Which of these historical nations has the best claim to being the successor of the Roman Empire?

[Gloss]

What are the arguments for the HRE? Or the others?

Not sure for the others, considering the only that real have a claim for me is the Frankish Empire, the Byzantine Empire obviously and HRE, the others are not really successors of any kind.

The Holy Roman Empire claim is that they share the same religion(Nicean Christianity in this case), ruled North/all Italy, used latin, continued Roman-created institutions etc.

And for the HRE those reasons start to weaken in the 15th century and disappear by the end of 16th century.

 

[Flavius Phocas]

The Holy Roman Empire claim is that they share the same religion(Nicean Christianity in this case), ruled North/all Italy, used latin, continued Roman-created institutions etc.

Uhm, no. That's not the HRE claim. The reason the Ottonians gained supposed Roman legitimacy was because they protected and were crowned by the Pope. According to the Donation of Constantine, when Constantine I went east to build Constantinople he gave authority of the Western Empire over to the Pope, thereby giving the Pope the legitimacy to recognize and appoint the Roman Emperor. After Charles V Emperors ceased being crowned by the Pope, but the Pope never discredited or stopped recognizing the German claim.

It's worth noting that the Donation of Constantine has been discovered to be a Medieval forgery, thereby rendering the claim of Charlemagne and Otto void. So...not particularily the strongest claim, both for the Pope and the HRE

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Uhm, no. That's not the HRE claim. The reason the Ottonians gained supposed Roman legitimacy was because they protected and were crowned by the Pope. According to the Donation of Constantine, when Constantine I went east to build Constantinople he gave authority of the Western Empire over to the Pope, thereby giving the Pope the legitimacy to recognize and appoint the Roman Emperor. After Charles V Emperors ceased being crowned by the Pope, but the Pope never discredited or stopped recognizing the German claim.

It's worth noting that the Donation of Constantine has been discovered to be a Medieval forgery, thereby rendering the claim of Charlemagne and Otto void. So...not particularily the strongest claim, both for the Pope and the HRE

Regardless of the forgery, it is still the case that Byzantium refereed to the HRE as the Western Empire and married into their courts.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

Regardless of the forgery, it is still the case that Byzantium refereed to the HRE as the Western Empire and married into their courts.

The Ecumenichal Patriarch accepted Ottoman claim as the succesor of Rome as well after the conquest of Constantinople. The Byzantine emperors married their daughters to the Ottoman Leaders as well.

 

[Gloss]

Uhm, no. That's not the HRE claim. The reason the Ottonians gained supposed Roman legitimacy was because they protected and were crowned by the Pope. According to the Donation of Constantine, when Constantine I went east to build Constantinople he gave authority of the Western Empire over to the Pope, thereby giving the Pope the legitimacy to recognize and appoint the Roman Emperor. After Charles V Emperors ceased being crowned by the Pope, but the Pope never discredited or stopped recognizing the German claim.

It's worth noting that the Donation of Constantine has been discovered to be a Medieval forgery, thereby rendering the claim of Charlemagne and Otto void. So...not particularily the strongest claim, both for the Pope and the HRE

What no? I wasn't talking about "what the HRE actual claim was".

I answered "why do I think the HRE had the best claim among the list?", that was @Koprulu Mustafa Pasha question.

Like literally half the list didn't even laid a proper claim to be Roman successor(if they did at all), so why frame the question this way to begin with?

 

[Flavius Phocas]

What no? I wasn't talking about "what the HRE actual claim was".

Sorry, then I misunderstood your post. However I still feel it's important to point out as it renders the legality of any claim of Imperial succession by the Pope or Germans void.

Regardless of the forgery, it is still the case that Byzantium refereed to the HRE as the Western Empire and married into their courts.

Well not as the "Western Empire" perse, but that they recognized the sovereign of the Franks as an Emperor. Which is still very important because in the Medieval perception there could only be one Empire. Although this acknowledgement was more a matter of necessity than anything else. I'm not sure if they continued to acknowledge the Ottonians as Emperors after the Carolingians died out though, I need to do more reading on that.

 

[alex costa]

In a way I say all the Latin speaking nations all are modern sucessors to the Roman Empire.

 

[Gloss]

The Ecumenichal Patriarch accepted Ottoman claim as the succesor of Rome as well after the conquest of Constantinople. The Byzantine emperors married their daughters to the Ottoman Leaders as well.

In what world would have the Ottomans NOT managed to find any Orthodox religious figure that would have accepted submission?

Sorry, then I misunderstood your post. However I still feel it's important to point out as it renders the legality of any claim of Imperial succession by the Pope or Germans void.

If the HRE has no claim, nobody in the list actually has, because almost none of those actually made a serious claim to be successor of Rome in a legal sense like you just refuted the legal claim made by the Ottonians.

 

[Flavius Phocas]

If the HRE has no claim, nobody in the list actually has, because almost none of those actually made a serious claim to be successor of Rome in a legal sense like you just refuted the legal claim made by the Ottonians.

Hmm, I don't know I think the Latin Empire has a pretty strong claim compared to the others. As they were arguably as legitimate as Nicaea, Trebizond or Epirus and inherited most of the administation from the Roman Empire. I can't find any legal holes which refute their legitimacy other than right of conquest or subjective opinion. I'm suprised they didn't get more votes.

 

[balthasargettysburg]

The kings of Spain have the longest continuous line going back to the era of Charlemagne, the most significant inheritor of the Roman tradition. The French gave most of it up. The rest are moribund. Spain wins. Not that I'm a fan of the current occupants of the House of Bourbon, but there you are.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

It's worth noting that the Donation of Constantine has been discovered to be a Medieval forgery, thereby rendering the claim of Charlemagne and Otto void. So...not particularily the strongest claim, both for the Pope and the HRE

However the Pope is still Pontifex Maximus, a title held by the Roman emperors

 

[Flavius Phocas]

However the Pope is still Pontifex Maximus, a title held by the Roman emperors

The Popes did not directly inherit that title from the Emperors. Pontifex Maximus was a secondary role/title of the Emperor in the same way the Pope is both Pope and King, by the time of Valentinian I and Gratian Pontifex Maximus fell out of use by the Emperors.
After that Pontifex Maximus remained largely unused for centuries and did not become a common title for the Pope until the Renaissance when renewed interest in Classical Rome brought the title back. Not to mention that Pontifex Maximus is technically not even an official title of the Pope.

If you want to use this as an example of direct inheritance then it's a very spotty one and holds zero legal basis.

 

[Gloss]

Hmm, I don't know I think the Latin Empire has a pretty strong claim compared to the others. As they were arguably as legitimate as Nicaea, Trebizond or Epirus and inherited most of the administation from the Roman Empire. I can't find any legal holes which refute their legitimacy other than right of conquest or subjective opinion. I'm suprised they didn't get more votes.

Well if they were more successful, or less based on betraying(from the point of view of casual Byzantine fans) the previous controlled of the land they would be more popular.

 

[Halagaz]

The Ecumenichal Patriarch accepted Ottoman claim as the succesor of Rome as well after the conquest of Constantinople.

The Ecumenical Patriarch was not in Constantinople at the time of the conquest. He left the city 2 years earlier and had no dealings with Mehmed at any point.

You are presumably referring to Gennadios...who was appointed to his office by Mehmed himself, and who thus has no continuity with the Byzantines or Rome. His acceptance wouldn't really mean much.

Also, you say that Gennadios recognized Mehmed specifically as the successor of Rome, and not just as a conqueror? Can you elaborate on this idea and what it's based on?

 

[Histor32]

I'm going to roll with the Vatican

 

[Deleted member 92195]

The Roman Empire split in two, to create eastern and western, thus they were the direct successors to the Roman Empire.

 

[Flavius Phocas]

The Roman Empire split in two, to create eastern and western, thus they were the direct successors to the Roman Empire.

Technically the division was only de facto, not de jure. So the so-called Western and Eastern Roman Empires were continuations of the Roman Empire, not successors.

 

[Deleted member 92195]

Technically the division was only de facto, not de jure. So the so-called Western and Eastern Roman Empires were continuations of the Roman Empire, not successors.

Fair point. Therefore I would say all of them are successors to the Roman Empire for different reasons in one form or another, I would also include the first and second Bulgarian Empire as well. I only include them because the Roman Empire collapse (476 and 1453) lay the foundations for other empires to grow.