Who do yo think was the true successor of Rome?

>Why exactly did the practice of referring to the Byzantines as a separate group from the Romans even get started?

It was literally some ass ravaged German Historian shortly after the fall that started the naming them Byzantines

rome ceased to exist after the death of the byzantines. there is no successor to rome today, europeans are all just descendants of barbarians who dicked some roman chicks/greeks/nomads who enriched the local population with their seed.

>Holy
Yes, the emperors were crowned by the pope and everything.
>Roman
Not only did they rule over the city of Rome, the emperors held the title King of the Romans.
>Empire
The HRE consisted of Germans, Dutch, Czechs, Italians and more. It was most definitely an empire.

I love how meme loving idiots insist that the HRE was not "Roman" after they lost control of Rome, and yet insist that the boy-fucking Byzantines were Romans after 1000 years of not controlling Rome.

the holy roman empire was basically like a black dude stabbing a cop in the bronx and then wearing his uniform in manhattan and shouting "I'm the police now!"

>Not only did they rule over the city of Rome, the emperors held the title King of the Romans.
Sure, but nobody in the Empire actually called themselves Romans. There was no Roman identity in the HRE or anything like that.

1. You are a racist
2. How we're they not Roman if they controlled Rome?
3. How does sacking Rome stop you from being Roman? Was Sulla not a Roman?
4. Why do you not put the same standards onto the Byzantines who slaughtered Latins (ie the ACTUAL Romans) en masse?

>How we're they not Roman if they controlled Rome?
They didn't call themselves Romans. Why are you retrofitting an identity onto them that they never claimed themselves.

Roman was not (and never had been) an ethnic identity. The state was Rome so its people were Romans.

t. salty Greek

"latins" is a pejorative used by byzantines to describe mostly merchants in the quarters of constantinople that foreigners settled in. the masscre of the latins wasn't the killing of actual roman latins, the massacre of the latins was of people who followed the teachings of priests with latin rites (aka catholics). they were mainly genoese and pisan.

latins (catholics) are not roman. the western romans effectively assimiliated with barbarian cultures in mainland italy. the pope in rome was constantly from barbarian successor states, the actual romans in constantinople were direct descendants of eastern romans.

certainly the catholic church can be considered a successor to rome, but not nearly as directly as the byzantines.

this reply is assuming you're not being ironic.

so you're claiming that the eastern roman empire after the fall of rome (with the majority of lords and high-up persons speaking latin, in fact, most of the population speaking it) was not roman after the fall of rome? so odoacer was now the only person who could claim to be the emperor of rome even though he sent the western emperor's sigil to the east?

>eastern Romans
>implying they were actual Romans
You mean the makeup covered dandies who abandoned Roman virtue to lead a life of degenerate luxury? Trust me, the "barbarians" were much closer to Cincinnatus and Quintus Fabius than the effeminate Greeks were.

>Roman was not (and never had been) an ethnic identity. The state was Rome so its people were Romans.
Nobody's saying it's an *ethnic* identity. The inhabitants of the HRE never called themselves Romans. The inhabitants of classical Rome did call themselves Romans, and the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire called themselves Romans. The inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire didn't.

Learn to read you literal fucking retard, where was it claimed that Roman was an ethnic identity? It's a political identity, one that the Holy Roman Empire didn't adopt. No citizens of the HRE called themselves Romans.

>You mean the makeup covered dandies who abandoned Roman virtue to lead a life of degenerate luxury?
You say this, and yet their contemporaries regarded them as being particularly pious and hardy. It's like you don't know anything about them.

The Byzantines also called themselves Christians and that wasn't true (Orthodoxy is a heresy).

>Orthodoxy is a heresy
Literally nobody thinks that, not even Catholics.

the byzantines were successors to rome on the basis of the fact rome got their shit kicked in brutally in the west due to their decadence, plagues, and military failures. their empire at the end was legitimately just a bunch of limp-wristed pussies in rome with a bunch of "vassals" in the form of foederati, who were happier to fight eachother than listen to rome. following their cousins, the east subsequently got their shit kicked in for very similar reasons. then rome ceased to exist. if you mean the barbarians were as effective at expansion and enriching culture, that wouldn't really happen until the renaissance. no state that inherited rome directly after 476 could claim themselves to be rome, only the actual romans in constantinople were roman. unless you consider a bunch of retard buck-tooth ostrogoths and lombards who turned everything into daub huts to be roman.

this is probably bait desu but it's still a topic i like to discuss.

...

>western rome
>decadence
>military failures
I want these memes to stop. The Late Romans were the opposite of decadent.

>I have an empire
>I break it into a western (Roman) half and an eastern (Greek) half
>some Germans move into the western half and mix with the Latins
>Greeks are now Romans because I said so

Roman and Latin are two different things.

should've specified a bit more, meant a few facets of the state (aka being so lazy your defense budget is spent entirely on people who don't even speak your language)

ERE/"Byzantium"
The Ottomans and Muscovy had claims but they aren't true successors.

The Latins were the original Romans. The empire was deeply in decline by the time provincials were granted citizenship.

>The empire was deeply in decline by 212
what the fuck are you even talking about

"Latins" is broad as fuck when talking about the entire history of Rome, you couldn't claim to be Roman with certainty in you were a Latin in the 300s BC

Claudius referred to Latin and Greek as "our two languages", and every single document produced in Latin had to be reproduced in Greek, and vice versa. Roman empire had two primary nations, Latins and Greeks. Then they split.

Are you on drugs? Do you seriously think that Rome was healthy during the Severan dynasty?

He's talking about ethnic Latins, not the Latin language.

>uninterrupted government
The government of Augustus was completely different from the government of Constantine, let alone the fucking Byzantines. Try actually learning about Roman history.

The government of Walpole was completely different from the government of May, but it's still the same fucking government.

Only retard Americans think the government needs to remain completely the same to have continuity.

muh third rome

The Byzantine Empire was the Roman State with Greek people and culture.

As simple as that.
It's like how if all of China got nuked tommorow, Tawaiwan will be the only legitimate Chinese state.

brazil

Finland
pic related proves it

“Continuity” means absolutely fuck all if the government is completely different. The Roman Republic had the same unbroken continuity you’re talking about going into the Empire and yet they aren’t grouped together as the same thing, thankfully, since historians aren’t as retarded as you. Same applies to the Principate into the Dominate and so on.

Rome's decline didn't even really start until the Crisis of the Third Century.

Everything started going downhill after the third punic war tbqh

Except not really at all.

The Tetrarchy wasn't the same as Rome under Nero, it doesn't chagne the fact that we still call rome under the tetrarchy "the roman empire"

>the health of a state is measured only by geographical size
After Carthage was destroyed the Romans began to fight each other, this is when the Roman state began to fail.

this does not make sense

Who ever controlled Rome. So that cuts out the """""roman"""" empire of Byzantium.

The Church, naturally.

I think we're forgetting somebody.

>You are a racist
You have to go back >>>r/eddit

yes it was, septimius severus is the sixth Good Emperor. just sucks that his sons were as bad as marcus aurelius' son

The one that was holy, roman and an empire of course!

And he was phoenicians, phoenicians came to rule rome, weird.

Hahahaha so everyone want to be rome now?

Why dont they become their own thing?

Lol this, well said, mate

>some Germans move into the western half and mix with the Latins
So they stopped being latin and became mostly germanic as germanic not only rape, they killed to

Why you germanics want to be germanic anyway?

Just be your own fuckinh thing

>germanic not only rape, they killed to
Provide a source or go fuck yourself

>Fuck Germans for starting the "byzantium" meme
That was Gibbon, you fuckhead.

Anglo-Saxons are Germanic

Byzantine t b h lads
They considered themselves Roman and I member reading calling them the empire of greeks was a way to piss them off lmao

The turks

Same thing.

No, they're Celts cosplaying as Germanics.

VINCERE

The city of Rome was irrelevant after the Edict of Caracalla, it became especially irrelevant to everyone except for a couple of LARPing senators when the capital was moved to Constantinople and moved back to Milan in the west.
The way I always saw it was Byzantium was the Eastern Roman Empire, and thus was cthe primary succesor to the Roman Empire, while the Holy Roman Empire was only the successor of the Western Roman Empire. When Byzantium died, the mantle passed down to the HRE, when the HRE died, Rome died.

So Italy is the Roman Empire?
Fucking retard.

Serious, in a sense that a country domination over the West, America

Why not both

Who did the Bishop of Rome say was the successor of Rome?

There was no heir to Rome. Rome imploded and fell apart. Even the idea of Republicanism is a romantic construction that is very unlike how the Roman Republic really was.

Citizens of the ancient Roman Empire did not call themselves Romans either. Only actual Romans were called Romans.

the jews built rome, kept rome, and destroyed rome. They are the ones who ahve the right to its legacy, as seen in the USA and ISrael

ITT: People who don't understand the truth of history
>WWIII will be fought to become the true heir of a unified Rome

That's another level of wewuzzing

France

Byzantium weren't the successors of Rome. They were Rome.

...

>Do you seriously think that Rome was healthy during the Severan dynasty?

Severans were peak.

The Byzantines always held Rome.

Stop larping as something you ruined you filthy Germ.

>what is the papal state

>The way I always saw it was Byzantium was the Eastern Roman Empire, and thus was cthe primary succesor to the Roman Empire

The Byzantines weren't the "Successor" of the Rome Empire. They were.....the Roman Empire. There really isn't any reason why they should even be called the Byzantine Empire. It's literally just the Roman Empire, but with the capital moved to Constantinople.

No it wasn't. Hieronymus Wolf popularized it two centuries before Gibbon.

>Carthage gets destroyed in 146 BC
>First Roman Civil War: 88 BC

Hmmmmmm..........there is a pretty big gap there. In fact, the gap is too big to draw any conclusions on causality. People just like to say that destroying Carthage backfired on Rome because it sounds like poetic justice.

>the gap is too big to draw any conclusions to causality
We can draw a link between the fall of Carthage and the Gracchi, and between the Gracchi and the civil wars. The stability of the system was not ruined immediatly, but it was definitely in decline.

The Frankish empire, considering how the Franks ursuped Roman administration and churches to better seat their influence over the empire, which is why the transition was so especially seamless.

Russia thrid rome xdddddddddddddddddddddddd

dats bretty dumb desu

The split happend before the fall rome was still the capital of the roman empire, constantinople of the eastern roman empire they weren't the same ampire even before the fall of rome

>We can draw a link between the fall of Carthage and the Gracchi

Literally how? The Gracchi brothers were tribunes who wanted to break up the estates of wealthy landowners, and redistribute the land amongst the plebs. Tiberius Gracchus participated in the destruction of Carthage during the 3rd Punic war, but that's the only connection. The Gracchi would have pursued land redistribution with or without Carthage.

That's completely wrong, though. Rome wasn't the capital of the empire anymore after 330 AD. The emperor Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium, and renamed the city "Constantinople" in honor of himself. From that point on, Constantinople was the capital of the Roman empire. Rome remained an important city, to be sure, but it was no longer the center of government.

Switzerland

>Rome remained an important city, to be sure, but it was no longer the center of government.

After the 3rd century it wasn't even in the top 10 most important cities in the Empire.

Off the top of my head, the following were more important due to their political and military importance.

>Ravenna
>Mediolanum
>Carthago
>Antioch
>Alexandria
>Treverorum
>Lugdunum
>Constantinopolis
>Sirmium
>Aquileia

>The emperor Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium, and renamed the city "Constantinople" in honor of himself
To be pedantic, he renamed it "New Rome". It was only officially referred to as "Constantinople" from the 5th century onward.