Which country should be classified the 4th Rome?

[Traitorfish]

On the other hand, we too have a bloated sister-nation that will one day collapse under the weight of it's own corruption, so it's not that different.

 

[bombshoo]

The Republic was boring

I've actually found the late late Republic one of the most interesting periods in Roman History, though I'll assume you are aren't counting that since I don't think anyone can count Julius Caesar as boring.

 

[History_Buff]

On the other hand, we too have a bloated sister-nation that will one day collapse under the weight of it's own corruption, so it's not that different.

Heh, yeah, there's that.

 

[dwaxe]

The OP accidentally spreads the misinformation that the Byzantine and Russian Empires claimed the title of "Rome" because they were great empires (or so it seems from the responses in this thread).

Moscow inherited the Orthodox Patriarchate, and the Russian and Byzantine royal lines married in such a way as to make the Grand Prince (not Tsar) the heir of the Byzantine line. Not that the latter matters, since that line died out in the Time of Troubles anyway.

Close marriage and trade ties to Byzantium with both the Kievan Rus (who attempted to take Constantinople) and Muscovy, and the sharing of Orthodox religion.

^ Only two factually substantive posts.

The primary reason to call the Eastern Roman Empire the "Second Rome" is the fact that it was the only remnant of the original empire after the Western Roman Empire was destroyed by barbarians.
The secondary reason to call Byzantium the "Second Rome" is the fact that it held the true head of the Christian Church, the Patriarch, after the Great Schism.

The only reasons to call Russia the "Third Rome" are the facts that the Byzantine royal line lived on in Russia (for a while) and that Russia was the only remaining great Orthodox power after 1453.

 

[Theige]

You could say Constantinople was the second Rome for being the wealthiest and most important city in the Mediterranean for quite a while.

 

[JohnRM]

None of the above

 

[Lillefix]

I'd say the United States. They have capitol hill after all.

 

[Bast]

Well it's not Russia but rather Moscow that was the "third Rome" and it was more specifically for religious (Orthodox Christianity) reasons than anything else. In that sense, Moscow is still the Third Rome.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Why is Russia the 3rd Rome? Just because they called their leaders Tsars (caesars)?

The concept of Russia as the "Third Rome" was invented by a Russian monk in 1523 (that's the most prevalent view on it, anyway), in his writings to the Russian Grand Duke. "Two Romes have fallen, and the Third stands, and there'll be no fourth". Contemporaries didn't consider that phrase to be so important, though.

 

[Dachs]

Boring? What about all those civil wars as it was on its way to collapse, starting with the social war? And the rather funny idea (if we are to believe the ancient authors) of the plebians going "on strike" until their demans for political representation were met? That one alone would justify some marxists liking to make some comparisons (more that the Gracchi).

I've actually found the late late Republic one of the most interesting periods in Roman History, though I'll assume you are aren't counting that since I don't think anyone can count Julius Caesar as boring.

The Republic is boring for the same reason that the Second World War and 480 BC were boring.

 

[Arwon]

Um. Italy?

 

[Communisto]

The Republic is boring for the same reason that the Second World War and 480 BC were boring.

WWII is the MTV to Dachs' historical vice magazine

 

[SG-17]

Why would you want to be Rome? Western Rome sucked until it started dying.

You're kidding right? The West was amazing until Marcus Aurelius died.

The Republic is boring for the same reason that the Second World War and 480 BC were boring.

So you are kidding.

 

[Dachs]

You're kidding right? The West was amazing until Marcus Aurelius died.



So you are kidding.

Am not, and I'm insulted that you think I'm not being serious.

 

[Murky]

If the United States lasts for over a thousand years then maybe...

Many of the founding fathers were well read on Roman history, especially during the time it was considered a Republic. The US Senate is based partly on the Roman senate. There are also numerous differences and innovations in government too. It's sort of like someone used the Roman Republic as a base idea then built upon it with even better ideas.

America didn't set out to be superpower. It came about mainly because of WW2 destroyed the largest powers in Europe.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Fourth Rome is a silly idea.
There's no country holding the majority of ancient Rome's territory and the religious significance is obsolete.

 

[Leonel]

US definitely. Excesses, the most powerful country in the world.

 

[MobBoss]

1st Rome was the Roman Empire, 2nd Rome the Byzantines though the HRE wished they were and Mehmed II claimed the title so the Ottoman Empire was for awhile, and the 3rd Rome Russia. If a nation today were to be classified as a 4th Rome, as in the successor to the legacy of Rome who would it be?

I say the USA #1 and maybe the Vatican.

Why would the 3rd Rome be Russia?

And werent the Byzantines simply an offshoot of the split of the Roman Empire?

 

[SG-17]

No, the Byzantine Empire is the same as the Eastern Roman Empire. Historians just use the name Byzantine to differentiate the empire after the West fell because there wasn't a Western Roman Empire anymore (at least after Justinian recalled Belisarius from Italy). Like if North Korea would for some reason be annexed by China, South Korea would just be called Korea.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Why would the 3rd Rome be Russia?

I already explained it in that thread.