Do you see Francia as the continuation of the WRE?
- Thread starter Gukpard
- Start date
"Byzantine"? Sorry, I think you meant to write Eastern Rome, friend.
Successor, sure, depends on what you mean by that though. Continuation, definetly not. The Pope had zero legal authority to appoint a new Emperor in the West and Charlemagne's lack of recognition by the Eastern Emperor/Empress whom traditionally were the Augustus (Senior Emperor) didn't help matters. The title of Western Emperor was de jure given to the Eastern Emperor when the title of Western Emperor was defunct, therefore I would trust the legal Emperor's stance on the issue more than the one appointed by the Pope.
Strictly speaking, the Byzantines were the successors to both the Eastern and Western Empire.
Now, it's been a while since I listened to The History of Rome, but hadn't a number of Roman emperors been crowned by the Pope (or his equivalent) long before that point?
They were more than just successors, which is why I don't like to use the term Byzantine. They were Eastern Rome, a direct continuation of the original Roman state, the Byzantium name was only slapped onto them long after their demise.
Never, some may have had the Pope present in a ceremonial sense but the Pope wasn't given any kind of special status, he was merely another Patriarch, an important Patriarch, but Patriarch nonetheless. Not to mention that Western Emperors were never "crowned", rather they were acclaimed. The coronation ceremony didn't come about until roughly the 6th Century. The tradition established by Constantine was that a Patriarch would be appointed or approved by the Emperor and would offer ecclesiastical advice, not that the Emperor himself would have been picked by the Pope. The precedent for this was established by the so-called Donation of Constantine which was a forged document that claimed Constantine gave authority of the Western Empire to the Pope....this never happened.
I personally do not, because I hold the title of "Roman" to a higher standard than the people of any era did.
Roman as an adjective is talking about something in relation to the city of Rome.
So anything that could be considered Roman must have Roman traits.
some Roman traits
1-having Rome
2-being Italian
3-speaking Latin or a similar language
4-focus on military strength and martial values
5-cultural similarities
6-imperial cult/Christianity?
So Charlemagne had 1, 3, 4, and 6. 2/3. Hmmm. Not quite there.
Meanwhile Odoacer.. had 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6. Yet no one notices this.
ERE/Byzantines had 1 (I cannot help that they lost it), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Yes many of these elements gradually faded away. I guess if I were writing the history books, I would say perhaps the last Roman Emperor was Justinian, Maurice, or Heraclius or somebody. Second loss of the West is what makes it a Greek Empire.
So looks like the proper heirs to the WRE either can be Odoacer/Theoderic or Zeno.
Charlemagne gloried in the name of Rome, but is clearly lacking several parts of the Roman identity. More of a anachronistic splinter state.
Roman as an adjective is talking about something in relation to the city of Rome.
So anything that could be considered Roman must have Roman traits.
some Roman traits
1-having Rome
2-being Italian
3-speaking Latin or a similar language
4-focus on military strength and martial values
5-cultural similarities
6-imperial cult/Christianity?
So Charlemagne had 1, 3, 4, and 6. 2/3. Hmmm. Not quite there.
Meanwhile Odoacer.. had 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6. Yet no one notices this.
ERE/Byzantines had 1 (I cannot help that they lost it), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Yes many of these elements gradually faded away. I guess if I were writing the history books, I would say perhaps the last Roman Emperor was Justinian, Maurice, or Heraclius or somebody. Second loss of the West is what makes it a Greek Empire.
So looks like the proper heirs to the WRE either can be Odoacer/Theoderic or Zeno.
Charlemagne gloried in the name of Rome, but is clearly lacking several parts of the Roman identity. More of a anachronistic splinter state.
Well if you want to bring up Odoacer as an argument then you have to acknowledge that Odoacer claimed that he was suzerain to Emperor Zeno in Constantinople and ruled as patricus in his name, so by Odoacer's own admission Zeno was the Roman Emperor, not him.
Odoacer was then usurped by the Amalings who made it a point to distinguish themselves from the Romans. And 4 is not much of a requirement.
So there is a definite break in the West where there is none in the East.
This is mostly true, but again it's important to point out that Theoderic, like Odoacer before him also claimed to be a governor ruling Italy in the name of Zeno (later Anastasius and Justin). In a legal sense he was merely a barbarian governor of a Roman province even if that wasn't the case de facto.
Red Orm
Banned
He never said that Odoacer was Roman emperor, just that he was Roman. Which I disagree with, but still.
And I never said he said Odoacer was Emperor either lol. Semantics aside, by that logic Zeno was also Roman because Odoacer (a Roman) acknowledged him as the Roman Emperor.
Didn't you just say Odoacer was a Roman for the sake of argument? (I know you said you didn't agree with it, but that's not really what we're discussing)
The sucession system of the Frankish empire meant that every time the king died, the kingdom would be split between his children, and that's why the frankish empire crumbled after 830
Let's say that Karolus Magnus changed that law to primogeniture, do you believe that with time his sucessors could reunite the Roman empire under what you classiy as the roman empire? I mean, taking over southern italy and moving the capital to mediolanium or Ravenna (since rome is out of question because of the papal state) and continuing the Frankish renaissance to the point that their empire would be fully romanized?