Discussion: Who had the WORST claims to being the successor of the Roman Empire?

[GameBawesome]

There is a great debate and discussion on who the successor to the Roman Empire is. From the Holy Roman Empire, to the Ottomans, to the Russians, it stems the points of culture, language, lineage, legality, religion and location, on who truly is the successor to the Roman Empire...

This isn't one of them.

Instead, we're here to discuss who had the WORST claims to being the successor to the Roman Empire. We're looking at all those points, about culture, language, lineage, legality, religion and location, deconstructing them, and analyzing if they stand or not.

Again, points we're deconstructing and analyzing:

• Religion
• Culture
• Language
• Lineage/Family Ties
• Legality
• Location

We're looking at some nations that has or had been brought up to be the successors of the Roman Empire. Here is the list:

• Holy Roman Empire/Austrian Empire
• Ottoman Empire
• Russian Empire
• French Empire
• Kingdom of Italy
• Kingdom of Spain
• Kingdom of Greece
• Vatican City
• San Marino

So who in your opinion and discussion, had the WORST claims to being the successor to the Roman Empire?

Rules:

1. Be respectful to each other
2. To say anything racially offensive.
3. The Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire are consider the same for the sake of discussion, and it being called the Eastern Roman Empire for centuries.

 

[Siberian Tiger]

The Ottomans IMO. They came from Central Asia and had very little in common culturally with the rest of Europe until they came in.

 

[AltoRegnant]

To my knowledge the french empire was the first in europe to use the title of empire nationalisticially without claiming rome. So I guess them for not trying.

Otherwise I would say san Marino and greece. Politically the ERE was succeeded by the Turks and religiously by russia. And I'm sorry san marino but I think you need to expand past being a city state to qualify

 

[Aghasverov]

Not on your list, and I don't think the Grand Dukes ever staked a direct claim to succession of the Empire, but the Lithuanians in the... 1300's? 1400's? Produced a chronicle for their semilegendary Palemonid dynasty which claimed descent from 500 Roman nobles led by a certain "Villius" who had fled northward... which is about as likely as the origin stories for the British Isles found in Geoffrey of Monmouth or in the Irish Book of Invasions

 

[Seleukeia]

San Marino came into being while the Roman Empire still existed. I know there will be some people who will say “Oh well le HRE also came into le existence while le Roman Empire still le existed, he he he,” ok shut up the Western Empire was gone, just the East remained so that claim is BS anyway. The Ottomans had a better claim than I think most (including myself for a long time) will give it credit for by virtue of conquest of the Eastern Empire but they weren’t really quite as Roman as they may have sold themselves as (not that there was any market for their goods in Europe), and after Mehmet II died his successors didn’t care nearly as much about a lineage from Rome as he did and expanded mostly into other Islamic regions, and they were really Persian in culture and Persia was a longtime enemy of Rome of course. Lastly the Ottomans never controlled any Italian territory - except for one city for a year in the early 1480s - like literally any of the other nations mentioned aside from Russia and Greece, and they also had cultural, religious and territorial lineages from the Eastern Empire that the Ottomans did not share as heavily.

I think it’s close between San Marino and the Ottomans by virtue of what I began the above paragraph with but the Sammarinese are Italians (ethnically speaking, not saying they have to be annexed by Italy) whilst the Ottomans were not so I’ll probably pick the Ottomans here.

 

[Mightyboosh5]

Ottomans had some of the best claim, they even claimed the title caeser i rum and basically usurped the byzantine system of governance

 

[Orko]

A tie between the Ottomans and the Russians. The Ottomans culturally had almost nothing to do with Ancient Rome, not religiously or linguistically, and their ancestors only showed up in the region once the Empire was declining. They also were the ones who ended the ERE for good, so as conquerors I don't think they get to be the legitimate heirs. However, their capital was actually located at (one of) the actual capital of the Empire, and they were heirs in a sense since they ruled much of the territory that used to be the Roman Imperial heartland (at least of the ERE).
The Russians on the other hand share a religion with the (East) Romans, and they received this religion from the Romans themselves so there's certainly a continuity there. They also have a better legal claim to being heirs of Rome, as the first Czar is descended from a Roman princess. However I always felt like the Russian claim to being the "Third Rome" is somewhat ludicrous, because after all what are the Romans to Russia? Geographically they weren't ever part of the Roman Empire, they weren't really even neighbors. Culturally, other than religion, what do they have in common? They're not descended from the Romans either, not like the Italians or the French or even the Greeks. Russians were never part of the Roman Empire, so why all of a sudden this urge to call yourself Roman, only after the Empire has already fallen?

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

I think the ottomans are probably more Roman than most of these states for the sole reason that, apart from any grandiose pretentions to power or political heritage, which any writer in any state can claim, the ottoman empire actually had a large chunk of its population that primarily identified as Romans. Both the rum millet and the Rumi Turkish speakers of Anatolia seem much more Roman than speakers of modern Italian/romance languages, who are obsessed with the Rome as an ancestor (and thus the idea that they are *no longer* Romans)

 

[Serker]

Walter Scheidel's 'Escape from Rome' has an interesting section where he describes how no European / Mediterranean polity ever came close to conquering the same territories as Rome did. It's put in contrast to China, where multiple empires have controlled a roughly similar geographic space. Two entities you didn't mention in your introductory are the Umayyad Caliphate and the (aspirational...) Empire of Charles V; which also rank highly in the geographic similarity scale.

Based on shared geographic extent with Rome, the Ottomans have far and away the best case to be made as the successors to Rome.

While geography is only one of the criteria you mention, I think that it's arguably the most important. Having a large empire in the Eastern Med implicitly means many cultural and religious groups which originated in Rome are now within the boundaries of the successor state (obviously changed with time). Similar geographies may also evolve similar solutions to governance as well- large empires in pre-modern times are more likely to share similar systems of tax collection and food distribution. Fighting other large polities in distant regions allows for powerful generals and governors to play a role in politics.

Similarly, time plays a role. Simply put, the closer in time you are to the Roman Empire, the more similar your state is likely to be to it. The Kingdom of Italy controls Rome itself, and it's core territories, but should lose a lot of points because it's a country that came into existence at the same time as the Industrial Revolution, balance of power diplomacy, post-slavery, etc. On the other hand, the pre-Modern states you list are more likely to have things like slavery, forms of military organization, governance structures, and economies structured in a way much more like what the Romans had.

So given that, the worst successor should be 1) not geographically similar to Rome, and 2) recent. IMO given the above options above that means the Vatican City, San Marino, and Kingdom of Greece.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

They are all more or less ridiculous in their own way:

- The Ottomans, if simple conquest or ruling over the same area qualify as being successor, that would make Spain heir of the Inca and Tunisia heir of Carthage. The fact that they were the ones who brought an end to the empire make their claim even more ridiculous;

- The HRE, can't have two roman empires at the same time. Plus, how many roman emperors before Charlemagne got crowned (as in being elevated to the rank of emperor rather than being simply recognized by the church)? I can think of only one usurper who tried (it didn't end well for him). Let's forget the little fact that Charlemagne was an outsider, which make as much sense as the Roman army (the effective elective body of the empire) choosing the Sassanian king as their new emperor;

- Russia, I am pretty sure at this point in time you can find almost everyone (among the royal houses) in Europe related to an Imperial dynasty (thank to the Angeloi), and since we are discussing the successor of Rome, not the successors of the Palaiologoi (or any other family), I don't see how they qualify. Didn't the Komnenians after all marry their daughters to Mongol/Turkic rulers from the East?;

- French empire, did they even try?

- Spain, why are they on the list?

- San Marino, same as above;

- Vatican, you could make the case for it being a breakaway Roman state like Venice or Trebizond. Not sure how far you can push that argument though, as at a certain point in their history they became more of a appendage/breakaway state of the Franks;

- Greece, actual Romans finally getting rid of foreign rule and regaining their independence, I can see some substance to this claim. Too bad they never really tried to push it as far as I am aware;

- Italy, same as above;

 

[GameBawesome]

- French empire, did they even try?

- Spain, why are they on the list?

- San Marino, same as above;

- Greece, actual Romans finally getting rid of foreign rule and regaining their independence, I can see some substance to this claim. Too bad they never really tried to push it as far as I am aware;

- Italy, same as above;

To answer your questions.

-French Empire : Napoleon was really into the Roman Empire and Charlemagne. He had a lot of symbolism and imagery relating back to Rome and Charlemagne, like with clothing, architecture, the golden laurels during coronation, etc. There also another reason for why France is on this list, but I'll get into that. French is also a Romance Language, descended from of Frankish, but also Latin

-Spain: In the 15th Century, the brother of the last Byzantine Emperor, and last of the Palaeologus, willed his claim to the Imperial Titles to Queen Isabelle and King Ferdinand of Spain. But he also previously sold that claim to the King of France, which is why Spain is also iffy on the claim. Besides that, it comes language, as Spanish is also a Romance Language, descended from a form of Latin

-San Marino: That option was semi-serious. But, IMO, they still have some claims. For starters, San Marino is the only one on this list, to be contemporary with the full-Roman Empire (Most of these claims stems from the Eastern Roman Empire), being founded in the 4th Century, by Saint Marinus. It also comes down to Language, again Italian being descended from Vulgar Latin

- Greece: They actually tried to find a descendant of the Palaeologus in Britain, to become King of Greece (Even this guy from Ireland tried to claim the throne), but were unable to find one, so decided on Otto I of Bavaria to become their king. They tried to take back Constantinople from Turkey, most notably after WWI.

-Italy: Mostly stems from the same points. Language being descended from Vulgar Latin, the House of Savoy having titles from the HRE, the actual location of Rome.

 

[Wilhelm_Pieck_Vaillan]

The Ottomans IMO. They came from Central Asia and had very little in common culturally with the rest of Europe until they came in.

Yes but they conquered the eastern roman empire the last bastion of Rome, Which by the right of conquest made them the Roman Empire

 

[Wilhelm_Pieck_Vaillan]

A tie between the Ottomans and the Russians. The Ottomans culturally had almost nothing to do with Ancient Rome, not religiously or linguistically, and their ancestors only showed up in the region once the Empire was declining. They also were the ones who ended the ERE for good, so as conquerors I don't think they get to be the legitimate heirs. However, their capital was actually located at (one of) the actual capital of the Empire, and they were heirs in a sense since they ruled much of the territory that used to be the Roman Imperial heartland (at least of the ERE).
The Russians on the other hand share a religion with the (East) Romans, and they received this religion from the Romans themselves so there's certainly a continuity there. They also have a better legal claim to being heirs of Rome, as the first Czar is descended from a Roman princess. However I always felt like the Russian claim to being the "Third Rome" is somewhat ludicrous, because after all what are the Romans to Russia? Geographically they weren't ever part of the Roman Empire, they weren't really even neighbors. Culturally, other than religion, what do they have in common? They're not descended from the Romans either, not like the Italians or the French or even the Greeks. Russians were never part of the Roman Empire, so why all of a sudden this urge to call yourself Roman, only after the Empire has already fallen?

But the Russians didn't have anything in common with Rome except Religion and a small blood-link to Eastern Rome

 

[cmakk1012]

For those about to say Ottomans, bear in mind that by simple dint of geography they bear a better claim than someone like the French. Their geography forced them into taking on a lot of the same political and economic viewpoints as the Byzantines at their height—handling trade with the Italians and the Silk Road, ruling over lots of minorities, even similar issues with over powerful magnates and professional armed forces. The Ottomans still aren’t really the heirs of Rome, but they’re more the heirs of Rome than Napoleon III or Charles V or whoever.

 

[Orko]

But the Russians didn't have anything in common with Rome except Religion and a small blood-link to Eastern Rome

Which is why I said they have one of the worst claims to being heirs of Rome (tied with the Ottomans).

 

[Crazy Boris]

French Empire. All the not-Roman-ness of the HRE, but without even anyone considering them a continuation.

If I were to order the candidates from best to worst claim:

Ottomans: won Constantinople, ruled over a lot of the same land, and held the title of emperor

Russia: blood connection to the Byzantines and spiritual leadership of the Orthodox Church (though I don’t think the religious aspect is too important here. Keep in mind Rome started out pagan and went through different forms of Christianity. Plus Elagabalus and his rock.)

San Marino: only country to directly emerge from the Roman Empire that survived past the Middle Ages

Spain: technically inheritors of the title, but never actually used it so they lose points

Greece: being Greek gives them a claim I guess since the Byzantines were predominantly Greek. (This is where claims get really weak)

HRE: considered emperor in the west by the pope. That’s all they got.

Vatican: the papacy coexisted with the Roman Empire, but the Papal States itself cake well after the Western Empire was gone and they threw their lot in with the HRE.

Italy: has Rome.

France: previously discussed

But at the end of the day I wouldn’t consider any of them to be a “third rome”. I might consider the Ottoman sultans as the successors to the Byzantines as titular emperors since the patriarch of Constantinople gave the title to Mehmed, but that’s as far as I’ll go.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Ottomans had the best claim, as a point of fact Mehmed II took the title (which was inherited by his successors) Caesar of the Romans, which was the actual truth as he became the ruler of the people known as the Romans.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

For those about to say Ottomans, bear in mind that by simple dint of geography they bear a better claim than someone like the French. Their geography forced them into taking on a lot of the same political and economic viewpoints as the Byzantines at their height—handling trade with the Italians and the Silk Road, ruling over lots of minorities, even similar issues with over powerful magnates and professional armed forces. The Ottomans still aren’t really the heirs of Rome, but they’re more the heirs of Rome than Napoleon III or Charles V or whoever.

What is France today was part of Rome, they speak a Latin language and are Roman Catholic. Culturally their connection is arguably a lot stronger than the Ottomans.

Going with the OP’s list here.

• Religion
• Culture
• Language
• Lineage/Family Ties
• Legality
• Location

Religion, culture, language and location has to go to Italy, San Marino and the Latin countries. Arguably Greece as well. Lineage goes to the Russians or Ottomans if I’m reading it right. If they’re talking about genetics, that probably goes to Italy too. Legality might go to the Ottomans.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

To answer your questions.

-French Empire : Napoleon was really into the Roman Empire and Charlemagne. He had a lot of symbolism and imagery relating back to Rome and Charlemagne, like with clothing, architecture, the golden laurels during coronation, etc. There also another reason for why France is on this list, but I'll get into that. French is also a Romance Language, descended from of Frankish, but also Latin

-Spain: In the 15th Century, the brother of the last Byzantine Emperor, and last of the Palaeologus, willed his claim to the Imperial Titles to Queen Isabelle and King Ferdinand of Spain. But he also previously sold that claim to the King of France, which is why Spain is also iffy on the claim. Besides that, it comes language, as Spanish is also a Romance Language, descended from a form of Latin

-San Marino: That option was semi-serious. But, IMO, they still have some claims. For starters, San Marino is the only one on this list, to be contemporary with the full-Roman Empire (Most of these claims stems from the Eastern Roman Empire), being founded in the 4th Century, by Saint Marinus. It also comes down to Language, again Italian being descended from Vulgar Latin

- Greece: They actually tried to find a descendant of the Palaeologus in Britain, to become King of Greece (Even this guy from Ireland tried to claim the throne), but were unable to find one, so decided on Otto I of Bavaria to become their king. They tried to take back Constantinople from Turkey, most notably after WWI.

-Italy: Mostly stems from the same points. Language being descended from Vulgar Latin, the House of Savoy having titles from the HRE, the actual location of Rome.

Ok I see. Here is my answer to those points:

The way I see it, the empire was not a family's thing/noble title attached to someone's list of ruled territories (although it kinda worked as such towards the end), instead it was his own source of authority and legitimacy. No more empire, no more emperor. Someone, even the brother of the last emperor, selling something he had no authority over (on the basis of him not being empowered by the "purple"), nevermind that it no longer existed, is just something that I can not take seriously. It's just two different visions of what a state is supposed to be, you had the western view, where the state was a king's own property, a pile of titles stacked together etc., and the imperial one, where different sources of authority, different pillars worked together to create said empire and give authority and power to the guy on the top. Family could be a source of authority (but usually not the only one) but when those pillars stopped working together to uphold the idea of the empire itself, that is when the Palaiologoi lost any relevance/authority/legitimacy (not that they couldn't have been a rally point for anyone discontent with the new order mind you). I know quite complex/confused;

For that reason, that is why I disqualify Spain and Russia (or any other claim based on family link);

As for France, there is a difference between emulation and actually being successors of the Romans, Rome is more than just golden laurels and architecture, According to those criteria, the XI century empire is no longer Roman;

San Marino being that old I believe is just a legend;

Greece and Italy never really tried, I see the people living there as modern day Romans, but I don't see the two republics as being successors of the old empire.

 

[Yuhaoyang]

Ottomans had the best claim, as a point of fact Mehmed II took the title (which was inherited by his successors) Caesar of the Romans, which was the actual truth as he became the ruler of the people known as the Romans.

Firstly，the Ottoman title was Ceaser of Rum，Rum being the traditional Muslim name for Byzantine lands，not "of Romans". That's a very important difference because it demonstrated that the Ottoman dynasty didn't regard themselves as belonging to Romans or ruling on behalf of Romans. The reality also proves that the were just a Conqueror regime with little to none concern for the welfare of its Roman subjects.
Secondly，if just conquering and ruling a people makes your state the rightful successor state to theirs. Then was USA ，the conqueror，ruler and genocider of Native Americans，a successor to Tecumseh's Federation？