Wow, so much interest
*blushes*
That is what occurred to me at first, but I wouldn't say Russia matches the criteria - the people considered themselves Russian, or Muscovite. Now I agree that Russia a prime candidate - but it would require the people to consider themselves Roman. - Perhaps a PoD where the Romans/Byzantines begin to develop a strong steppe-warfare tradition that leads to them consolidating territory on the steppe. No 1204 and an Emperor who expands into the Russia as an avenue when they can't expand into the Levant/to protect access to trade routes in the Russias.
I personally love the idea of a North African Rome - the amusing idea of Carthage heading a Berber Roman Empire is great, or an Egyptian Roman Empire, but I'm not sure that an Empire the length of North Africa would work that well - Libya is a bit of a hefty divider, unless that territory can be kept secure the Empire would be very vulnerable.
How about 5
WRE in S.Gaul, Italia and Spain - NRE in Germany, N.France and Britannia, ERE, EERE in Egpyt and Arabia and CRE in N.Africa and Libya.
Sadly, unless the Catholic Church heirarchy becomes the heart of a true Theocractic state, I'm afraid not. But a Papal Italy? Certainly an interesting flavour to have the Third Rome be back in Rome as a Theocracy.
A Gallic Rome? Interesting - so a sustainable Soissons? I can see that being quite a mix with the Goths and Burgundians already in Gaul at this point.
A Syriac Rome? So sort of a Levantine-Mesopotamian Empire? I'd love to see the PoD to get this to work, but I love the idea. Britain works as well, perhaps a Coel Hen PoD that leads to a Roman Empire based in N.England politically and Londinium Economically.
A Sicilian Empire, with a Maritime approach to Imperium is a great change in character, especially with the cultural change. Roman Marines
Mega-Roman Empire, so a combination of Latin, Greek and Persian? If that held together that would be a beast. A Roman Achemenid Empire is a beautiful idea.
A conversion to Islam and the merger of the Emperor and the Caliph would certainly be a great change. That would seriously change the character of the Empire.
Roman New World = Best New World.
So hypothetically a Sumatran Roman Empire? The Greeks become Greeks, Anatolians become Anatolians, and Sumatra, far flung says its Roman because nobody and stop them. Conquering Indonesia
Understood - I'd be intrigued to see an Ottoman Empire accepted as the rightful ERE.
So much knowledge.
Either would work to be fair, what significant difference would the two make? Which half of the Med to focus on?
I mean, this is basically Russia.
That is what occurred to me at first, but I wouldn't say Russia matches the criteria - the people considered themselves Russian, or Muscovite. Now I agree that Russia a prime candidate - but it would require the people to consider themselves Roman. - Perhaps a PoD where the Romans/Byzantines begin to develop a strong steppe-warfare tradition that leads to them consolidating territory on the steppe. No 1204 and an Emperor who expands into the Russia as an avenue when they can't expand into the Levant/to protect access to trade routes in the Russias.
Russia been done before, both in maps, and TL's.
No love for a North Africa/Alexandria Third Rome?
I personally love the idea of a North African Rome - the amusing idea of Carthage heading a Berber Roman Empire is great, or an Egyptian Roman Empire, but I'm not sure that an Empire the length of North Africa would work that well - Libya is a bit of a hefty divider, unless that territory can be kept secure the Empire would be very vulnerable.
How about four Romes?
A rump WRE, the ERE, a proper HRE(Northern Roman Empire?) and an Alexandrian or Carthaginian Rome(Southern Roman Empire?)
How about 5
Does the Catholic Church hierarchy not count? If not, its probably not hard to get them to claim to be the heirs of (christian) Rome.
Russia already is this in many ways, but I guess it technically doesn't fall into the category you want, which is a truely Roman state, not another state claiming to be Rome (though that arguably discounts Byzantium, not that anyone on this site would ever say that.)
Maybe the best bet is a Romano-Gaulish state based out of France, where the Franks are repelled? Paris* could be the third, northern, Rome.
Sadly, unless the Catholic Church heirarchy becomes the heart of a true Theocractic state, I'm afraid not. But a Papal Italy? Certainly an interesting flavour to have the Third Rome be back in Rome as a Theocracy.
A Gallic Rome? Interesting - so a sustainable Soissons? I can see that being quite a mix with the Goths and Burgundians already in Gaul at this point.
Perhaps a Roman Empire based in Antioch or essentially Syria? Or another idea, in Britain?
A Syriac Rome? So sort of a Levantine-Mesopotamian Empire? I'd love to see the PoD to get this to work, but I love the idea. Britain works as well, perhaps a Coel Hen PoD that leads to a Roman Empire based in N.England politically and Londinium Economically.
My pet Third Rome is a Syracuse based naval power that has a mercantile economy and controls large chunks of coastal Principate sites. This however is perhaps too closely tied to the second Rome.
Other potential cray ideas that use ginormous butterfly nets:
1. Caesar lives and beats Parthians to get chunk of Mesopotamia, this is followed up by seizing the entire province +chunks of Persia in the next couple of centuries. Then, if migrations knock out the Empire in Europe and North Africa, we'd be left with an Anatolian-Egyptian-Syrian-Mespotamian-Persian ensemble that answers to the Kaisar of Rum in Seleukia. Basically Persian Roman Empire.
2. An "Islamic" Roman Empire (say Persia does not fall and the Caliphs style themselves as Roman Emperors) is not too implausible.
3. A Roman North Africa that holds on while Anatolia falls, with the last survivors clinging on in Septum/Gibraltar before crossing the ocean to make a new Imperium in the New World.
4. Usual drivel about Palaiologids finding the New World and actually making it there.
5. More realistically, a long surviving Byzantine Empire that has/had a bunch of colonies. Lets say there are issues with internal Imperial politics and they pseudo-peacefully fall apart into constituent states that do not claim to be Roman. Then a random colony/former colony declares itself to be Roman Empire.
A Sicilian Empire, with a Maritime approach to Imperium is a great change in character, especially with the cultural change. Roman Marines
Mega-Roman Empire, so a combination of Latin, Greek and Persian? If that held together that would be a beast. A Roman Achemenid Empire is a beautiful idea.
A conversion to Islam and the merger of the Emperor and the Caliph would certainly be a great change. That would seriously change the character of the Empire.
Roman New World = Best New World.
So hypothetically a Sumatran Roman Empire? The Greeks become Greeks, Anatolians become Anatolians, and Sumatra, far flung says its Roman because nobody and stop them. Conquering Indonesia
As a note, the Ottomans claimed the title 'Caesar of Rome', and Russia historically did consider itself the third Rome. The Holy Roman Emperor got the title to fill the vacancy left when the throne in Constantinople was held by a woman, and Roman law remained important throughout the Mediterranean cultural sphere; the immense legitimacy and prestige of the Roman empire wasn't just gathering dust after 1453.
Understood - I'd be intrigued to see an Ottoman Empire accepted as the rightful ERE.
You'd need a radically different situation in late Roman Gaul, then.
By the Vth century, the various Gallo-Roman territories still not under the direct control of various Barbarian foedi (which doesn't mean at the latest that they couldn't be under their influence*) were mostly made of aristocratic and urban patchwork, without clear base to support that they were more de facto alliances under the very technical imperial authority (at least since Majorian and Avitus) than states.
Eventually, they were even more easily swallowed up by foedi not only because of their divisions and relatively* lower military capacity, but because their power was based on their aristocratic prestige and you had a lot of their family network and clientele already servicing barbarian kings (such as the Syagrius "Solon", in the Burgondian court)
While Syagrius, son of Aegidius, recieved a special historiographic treatment which had as prime function to "fill" the map; you had no unified Gallo-Roman entity in the course of the Vth. It balanced between obedience to Roman authority and servicing Barbarian foedi, and with the collapse of the former, there wasn't much viable alternative.
Furthermore, opposing Barbarian foedi and Gallo-Roman structures is a bit moot : Barbarian kingdoms in Gaul ended up being Gallo-Roman states in pretty much most of their institution (with a Babarian influence, itself more or less romanized if not artificial) would it be only because they were acknowledged by Roman authority, integrated Roman institutions but as well integrated the aformentioned Gallo-Roman families (Aviti, Syagrii, Desideri-Salvii, etc.) into the regional and realm management.
For everyone concerned, Childeric and Clovis did represented a valid representent of the Roman imperium in Gaul.
*It seems that Gallo-Roman aristocracy usually had a tendency to support either Goths or Burgondians in the mid Vth
** Various Gallo-Roman or Hispano-Roman nobles ended up servicing military Barbarian kings, hence the "relatively"
I think you're confusing two things there.
Carolingian dynasty did claimed the imperial title, but not the Roman imperial title as generally understood : in the quasi-totality of Carolingian texts, indeed, they used the titles of "August Emperor"* as they were more interested on claiming rulership over Christiendom as, as you said, it was seemingly broken in Constantinople.
Romanus or Romanorum, however is systematically tied to the people of Rome, and their representend the pontiff.
The Carolingian (and Ottonian up to its last phase) Empire could be considered "of Romans" only in the way that it had been acknowledged by the people of Rome, meaning the pope. Going trough contemporary texts, this is the only explanation and ideological base to the title one could find. Every other narrative about "being crowned roman Emperor" have NO historical base whatsoever.
It doesn't mean that Carolingians (and Ottonians) didn't acknowledged at the latest there was a Roman influence or a translatio imperii, but the matter for them was the use of roman imperial feature (mostly Late Imperial features) was motivated much less as a desire to consider themselves Romans, than to consider themselves kings or emperors in the like of Davidic or Constantinian rulership (as hinted by the decoration of Aachen's palace).
What we used to call HRE (which is to be distinguished from Carolingia, which is as different from HRE than it was from ERE), eventually went much more into the way you describe (especially with Otton II), altough more on a really superficial and non-systematical way than Russia eventually did, as the name "Roman Empire" which at first pretty much followed the line of Carolingian titulature ("August Emperor [of the Empire of the Romans]") for similar reasons, went to its way to rival the Byzantine Empire.
But that's a rather distinct evolution which didn't appeared at first : Charlemagne itself kept using the prestigious titles of "King of Franks and Lombards" way after his imperial coronation (on the golden solidi, for instance, while they were prime prestigious assets) and the imperial title wasn't that supposed to survive his death for what matter the Ordino Imperii of 806.
*You had as well a very short use of the seemingly long and a bit weird title of "August Emperor ruling over the Roman Empire" by Charlemagne.
So much knowledge.
Wouldn't Palermo be a better fit? AFAIK, by the middle ages Palermo had eclipsed Syracuse in terms of size and prestige.
I'm not sure it would have been the case before the Xth century, hence why Constans II planned to move the imperial siege and court to Syracuse in the mid VIIIth century, or why Syracuse remained a key strategical point for what matter Sicily up to the XIIIth.
AFAIU, Syracuse's decline owes more to Late Medieval and Modern era's events.
Either would work to be fair, what significant difference would the two make? Which half of the Med to focus on?