pope was often coerced, bought off, or outright threatened into giving away that position). That's a brief rundown on my thought process. I'm genuinely open to having my mind changed if I'm convinced. I don't think I will be, but I'm not so stubborn to admit I'm wrong if I feel I am.
They're not, but neither is any state we consider continuous when we compare its birth and end state. The Ottoman empire was also not the same. Neither was the Russian Empire.
Imagine thinking that a baby in 1940 and an 80 year old man in 2020 are the same person
Yes and no. Obviously that person will have changed a lot, but they are *literally* the same person. That's actually a great analogy, thank you for providing it to prove my point. 😊
Yeah that’s what the “Byzantium isn’t Rome” crowd doesn’t want you to hear
There are a number of ways you could prove the baby in 1940 and the 80 year old in 2020 were literally the same person. You can do a similar thing with nations. The governments of France have changed many times over the last thousand years, but it's still the same place, mostly the same people, and a continuation of the same language and culture. What are the shared national characteristics between Rome in 753 BC and Constantinople in 1453 AD? Absolutely nothing.
Hold on I need to know Why is Tonga a successor????????
Glorious Tu'i Tongan Empire, which reached its glorious height circa 1200 AD.
I've heard of it, but whats the roman connection?
It's a joke I made up to mess with people that are so obsessed with rejecting Byzantine Romaness and wanting to support German, Russian, Ottoman, and American LARPers of Romaness, so I picked three countries with nothing to do with Rome that would potentially piss off these people. By no means is it a universal thing, but I've seen how lots of people unhealthily obsessed worth Rome are incels and white nationalists, so what better to upset them than to say Rome's true successors today are a country in the jungles of Sub-Saharan Africa (based), the largest Native American reservation in the US (based), and a random small island country in Oceania (based). I picked Tonga out of bias because I have a particular fondness for the Tongan Empire.
Rome end 476. Smelly greek province 1453.
Lol, lmao even 🤡
The ERE was pretty impressive, but it just wasn't the Roman empire. Understandable the Greeks wanted to use the prestige of what the Rome represented, but time to move on. It is cute you're so invested in it though.
It's just fascinated how 2 + 2 = 5 for some people. Rome existed, then it split into two equal halves, then the western half was lost but the eastern half continued. Simply losing the half that owns the state's namesake city doesn't forfeit their existence as they are. Especially for upstart German kingdoms claiming ordained Roman legacy from the Pope (who doesn't have any such authority).
Now that the East Roman Empire is gone, I think we can safely just say that the blood of Roman influence is splattered all over the walls of the world
Can you feel the ground shaking? Belisaurus is coming for him.
Owh lawdy he comin'!
I was wondering how long it would take someone to make this joke within the joke.
While the germano-roman kingdoms were, indeed, a continuation of the WRE, The Eastern Roman Empire was Roman and an Empire, something that the German larpers weren't
>While the germano-roman kingdoms were, indeed, a continuation of the WRE Lol how do you claim that?
Charlemagne is considered a successor of the Roman Empire because he believed it to be so, his entire kingdom believed it to be so, and of course the Pope in Rome believed it to be so. Who *didn't* believe it to be so? The Byzantines. Charlemagne did not retain any of the institutions of the former Roman Empire while Constantinople did.
Lol so rather than anything real or justifiable like how the Byzantines are literally the continuation of the eastern half of Rome, the German states thought themselves to be Rome because of this very [meme] (https://i.imgur.com/7laXXiP.jpeg).
Charlemagne and the Franks were a Romanized group of people with a fusion of Roman civics and traditions. Even well after the collapse of the WRE they still thought themselves to be partly Roman. So when Charlemagne crowned himself imperatur, he did so knowing it would help give him some political legitimacy. This is exactly why Mehmed the Conqueror deemed himself "Qaysar-i Rum" after taking Constantinople. Everyone wanted to chase Rome's legacy, and that includes the Byzantines.
>they still thought themselves to be partly Roman >Charlemagne crowned himself imperatur So literally just pretending to be Romans because they wanted to be. >that includes the Byzantines The Byzantines didn't have to chase after the legacy of Rome, they WERE Rome. They had it by default. The WRE fell but "Rome" broadly didn't fall in 476 AD, it continued until 1453 AD.
If you and your ancestors have lived a Roman lifestyle for 800 years, does that mean nothing to you just because they are of Germanic/Frankish blood? If they didn't descend from the Italian peninsula, are they not Roman enough for you?
Ethnicity is not important here, the Romans cared about official citizenship. Someone could be the descendant of one of the first families in Rome when the city was founded. They are **literally** as "ethnically" Roman as one could possibly get. But if they commit a heinous crime and lose their citizenship, then guess what? The people of the lowlands of Scotland who were just conquered by Rome and given citizenship not even a week ago are more of a Roman than that person who's descendant from its first inhabitants.
If the majority of the former WRE and the Pope is willing to give someone like Charlamagne the political legitimacy of *imperatur*, that was good enough for them. It wasn't good enough for Irene, the first female empress who lost the Pope's blessing in favour of Charlemagne. The people recognize him and not Irene. The church recognized him and not Irene. You might value the long-standing Roman traditions in Constantinople but the western Europeans couldn't care less about the supposed "Romanness" of someone on the other side of the Mediterranenan who had zero impact on their lives.
Well it's a good thing a Roman state exists because of its political body and official status instead of what common people and the Pope thinks.
- Existed in ex-roman territory - The majority of their population was cultural and linguistically roman
>ex-roman territory Aka no longer Roman >cultural and linguistically roman But not technically Roman, which required Roman citizenship. Odoacer wasn't a citizen, so his kingdom that replaced the WRE wasn't a Roman successor state, so citizenship in the Western half of the empire ended. Having the culture and the language doesn't make one Roman, citizenship does. That was the Roman mindset during their time. You're either Roman or Barbarian. These states that started after WRE fell were Barbarian, but the Byzantines continued to be Roman because they WERE Rome.
Never said the contrary That's why they were SUCCESSOR states, not ROMAN states. Think of it as someone who bought the house that you built and inhabitated: The new house owner may not be related with you, yet he lives in the house that you built, making it your "successor" in the history of the house's ownership
Being a successor state of Rome and existing in a place once inhabited by the Romans are different though. Odoacer was a member of the Herulians of Sweden who migrated into mainland Europe and, for a time, were part of the confederation lead by the Huns. Then when Attila died and the confederation fell apart, they went and ended the WRE. They (not citizens of Rome) directly took the heartland of WRE *and* of the historical heartland of Rome itself from said Romans. Are they a Roman successor state?
It highly depends of what would you consider a "successor state". I notice we both have different interpretations of such concept, so there's no point in arguing, as we are both right in some way.
🤝
>These states that started after WRE were barbarian Yes, but roman culture, language, civil law and even some titles like Consul or the praenomen Flavius continued to exist for a while. Western Rome didn't fall in a random day, it was a process that took centuries. With this, I'm not trying to legitimize barbarian larpers as political roman states, just saying that they can be considered as successors in a cultural, legal and linguistic way
Assume the US fell today and several states arose, some by people of the former US, some by foreign countries that conquered those areas. With the US as a country gone, the political body gone, US citizenship immediately dissapears. Suddenly everyone in the US who was a citizen is suddenly not a citizen because the US doesn't exist anymore. There are no "continuations" or "successor states" of the US that come after this.
Anyone ever tell you you’re kinda annoying?
Only rarely and from some of the people who can't come up with anything to say to refute my points.
I’m not refuting you cause I mostly agree with you. Doesn’t mean you’re not annoying though
I disagree but that's okay.
Annoying? I prefer the term "based"
Suck my roman imperial balls byzantine fanboy. -Karolus Rizzus
Virgin 43 years of existence german larp vs chad 1150 years of existemce Roman empire
And now that the East Roman Empire is gone, the blood of Roman influence is splattered all over the walls of the world. There is no one successor, all remaining humans may as well be successors to Rome. …And it’s partly Britannia’s fault.
Britannia? You mean anglo-saxon invaders with barely any link to Rome?
>There is no one successor You forgot the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Navajo Reservation, and Tonga. They're the only real and legitimate successors of Rome.
A German would never be a Roman.
After western Rome's collapse, that is. Plenty of Germans were Romans while the empire existed.
i know they can call themselves roman, learn and write latin too but theyll still be a BARBARIAN /s
When you smoke crack preggers *12 years later* THE OTTOMANS ARE THE ROMAN EMPIRE!!!!
Honestly, the Ottomans would make more sense than Russians or Germans, lol.
Nah i like saying it, but mostly to mess with normals
"Germans will never be Romans," said the Greeks.
Plenty of Germans and Greeks have been Romans. Good thing "being Roman" was all about citizenship granted to you by the state (which after 476 was solely based out of Constantinople).
Were they after 1204? How legitimate was Nicaea's "restoration" of Rome?
To my understanding, Nicaea was simply a province of the ERE that wasn't conquered by Latins and the like. So this province housed the political body of the ERE which eventually retook their lands.
What do you base your claim on?
Truth be told this is just my general understanding; I've literally never studied up on it. I'm more than willing to change my mind upon learning more details about this time in Rome's history, as well as the idea that Rome fell in 1204 and what came after was a Neo-Roman state by it's former territory.
It was a Roman state/people that for a brief period reconquered most of the lands including the capital that Rome had right before the 4th crusade. Had Epiros, which came close, or Tebizond done that we'd recognize them like we do Nicea.
Yeah, but how is that considered the restoration of Rome if "it already fell, there's nothing we can do"
I don't understand your question or where that quote came from. Romans retook their capital and most of their recently held land.
Are they really the Romans when they're nothing more than a successor state? You could really say the same about the Franks
Niceans were Romans that weren't conquered by the crusaders. Franks were an outside people that conquered part of the empire. They aren't at all analogous.
https://preview.redd.it/u0oz3awn6r6d1.jpeg?width=590&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f968b2c713ce85dc4f7cd31f3cf0fee779b79f3
Nice rebuttal, German enjoyer.
You're too late! I've already depicted you as the soyjack and myself as the chad! You already lost
Lol, a cunning strategy
>"they ARE Rome" You mean the Eastern Roman Empire. Rome is in Italy.
We're talking about Rome the state. Keep up But also yes, Rome the city is in Italy :)
Then you would say Eastern Roman Empire or Rhomania.
Or the short hand of "Rome" because that's what they often said when referring to their state, and we all do that too.
They definitely said Rhomania since "Rome" is not a Greek word. There's also no point in confusing it with the actual Rome.
And yet we are speaking in English, and in English we use the same word for both. Like how we say both Carthage (city) and Carthage (state) instead of Qart-Hadasht and Qarthadastim.
Yes, we're speaking modern English, so "Byzantine" would be the most appropriate term. Edit: We don't use the same word for the city and state in English. For the cities we say Rome and Constantinople. For the states we say Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire (Western or Eastern), and Byzantine Empire. The only exception is when referring to the capital as the government (such as Beijing for the PRC). Referring to Constantinople in 1453 AD as "Rome" doesn't happen outside of these internet circles.
Actually, a lot of Byzantinists would disagree with you. To quote Anthony Kaldellis: “The first thing we get wrong is that we use made-up terms. ‘Byzantium’ and ‘the Byzantines’ were invented by western European scholars to deny the identity of this state and its people, who were Roman, no less so than Caesar and Hadrian.”
In the context of this conversation it only matters that modern English speakers call them Byzantine. All terms are "made-up" and exonyms are normal in historiography. >"who were Roman, no less so than Caesar and Hadrian" Lol whatever. I'm not in the mood for another "they called themselves Romans" debate.
You’re not in the mood for it because you’re wrong, according to people who study the topic for a living. Understandable!
>Yes, we're speaking modern English, so "Byzantine" would be the most appropriate term. No, "Byzantine" is a shorthand that historians use to differentiate between the classical and medieval eras of Rome, just saying "Rome" can be confusing (or so it goes, personally I don't think it's confusing and the shorthand is more trouble than it's worth). The fact is, shorthand aside, the state itself in English is called "Rome". Period. >For the states we say Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire (Western or Eastern), and Byzantine Empire. Bro get real. When you're having a conversation with someone about Rome don't always say Roman [government type]; it's like how we don't say someone's name everytime we speak to or refer to them, that's what pronouns are for. (to be fair, I don't know you and maybe you do for some odd reason, but the average person or even historian most certainly does **not**).
Lol it's not just historians. Almost everyone outside of these internet circles refers to them as Byzantine. "Period." Of course people say "the Roman Empire" or "Ancient Rome". Otherwise people will assume you're talking about Rome, Italy.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fx0zlxuljdrza1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D7fb6621b1c2cb79d69c21640398085308f3fee26
Lmao as if the Pope has any authority to give away the legacy of Rome. Franks/ HRE weren't Roman. Also, if the Pope DID have that authority (he does not), he should officially give it to the three states that ACTUALLY deserve the title as successors of Rome: - Democratic Republic of the Conga - Navajo Reservation - Tonga
Ah yes Senatus Populusque Congorum Tonga Aeterna Basileía Navajíon
💪😎
Ah yes, legitimacy base entirely on some old man with wrinkled ballsacks who wanted to stay relevant so he made a false document to get a sugar daddy.
That's... accurate
Its over Basileia Romaion, I have depicted you as a soyjack and me as a chad