Legitimate successors of the Roman empire

Who were the legitimate Roman emperors?


  • Total voters
    134
First of all, you should read what you have written. [...]

... Imperator Auguste, quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur, auctoritas sacrata pontificum et regalis potestas, in quibus tanto gravius pondus est sacerdotum quanto etiam pro ipsis regibus hominum in divino reddituri sunt examine rationem. nosti etenim, fili clementissime ...

I don't have the full text untransalated unfortunately, but Gelasius refers to Anastasius as Emperor and Augustus. This is not exactly what I claimed to be able to produce since I was not entirely familiar with the formal address used in those times; however, I believe that it can be inferred rightly from the context of the situation and what is written in the Latin that he is referring to Anastasius as the Roman Emporer.

I don't see the adjective Roman actually. He calls him Emperor, not Roman Emperor, nor Emperor of the Romans.
Btw, in this period Rome and Constantinopolis were still in good terms. During the M.A., Constantinopolis took steps in the opposing direction of Rome.

Secondly, my point of discussing the adoption of the Greek as the official tongue of the Byzantine court was to emphasize the fact that there was a period of time between the collapse of the West and evolution of the East into what we generally think of as Byzantine. People should realize that the Byzantine empire lasted for a thousand years, and making these blanket statements regarding its entire existence is in my opinion very silly.

Why do you call me "people" ? And what blanket statement ? Please provide quotes, so that I can correct myself where I am mistaken, if I am. I had agreed with Umarth early in this thread that the process of de-romanization the ERE went through was a gradual one, and that one of its focal points was the adoption of Greek as official language...

If you limited your statements to a later period I would have to agree with comments along the lines of noone thinking of the easterners as Romans, but you didn't make any such qualifications.

I did do it...

As for the trolling, I found some of the previous remarks you were attempting to pass of as fact to be rather infuriating.

I'm not passing things as facts. I am actually surprised that many posters in this thread disregard the widely accepted Historians thoughts and write statements such as "The Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire are the same thing". I generally have my own thoughts on historical facts because History has many faces, and generally don't quote wiki, but in this case I did it because the same persons who generally follow Historians thoughts and quote wiki are completely disregarding both on this matter, yet they do not provide any reason why they do it.
 
"Please do. I am the only one in this thread to have backed up my arguments with references, even if simply Wikipedia. All the others have just rewritten their own history for pages and pages without any reference. I'd be happy to see at least one."

I may not have cited my sources, but I used the Byzantine books by John Julius Norwhich, Proffessor of MEdieval Studies in Oxford.

Onedreamer: You do know that it was mainly the Italians that resented the schism and the title of the Emperor? Most other European Countries just sort of accepted it. Venice was generally on decent terms with Byzantium due to trade rights. 4th crusade is an isolated incedent. ALso, Wikipedia is not a always correct source. I have found quite a few errors in wikipedia. It said Basil the Macedonian was Macedonia. That isnt true, he was Armenian and could barely speak Greek. If you can have an educated discussion, please continue. But otherwise, please don't keep saying biased things with no real basis in history. For the last 2-3 pages, all you have done is take people posts, take a few isolated sentances, and contradict them.

How else should I discuss if not replying to their statements ? Which western european countries called Byzantines "Romans" ? And what biased thing with no real basis did I say ?

Any btw Adjica, if you or some other guys who are stating to get racist in this thread want to be taken a bit seriously, you should stop insinuating that I claim that the successors of the Roman Empire were the Papal States, Venice or any other italian entity of the Middle Age (your claims in the oder of things I NEVER said). This is the third and last time I direct you to the first page of the thread and all the subsequent ones where I write that the Roman Empire ended with Romulus Augustus, and that all subsequent "Roman" emperors are either self appointed or illegitimate because, simply, not Roman. Maybe instead of criticizing me for quoting others, you should learn to do it, the reason I do it is simply respect, I do not twist the words others have written nor do I make up things they never said.
 
No, it's not. It's not really a very funny statement, unless I'm missing something. Or did you have a critique you would like to share?

This analogy still illustrates that language and culture do not define Empire. An example of a nation where the Capital changed many many times is Germany. Even in Modern times.

My apologies for having been rude with you Agnostic Theocra and for not explaining my reasons thoroughly. The reason is I already did it in the thread, and the second part you wrote is what apparently contradicts your thoughts: if culture and language do not define an Empire, what defines it ? Merely political borders ? Because in this case, the Byzantine Empire is clearly not the Roman Empire. You were expressing the thought that they are the same thing or more precisely the first a natural continuation of the second based on the fact of common traditions, which incidentally are part of a culture...

Nope, again, not really anything funny about this as far as I can see. The emperor Zeno ruled, having came to power peacefully after a stint as co-emperor with Leo II, from 474-491, with a brief year-and-a-half hiatus during which a general seized power. You don't honestly think a short-lived coup, where the original emperor regained power, can honestly qualify as a major change in leadership?

Well, you clearly said they were NEVER deposed. Also, since during the Roman Empire deposing the Emperor was pretty common, this would have to be listed as another difference with the Byzantine Empire.
 
Q: Who called the rulers from Constantinople/Byzantium the Eastern Roman Empire?
A: Only historians writing from western Europe, including parts of the former Roman lands which were being overrun by various Germanic tribes.

Arabs, Indians and Slavs all continnued to call the rules of Constantinople/Byzantium Romans (in their own languages and dialects) well after the demise of Roman civilisation in western Europe.



Oh now this did make me laugh. One of those good ol' side-splitting laughs.

Which came first, Latin or Greek? Latin was born out of the Greek alphabet and language.

From wikipedia:
"Latin is a member of the Italic languages and its alphabet is based on the Old Italic alphabet, derived from the Greek alphabet."


Blizzard, you are honestly being very unfair and unobjective, come on. I clearly wrote that none in western europe called the Byzantines "Romans", at least since after the feuds between Rome and Constantinopolis. How do the Arabs, Indians and Slavs qualify as western europeans ? What I meant to say -and I wrote-, is that the people from the former Western Roman Empire, which was the heart of the previous Roman Empire, did not recognize the Byzantines as the legitimate successors of the Roman Empire. Arabs, Indians and Slavs couldn't care less of who was the legitimate successor of the Roman Empire and they had strict relationships with the ERE, hence they called them as they wanted to be called, that seems pretty straight forward.
About the greek remark, you are being unfair because what Agnostic Theocra said was literally "by the 3rd and 4th centuries, Greek was the language of culture and science even in the West", while you refer to about one thousands years before.
 
There's no common ground in this argument. You should agree on a single and concise definition of "legitimate successor" before going on, because things will just go 'round and 'round and no conclusion can be reached.
 
"How else should I discuss if not replying to their statements ? Which western european countries called Byzantines "Romans" ? And what biased thing with no real basis did I say ?"

The Byzantine Emperor was allways addresed (except for a few rude occasions by Latin Bishosps) as Emperor of the Romans. The HRE Never called them that for obvius reasons. The French, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, and many other nations just went along with it and called the Byzantine Emperor, Emperor.


"Any btw Adjica, if you or some other guys who are stating to get racist in this thread want to be taken a bit seriously, you should stop insinuating that I claim that the successors of the Roman Empire were the Papal States, Venice or any other italian entity of the Middle Age (your claims in the oder of things I NEVER said). This is the third and last time I direct you to the first page of the thread and all the subsequent ones where I write that the Roman Empire ended with Romulus Augustus, and that all subsequent "Roman" emperors are either self appointed or illegitimate because, simply, not Roman. Maybe instead of criticizing me for quoting others, you should learn to do it, the reason I do it is simply respect, I do not twist the words others have written nor do I make up things they never said."

Sorry about sonding racist, I didn't mean to. I still don't see how the empire died in 470 AD. The split of east and west was administrative only. In fact, Diocletian became the Eastern Emperor, although he was from Gaul. Also, Constantine came from Gaul I belive. (I know he wasn't from the east.) So in a way, the Western Emerors became the Eastern Emperors. Also, the man who took control of the Western Empire after Diocletians forced abdication, Maximillian, was from either Palestine or Thrace. So in a way, the Western Empire died out with Diocletian. Since the Western Empire, which you say is the 'only' roman empire was did not have a direct lineage of emperors. SO the Eastern Emperors are the continuation of Constantine and Diocletian. In additon, the name Eastern and Western was for administrative and military reasons only. It was not a rebellion creating their own country. Also, the transititon from the name Roman to Byzantine was created in the renisance to separate the classical roman empire with the medieval one. Onedreamer, please relize history doesn't exist in a vacume, there are no real cut an dried lines. Only part of the Empire fell, another part still survived, how is that not legitimate sucessor?
 
There's no common ground in this argument. You should agree on a single and concise definition of "legitimate successor" before going on, because things will just go 'round and 'round and no conclusion can be reached.

Yep I completely agree, and I even tried to direct the discussion in this direction in my first post, but no luck, all people can say is that the Roman Empire ended in 1453. And btw all I have been trying to say is that the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire are not the same thing. Open up your books of History and check the end date of the Roman Empire before coming here to mock people about reinventing History when the contrary is happening. That's all.
 
Yes, classical rome fell on 470 AD, I am not denying that fact. Byzantium fell in 1453. Byzantium is the medieval rome. Just like in the Renissance the UK was called England. Its name changed to Great Britian, the country itself did not. THat was what happened with Byzantium, it is ROme under a different name.
 
While I agree with you I don't think that's a very good analogy Ajidica. England did not change its name to Great Britain. The Kingdom of Great Britain was a product of the union of England and Scotland.
 
I had to think of an analogy quick that would make my point. THank you for correcting me.
 
Blizzard, you are honestly being very unfair and unobjective, come on. I clearly wrote that none in western europe called the Byzantines "Romans", at least since after the feuds between Rome and Constantinopolis. How do the Arabs, Indians and Slavs qualify as western europeans ? What I meant to say -and I wrote-, is that the people from the former Western Roman Empire, which was the heart of the previous Roman Empire, did not recognize the Byzantines as the legitimate successors of the Roman Empire. Arabs, Indians and Slavs couldn't care less of who was the legitimate successor of the Roman Empire and they had strict relationships with the ERE, hence they called them as they wanted to be called, that seems pretty straight forward.

You have missed my point onedreamer. My point was, why should more weight be given to how Western European historians referred to the rulers of Byzantium/Constantinople than for any other part of the world?

While I disagree that the western roman empire was the "heart" of the Roman empire just before Rome was sacked by the Goths, I did understand what you were trying to say. But my point is still that you are not looking objectively at history, perhaps due to your geographic location, and this is simply giving you a blinkered view of this debate.

How about a democratic approach? If, as you say above, all those peoples who were trading with Constantinople/Byzantium called them Romans, wouldn't the total population who thus did so completely outnumber the population of Western Europe?

About the greek remark, you are being unfair because what Agnostic Theocra said was literally "by the 3rd and 4th centuries, Greek was the language of culture and science even in the West", while you refer to about one thousands years before.

Regardless, my statement about the origin of Latin is still correct, while yours about the basis of most European Languages is factually incorrect. Ultimately, the Greek alphabet and language is the basis of almost all European languages including Latin.
 
Open up your books of History and check the end date of the Roman Empire before coming here to mock people about reinventing History when the contrary is happening. That's all.

And who wrote those books? Arabs? Indians? Slavs? Turks? I would doubt it.

One of the first rules in reading about history is understanding the perspective of the writer and potential (probable even) biases that they may have.
 
blizzrd is absolutely correct, I think you'll find that modern scholarship now has a renewed interest in Late Imperial/Byzantine history.
 
I had to think of an analogy quick that would make my point. THank you for correcting me.

Why should we always have to speak with analogies ? Analogies should be used when you are explaining a complicated concept, not when you are examining facts. The history of the UK is not the history of the Roman Empire, let's stick with the second one.

How about a democratic approach? If, as you say above, all those peoples who were trading with Constantinople/Byzantium called them Romans, wouldn't the total population who thus did so completely outnumber the population of Western Europe?

Believe me, I'm not influenced by my geographical position. Besides, I consider the Romans on the Antiquity a completely different people from Italians. And believe me, I am as much fond of Byzantine History than of Roman History, and that's why I can't agree with someone who claims that they are the same thing, that they shared the same traditions, and so on. They simply are not and did not. They are 2 empires that existed in two different historical AGES, which alone had deep differences in traditions, legal system, and so on. Although their history is closely related, as well as most of the traditions, remember that these are empires whos life spanned through centuries, and both Empires went through many changes and evolutions during their lives. Despite this, we can clearly identify a Roman and a Byzantine Empire, the Historians have renamed the second for this purpouse, to HELP us identifying two different entities, and the people in this thread are trying to undo this, with statements that none in the world currently supports. They did not do it in order to undermine the importance of the Byzantine Empire in a raptus of crazy racism towards the middle east or orthodoxy or whatever else. I find this point pretty sterile and in fact I think that the contrary is true... : you shouldn't look at how the Turks called the Byzantines in 1400 to determine if Byzantines are Romans or not. A Historian of the XX century is undubtly in a better position, super partes, to decide this. It was very important for the Byzantines to be called and considered Romans, and its obvious their main interlocutors called them as such. But they could claim to be Romans because the italic peoples grant them this "privilege", not the Indian or Arab, so I find it more important to see how THESE peoples called them. Anyways, this is a pretty sterile discussion since the Byzantines were called Greeks again for biased reasons, caused by the hostiliy between Rome and Constantinopolis from a certain point on. Which only reminds us once again that we should try and be super partes when examining History, and not call the Byzantines "Romans", just because they wanted to be called such in the Middle Age. Because this is what you are saying. In order to support your claims, you should at least come up with proofs that in contemporary turkish or arab History books the Byzantines are called Romans.

Regardless, my statement about the origin of Latin is still correct, while yours about the basis of most European Languages is factually incorrect. Ultimately, the Greek alphabet and language is the basis of almost all European languages including Latin.

Again, find references that say that italian, french, occitan and whatnot are languages originating from Greek. Undoubtly, many words originate from Greeks. That's not the same thing though. Besides, my point was absolutely NOT this in any possible way you try to twist it. I don't want to discuss what I didn't say. My point was that at the death of the Roman Empire, Greek didn't become a dominant language in Western Europe as Agnostic Theocra clearly said. And this is not a factual interpretation but a matter of fact, so please let's close this digression.

And who wrote those books? Arabs? Indians? Slavs? Turks? I would doubt it.

You ask me ? :D
I'm pretty sure Greeks have history books written by Greeks. I'm curious to know how they call the Byzantines, at this point.
 
Onedreamer: The Byzantines called themselves Rhomaioi, which means ROman in Greek. Is there any more proof than that saying they were Romans? THe Caliphates called the Byzantines Romans, Charlemagne and the Franks did before the Pope crowned him.

Technically Byzantium isnt a sucessor, it IS the Roman empire.
 
Well, it was the Eastern part of the Empire, but became completely seperate, to such extent it was randomly at war with the West from time to time, what with the Rome Successors. Byzantines is the Historian name, based on the main city, as people have said, and Rhomaioi is their name, though I think the West also called them the Greek Romans, as they were the major group in the East.
 
Top Bottom