sdLeo
Cosmopolitan
Eastern Roman folks were most definitely Roman citizens. They were certainly considered Roman by their Ottoman conquerors, who called them Rum - Romans!
Legitimate successors of the Roman empire
- Thread starter Úmarth
- Start date
Metal Alloy Man
Back in Black
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 761
Western Roman Empire-Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines-Popes-Holy Roman Empire-Russian Czars-Turkish Sultans
(In order of rightfulness to the claim that they themselves are rightful rulers of the Western Roman Empire)
(In order of rightfulness to the claim that they themselves are rightful rulers of the Western Roman Empire)
onedreamer
Dragon
Nope, and by the way it was both Turks and Arabs to call them Rum, but they called the inhabitants of the former WRE Latins.
In Europe only the Orthodox peoples called them so, because of their political relationships with them. If that's almost everyone to you...
In 2008 only this forum calls the Byzantines Romans, I'd like to reiterate this.
AFAIK Persians called them Ionians, since way before. And the ONLY reason that they spoke Greek seems a huge reason to me. In case you're missing it, language is one of the most important component of national identification, if not THE most important. Anyways it wasn't ONLY that reason. What was left of the WRE didn't recognize the ERE as the continuation of the Roman Empire. Who else should agree on who's Roman and who's not if not Rome ?
The Romans didn't exist after the fall of WRE, so they couldn't call them in any way.
3Miro
Deity
One can look at the Byzantines as the Romans Empire with changed capital. One can look at the Popes as the Emperors of Rome in a religious way. (both naturally did not recognize each other as the true successor) Truth of the matter is, everyone in Europe who could try, did try to restore Rome. Even Byzantines were trying to restore Rome. Popes were trying to use Religion to restore Rome. Charlemagne did try. Napoleon. Russian Tzars. Hitler and Mussolini. And too many others to count.
In order to answer the question who is the legitimate successor, one should first answer the question of "What is Rome?". We cannot look at Rome simply as Italy or the domination of the city Rome over Europe. Many of those who tried to rebuild Rome we not Italians, but claimed some connection to ancient Rome. Rome is an idea, the idea of united Europe under one strong culture. As soon as one sees that, the answer for the successor becomes obvious. The European Union is the true successor of Rome. And in some sense it is even more, Rome was build by the sword and perished by the sword. EU is build upon economical and political cooperation.
In order to answer the question who is the legitimate successor, one should first answer the question of "What is Rome?". We cannot look at Rome simply as Italy or the domination of the city Rome over Europe. Many of those who tried to rebuild Rome we not Italians, but claimed some connection to ancient Rome. Rome is an idea, the idea of united Europe under one strong culture. As soon as one sees that, the answer for the successor becomes obvious. The European Union is the true successor of Rome. And in some sense it is even more, Rome was build by the sword and perished by the sword. EU is build upon economical and political cooperation.
ijnavy
Czar
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 405
Rome is an empire with a strong military and the office of the Emperor. It's also a cultural and urban society, most of the people lived in cities. It also has an economy based much trading within the empire.
Byzantium is the Byzantine Empire and has an emperor. You would first think that Byzantine's army was weak since they lost much territory to the Arabs. Look at what the Arabs conquered and you would see that the Byzantines were strong enough to stop them where they did. When the west was invaded, most of the people began living in a rural society, in Byzantium it was the opposite. When the crusaders in the 4th crusade captured Byzantium, they were surprised at the amount of gold and treasures that they found. Finally, Constantinople was a major trading center as the beginning of the silk road.
Byzantium is the Byzantine Empire and has an emperor. You would first think that Byzantine's army was weak since they lost much territory to the Arabs. Look at what the Arabs conquered and you would see that the Byzantines were strong enough to stop them where they did. When the west was invaded, most of the people began living in a rural society, in Byzantium it was the opposite. When the crusaders in the 4th crusade captured Byzantium, they were surprised at the amount of gold and treasures that they found. Finally, Constantinople was a major trading center as the beginning of the silk road.
onedreamer
Dragon
I don't agree with your ideas 3Miro. Rome of the antiquity was a city, it built a great empire around itself, but nowhere you could find the splendor you'd find in Rome. Rome was the capital of the ancient mediterranean at its max splendor; the city, not the Empire. While the Romans did bring benefits accross their Empire, the ultimate goal was enriching Rome. All roads led to Rome. Rome the Empire was a great one only because of the mentality of Romans, which died with them. For this reason any claim of succession by people that do not resemble the Romans in any way is ridiculous. Charlemagne and Napoleon are more like Alexander than Romans IMO, and I doubt their aim was to restore Rome. Russians Tzars never wanted to unite Europe, you have to wait till Peter the Great to have a Tzar that actually looks with interest at western Europe. Incidentally if I'm not wrong he's the first to change the title to Emperor. The only one that really wanted (or said to) restore the former glory of Rome was Mussolini, but Italians are not Romans: he failed miserably because claiming to be someone does not make you that someone.
onedreamer
Dragon
I didn't say otherwise... Mussolini would have succeeded too, without enemies.
onedreamer
Dragon
I already agreed with you, but I really don't understand what's the point with Justinian and his quest to try to reconquer the WRE. Does this make the Byzantines Romans ? So if Mussolini would have succeeded he would be a Roman ?
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,480
" And the ONLY reason that they spoke Greek seems a huge reason to me. In case you're missing it, language is one of the most important component of national identification, if not THE most important."
If I am not mistaken, there are 2 dialects of French. (Don't remember the names), so would you say either is not french culturally? In addition, there were 3 or so dialects in Spain, yet everyone on the Iberian peninsula called themselves Spainards.
Onedreamer: Don't be offended by this question, but are you fluent in english? I am taking Spanish and what means one thing in Spanish can have totally different connotations in English.
You think the Pope is the sucessor to Rome, right?
If I am not mistaken, there are 2 dialects of French. (Don't remember the names), so would you say either is not french culturally? In addition, there were 3 or so dialects in Spain, yet everyone on the Iberian peninsula called themselves Spainards.
Onedreamer: Don't be offended by this question, but are you fluent in english? I am taking Spanish and what means one thing in Spanish can have totally different connotations in English.
You think the Pope is the sucessor to Rome, right?
"<-_Danny_->"
Chieftain
The Pope is the successor of Peter & Paul.
onedreamer
Dragon
You are mistaken, there are many more, as well as in Italy. But there is one italian language , one french language, one spanish language and so on; which are exactly what identify a french and an italian or a spanish (Spaniard is referred to any spanish speaking people if I'm not wrong, including Americans). Language and dialect are two different nouns because they define different things.
Again Ajidica, my thought is in post #8. The Roman Empire ceased to exist with Goths invasions. The Roman people mixed with invaders, especially with Langobardi. Therefore there can't be any rightful successor to the title of Roman Emperor. However there can be some with more "rights" than others, or there could have been someone that after conquering Rome would be called Emperor of Rome (none did it though because of the Papal States). Still, none, none of these has any right to call themselves "Roman" IMHO.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,480
@ onedreamer: Only a person born on the Iberian peninsula is a Spaniard. Others are just spanish.
@ "<-Danny->": We are talking about Roman Empire, not the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church. If I remember correctly, one or both were executed by the Roman Emperor (Nero?)
@ "<-Danny->": We are talking about Roman Empire, not the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church. If I remember correctly, one or both were executed by the Roman Emperor (Nero?)
sdLeo
Cosmopolitan
I think the point is that when the West fell, it's not like the OTHER half of the empire suddenly stopped being what they were: citizens of Rome. The rest is history - Western-centered history.
onedreamer
Dragon
not suddenly, but gradually yes. IE already from the next generation.
AgnosticTheocra
Chieftain
The Eastern Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire, WAS the Roman Empire. The key word is continuity. Just because the official language of the Empire changed doesn't mean it was no longer the Empire. The government, military, religious traditions, and culture were never abruptly changed, but rather slowly evolved over the course of a thousand years.
England offers a good historic parallel. When the Normans invaded England, they spoke French while the locals spoke Anglo-Saxon. For centuries the language of government was French. However, over time the government and nobility began to adopt the language and culture of the locals and by Henry VIII England was an English speaking Kingdom. Would anyone say that the Kingdom of England under Henry VIII wasn't the same Kingdom that William the Conquerer forged? Of course not.
Likewise, the Eastern Roman Empire was a governmental distinction created to more effectively govern the massive Roman Empire. It's no different than modern use of States or Provinces, except in a much larger scale. That said, this decentralization was important. As we all know, the western half fell, while the Eastern, wealthier and more urban half was able to bribe it's way out of danger. Even so, in the East the government remained intact, the leaders were never deposed, and the culture was the same in 477 as it was in 476.
To say that the Byzantine Empire was NOT the Roman Empire by virtue of its Greek speech and Orthodox faith is absurd. First, the Great Schism of the churches did not happen until the 11th Century, so technically the Byzantine Empire had the same church as the Western Roman Empire. Second, the shift to Greek was a very slow process that took centuries to happen, and the military and government titles were often simply Greek translations or transliterations of the Latin title. It's no different than the Kingdom of England switching from French to English in order to match its people's language.
That the Empire of Justinian was very different from the Empire of Constantine is obvious. 400 years will change any nation, and someone from the Colony of Virginia would hardly recognize the United States. The Byzantine Empire WAS the Roman Empire, not a successor, even if culturally it bore little resemblance to the Rome of Julius Caesar. The Empire was its laws, its government, and its ability to enforce them.
P.S.
Someone said the ERE's situation was analogous to a scenario whereby Spain conquers England and the USA declares itself England. This isn't really a fair comparison. The Eastern Roman Empire was an integral part of the Empire, the richest and most populated part. It would be a more accurate analogy to say that Russia conquered all of the United States west of the Rocky Mountains, and the Eastern States still called themselves the United States.
As far as the change in capital and language is concerned, was the Roman Empire not the Roman Empire when the capital was in Ravenna during the 5th Century? The city of Rome was not The Empire. By this period, the Empire was a political entity, and citizenship was accorded to all of it's non-slave men. Whether you spoke Celtic, Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, or anything else, as long as you were loyal you could gain citizenship. Latin was merely the language of governance, and by the 3rd and 4th centuries, Greek was the language of culture and science even in the West.
England offers a good historic parallel. When the Normans invaded England, they spoke French while the locals spoke Anglo-Saxon. For centuries the language of government was French. However, over time the government and nobility began to adopt the language and culture of the locals and by Henry VIII England was an English speaking Kingdom. Would anyone say that the Kingdom of England under Henry VIII wasn't the same Kingdom that William the Conquerer forged? Of course not.
Likewise, the Eastern Roman Empire was a governmental distinction created to more effectively govern the massive Roman Empire. It's no different than modern use of States or Provinces, except in a much larger scale. That said, this decentralization was important. As we all know, the western half fell, while the Eastern, wealthier and more urban half was able to bribe it's way out of danger. Even so, in the East the government remained intact, the leaders were never deposed, and the culture was the same in 477 as it was in 476.
To say that the Byzantine Empire was NOT the Roman Empire by virtue of its Greek speech and Orthodox faith is absurd. First, the Great Schism of the churches did not happen until the 11th Century, so technically the Byzantine Empire had the same church as the Western Roman Empire. Second, the shift to Greek was a very slow process that took centuries to happen, and the military and government titles were often simply Greek translations or transliterations of the Latin title. It's no different than the Kingdom of England switching from French to English in order to match its people's language.
That the Empire of Justinian was very different from the Empire of Constantine is obvious. 400 years will change any nation, and someone from the Colony of Virginia would hardly recognize the United States. The Byzantine Empire WAS the Roman Empire, not a successor, even if culturally it bore little resemblance to the Rome of Julius Caesar. The Empire was its laws, its government, and its ability to enforce them.
P.S.
Someone said the ERE's situation was analogous to a scenario whereby Spain conquers England and the USA declares itself England. This isn't really a fair comparison. The Eastern Roman Empire was an integral part of the Empire, the richest and most populated part. It would be a more accurate analogy to say that Russia conquered all of the United States west of the Rocky Mountains, and the Eastern States still called themselves the United States.
As far as the change in capital and language is concerned, was the Roman Empire not the Roman Empire when the capital was in Ravenna during the 5th Century? The city of Rome was not The Empire. By this period, the Empire was a political entity, and citizenship was accorded to all of it's non-slave men. Whether you spoke Celtic, Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, or anything else, as long as you were loyal you could gain citizenship. Latin was merely the language of governance, and by the 3rd and 4th centuries, Greek was the language of culture and science even in the West.
onedreamer
Dragon
nope, as you correctly said initially, it was the EASTERN Roman Empire, not the Roman Empire.
this is a joke, right ?
Yeah, the capital was the same as well as the land, the comparison is completely incosistent, yet you criticize the conquered England/USA scenario. Btw this is funny, you ask questions yet give answers yourself. Is it a monologue ?
another joke ?
Finally some truth. Yes, it was initially this. But later it became a dinstinct entity, with autonomous government, legal system, language, domestic and foreign politics. It was a different Empire, even though allied with the Western one, and it is clear that the Byzantines still felt to be part of a "Roman" world, at least until Justinian I, which tried to recreate the Roman Empire. However this doesn't mean that the Byzantine Empire is the same as the Roman Empire.
It wasn't decentralization, you can say this of the Persian Empire, or even of the Roman Empire itself. It was a split.
exactly, all quite different from the former Roman Empire. Maybe you should double check this.
None spoke of the change of capital, as well as none spoke of the Orthodox faith as a sign of the Byzantine Empire not being the same as the Roman Empire. Why wasting words on explaining such things ? The Roman Empire did not have Ravenna as capital, the Western Roman Empire did, and the reason was tactical-strategical not cultural or political; a pure need to react to the constant barbarian invasions.
... by Rome.
Man, please get facts straight...
btw the WRE didn't fall because it was weaker and the ERE resisted because it was richer and able to bribe its survival, as you seem to believe. The WRE fell because it was the richer part, hence the main target of barbarian raids, and because Italy was once the heart of the Roman Empire it was a prestigious goal. The ERE didn't experience the same violence in barbarian invasions that the WRE did. This said, the WRE also had bigger problems of stability, but the reason is the same.
yep, merely. That's why almost all languages in Europe (all in Western Europe) comes from Latin and none from Greek. Try again...
