The true Third Rome

If you go that route, then the Roman Empire finally fell when the last Byzantine remnant - the Principality of Theodoro in the Crimea - fell in 1475. Although, admittedly, this is a stretch.

I think the more accurate date for the fall of the Roman Empire is arguably 1204, since this is when the Byzantine Empire was weakened so much the lineage it inherited from Rome broke - the Senate was dissolved, the complex bureaucracy was scattered, never to exist meaningfully again since the Palaiologans embraced a kind of pseudo-feudalism... Of course, 1453 is a good date, too. But by then, it was hardly Roman anymore.

In that case, where you so say that the Eastern Roman Empire ended and the Byzantine Empire began? It doesn't make any sense to me to consider the Byzantines totally separate

Rome was a meme, not place.

Constantinople was second Rome; Constantine himself referred to it as such.

He didn't mean it was a "Second Rome" as in a different iteration of the Empire; he meant the CITY itself was to be a "Second Rome" in terms of splendor and importance, hence Constantinople's alternate name: NOVA ROMA.

The current russian federation, as Putin owns the emperor's chair and crown unlike the Tsar and sultan

You could say the ERE ended when the WRE fell, it was at that moment that the Eastern Romans (greeks) became their own thing, the Byzanines

...

The Byzantines didn't become their "own thing": their autocratic style was a direct continuation of the increasingly autocratic form of government that resulted from the Crisis of the Third Century and its rise in popularity during the Dominate, though.

Yes there are many times in history where continuations of the roman state could be claimed, but im referring to those existing after the fall of the Second Rome (Byzantine Empire)

The Byzantines had entirely different problems and ambitions than the original roman empire did, its proximity to the holy lands shaped their history far more than it did for Rome, northern barbarians weren't as much of an issue and they lived in a much different period (feudalism)

...

this

>its proximity to the holy lands shaped their history far more than it did for Rome

What are you trying to say? Are you saying they wanted o recapture the Holy Land? Because they were not particularly interested in the idea - that was a Frankish/Latin thing.

>Northern barbarians weren't as much of an issue

Yes they were. The Byzantines had to deal with barbarians at many times int heir history, especially the Bulgarians. Constantinople itself was subject to sieges and raiding attempts by Varangians, Avars, Slavs, and Kutrigurs at various times. The reason they survived the initial migration period was because the Eastern Empire was wealthy enough to bribe the more menacing of barbarian tribes to keep on moving, or to not attack them.

>and they lived in a much different period (feudalism)

The Eastern Empire never accepted feudalism. That's one of the reasons they're considered unique among the European (and Middle Eastern) Medieval powers. They only adopted feudalism once the Empire of Nicaea retook Constantinople in 1261 and ushered in the severely weakened Byzantine Empire.

Spain

...

France of course.

>Holy Lands

I was trying to say that the crusades and Byzantium involvement in them shaped their history, mostly for the worse.

>northern barbarians

The Byzantines never had to deal with the likes of Attila and their permanent fall wasn't due to northern barbarians migrating

>the Byzantines never accepted feudalism

True, but most of their neighbors did, which changed their external relations with other nations.

>a bunch of western gaul-germans

Explain your reasoning

France is the only remaining Latin people which still possesses grandeur, hence they are the true descendant of Rome. Rome cannot be Rome without grandeur.

Byzantine involvement in the Crusades was minimal.

>The Byzantines never had to deal with the likes of Attila

But they did. The Byzantines bribed Attila to keep on moving. Also, how is having to deal with the Bulgarians, the Avars, Slavs, and other barbarian groups not the same?

If they are the true successors than why has France never claimed to be it?

>Byzantines bribed Attila

Post a legitimate source to that fact

To claim it has the implication that you were not it previously.

"To fend off the Huns, Theodosius had to pay an enormous annual tribute to Attila. His successor, Marcian, refused to continue to pay the tribute, but Attila had already diverted his attention to the West."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

...

I see. It seems Byzantium was far more connected to Rome's problems than i previously thought, but i still don't see how it isn't a different entity from Rome.
They were:
>Greek
>Orthodox
>Mostly just a large kingdom for most of their history

Seems worthy of the "Second Rome" title to me

During French colonialism in the 19th century France often looked upon themselves as a new Rome in North Africa, the French 1st Republic often drew on Roman heritage, Napoleon declared "“I am a Roman emperor. I come from the best line of Caesars—the Caesars who build.” in 1810, and Louis XIV's policies essentially aimed to make France the new heir to the Roman empire in Europe.

>Greek
The Romans considered themselves the successors to the Greeks and culturally mimicked the Greeks from the get-go

>Orthodox
The Roman Empire was never Catholic
Pentarchy, my friend

>Mostly just a large kingdom for most of their history
Same can be said about Rome, just replace kingdom with Aristocratic Republic.

One thing is being influenced and climing to be related to previous Ceasars, another thing is to outright cliam to be the true succesor to Rome, like the russians/germans/turks did

>but i still don't see how it isn't a different entity from Rome.

So we're back to square one then. As another user said: does the Roman Empire end in 235 CE for you, when the Principate ends and the Tetrarchy/Dominate begins? After all, they were very different.

Rome is the capitol of Italy

I have run out of arguments to defend my point but i remain unconvinced, the Roman Empire and the Byzantines, even with all of their similarities, just strike me to differently to be considered the same thing, but since i cant argue against it anymore ill concede my point

The late Roman Empire is probably still considered Roman by you, but how is it different than the Byzantine Empire which you seem to consider as not being Roman?

>dayus vault xDDD

Cringe

I love when the first response is so correct it makes the rest of the thread pointless.

it was rhetoric and propaganda.

I can say I'm the next Jesus, and even if everyone on earth believed me, it wouldn't make it true.

Yes, and the early Roman Republic had different problems and ambitions than the later Roman Empire did.

yet for some reason you consider both of them 'true" Rome?

This is like saying if the US collapsed, everything west of the mississippi fell into civil war and foreign invaders, and everything east remained and continued based on the laws of the total US.

Then you're like "it's different they didn't want to control the pacific anymore so it's different!"

>grandeur

oh, they need some vague, subjective description to be considered something?

France is the objectively the most glorious and great of all European nations

There is no third Rome. Rome fell once in 476, and another time in 1453. It no longer exists.
Someone post the Bosnia caliphate edit of this.

If so, why'd they caused WWI and WWII and ruin all of Africa, indochina, and huge swaths of the middle east so bad that the much more glorious and and great nations like the US can't even fix them?

France is a has been. The best thing they did in the last 100 years was submit to Germany's EU.

i already conceded, see

>but i still don't see how it isn't a different entity from Rome.
That's because you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

It's like different groups claiming to be true Trojans. It gives them weight and legitimacy.

t. Kraut or Anglo shit-stain

>France is still relevant I swear

I'm American born who's family is from Lebanon, which is part of historic greater Syria, and has been a part of what was called Rome for longer than anywhere else on earth, which includes France which was never Roman or even close.

At best, France is like the Persian Empire. A 2nd place Empire trying to over-compensate for never being the best. Except more oppressive and hated by their colonies.

At least everyone tries to be Rome. Everyone is running as far away as fast as possible from being French to be American and speak English.

Finland

>I-I'm definitely not A-Anglo or G-German g-g-uys you've got to believe me

Go be brown back in Lebanon.

Spartacus.