Rome's Succesor

[Huayna Capac357]

Who was Rome's successor state in your opinion? Was it the Byzantines (they didn't rule Rome), HRE (neither did they), the Popes (they weren't important for a long time), Italy (they were created in the 19th Century), Russia, Turkey, Austria, or other?

 

[scy12]

Who was Rome's successor state in your opinion? Was it the Byzantines (they didn't rule Rome), HRE (neither did they), the Popes (they weren't important for a long time), Italy (they were created in the 19th Century), Russia, Turkey, Austria, or other?

Rome is a city in Italy so they didn't have any successor. Now. The Roman empire was divided into western and eastern Roman empire and the eastern Roman empire continued until it fell at 1453.

So there is no successor state. The Roman empire fell at 1453 and that is all.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

It was clearly the Byzantines. They were the official, acknowledged, and recognized Eastern Half of the Roman Empire. They were founded by actual emperors of the Roman Empire and had an unbroken line of succession from them. They referred to themselves as Romans. The Islamic peoples called them the 'Land of the Romans'. They were in existence as a part of Rome long before Rome fell. They were the clear cultural successors of just about every bit of science, learning, art and architecture that Rome had created or used. They preserved most of the Roman legal, social, and administration institutions long after the lands of the West had lost them.

Its not really a question. When you tell the story of the Roman Empire, it doesn't officially end with the fall of Rome. The story ends on May 29th, 1453. (or 1461 if you count Trebizond)

 

[Traitorfish]

Aside from the posts already made, both the Holy Roman Empire (earlier known as both the "Roman Empire" and "Holy Empire") and Russian Empire have claimed the position of spiritual successor to Rome.

 

[LightSpectra]

The Ottomans are the successor to the Romans by conquering the last inch of the Roman empire in the East, and therefore, the British Empire is the current successor as they conquered the Ottomans.

This is only nominal, of course. Nobody would seriously claim the British are ideologically Roman.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Ottomans are the successor to the Romans by conquering the last inch of the Roman empire in the East, and therefore, the British Empire is the current successor as they conquered the Ottomans.

That's not really what a successor state is. It requires some sort of political, culture, ethnic, religous, etc. continuity.

 

[flyingchicken]

This topic has been discussed in CFC where this link thing goes, and possibly several other places already. Honestly, that should have been moved to World History, but meh.

Successor in spirit? All those big and powerful empires that ever invoked (officially or otherwise) the glory of the Roman Empire. That means everyone from the HRE to the Brits to the Americans.

Successor by law? The Byzantine Empire and, by a stretch involving marriage, the Russian Empire. (EDIT Of course, since the Pope's words were law at some point, I guess the HRE can fall into this as well. In fact, anyone strong enough to claim the title of Roman Empire without being contested could fall into this category! O_o

Successor as in they are culturally Roman? None. Roman culture died when the West collapsed, being nominally slapped on Greek, Christian, and Germanic for the sake of coolness (don't argue on this one, because this is a wholly definitional area while the conventional definitions can be interpreted one way or other).

EDIT: @scy12 & Traitorfish: "Successor state" has may definitions. Pick one first and state it before anyone attacks you!

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I suppose if you are looking for a modern day remnant of the Roman Empire, the closest would probably be the Vatican City. Realistically though the Roman Empire as we know it fell in 1453.

 

[scy12]

There is no successor by spirit , succsor by marriage or just successor of the Romans. There are states that want to be seen as successors of the Romans and this includes almost everyone with a large enough empire. Some of them have connections [/B with the Roman empire . Be it cultural , conquering the places of the empire , language and so on. But those states are several. There is not one state that has enough connections with the Roman empire in Law , National myth , and culture to be called a continuation or successor of the Roman empire.

(This is not an attack against Flying Chicken and he may meant successor state differently than i did.).

 

[Tee Kay]

Who was Rome's successor state in your opinion? Was it the Byzantines (they didn't rule Rome), HRE (neither did they), the Popes (they weren't important for a long time), Italy (they were created in the 19th Century), Russia, Turkey, Austria, or other?

There is no clear successor. You could say the Republic of China was the successor of the Qing Dynasty or that the Soviet Union was the successor of Russia and vice versa, but you can't say the same about the Roman Empire. After the fall of the Western part of the Empire many Germanic states rose to succeed it while the Eastern Roman Empire develops in a different direction. Of all the states that succeeded the Western (post-476) and the Eastern (post-1453) none have enough connections with the Roman Empire to be adequately called its successor state. While Western Europe inherited aspects of Roman culture and Russia, Greece, and other orthodox countries aspects of the Roman-Byzantine culture, they cannot be called its successors.

 

[Vietcong]

when rome fell apart, thear was that one state in norhtweastren gaul led by that ex roman general. and i think thear wear a few in england.

 

[cybrxkhan]

when rome fell apart, thear was that one state in norhtweastren gaul led by that ex roman general. and i think thear wear a few in england.

i think there are some claims that King Arthur somehow got into that mess... or at least some Romano-Briton guy.


anyhow, the closest "sucessor" of Rome is without doubt the Byzantines. now how they suceeded Rome is another matter.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The Ostrogoths.

 

[Sharwood]

i think there are some claims that King Arthur somehow got into that mess... or at least some Romano-Briton guy.


anyhow, the closest "sucessor" of Rome is without doubt the Byzantines. now how they suceeded Rome is another matter.

There are theories Arthur was Constantine's son, Ambrosius (?). But there is a decent likelihood that some Romano-British petty kings sprung up. The Arthurian myth seems to have been created after the fact though.

 

[JohnRM]

I think that the Roman Empire never had a successor state. The Roman Empire was over before Rome even fell for the final time.

 

[Dachs]

I think that the Roman Empire never had a successor state. The Roman Empire was over before Rome even fell for the final time.

Whatever gave you that impression?

 

[Pannonius]

Roman Empire dissapeared from this world in 1453.

 

[BCLG100]

Well it was the Ottomans, they were the one's who captured the final capital and added the title of Ceaser to the rest they were accumalating.

 

[Yoda Power]

Technically the Holy Roman Kaiser, The Ottoman Sultan and the Russian Tzar all claimed to be the succesor of Rome.

 

[TheBladeRoden]

Might as well ask who's the successor of Nazi Germany, West Germany or East Germany?