You know Odoacer hd served in the Roman Arm, right? The Pope is significant because he's the religious head of the Roman church. At one point, a Byzantine Emperor criticized a Pope for speaking the "barbaric" Latin tongue over Greek. The Pope rightly pointed out that it was ridiculous for a supposed Roman Emperor to attack the Roman language and that it was a bigger disgrace for a supposed Roman Emperor to speak the Greek language than it was for the headofthe Roman Church to speak the Roman language.
[POLL] Are Odoacer's or the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy continuations of the Western Roman Empire?
- Thread starter Tom Colton
- Start date
Regarding Odoaker: You are right because I was concentrating on the Ostrogoths and pretty much forgot that he too was in question here. Odoaker wasnt the ruler of a barbarian Kingdom and i cant think to label his Kingdom anything but roman. So in his case i think it was a continuation of the WRE.
Regarding the Pope: i never questioned that what you said about the Pope is true. However i still dont see how its relevant in the question of Odoaker or the Ostrogoths being the continuations of the WRE. If the Popes didnt make a statement in this question like calling the Ostrogothic Kingdom Roman Empire or Kingdom or something of the sort he is not relevant in this question. If you try to question the legitimacy of the ERE with this thats another question and a tread just about that question is in existence right now.
scholar
Banned
I argued that Justinian's Gothic War is what destroyed the Roman World a couple years back.
I would say both yes and no. Effectively, there were two co-existing states covering the same territory at the same time: A Gothic state governing the Goths, and a Roman state governing the Romans. Both states had their own laws. They just happened to be administered by the same people at the highest levels.
Think of it as a personal union that happens to be defined by ethnicity rather than geography.
Which is a really cool idea that should show up more in TLs, now that I've phrased it that way.
Think of it as a personal union that happens to be defined by ethnicity rather than geography.
Which is a really cool idea that should show up more in TLs, now that I've phrased it that way.
Considering that Zeno abolished the notion of Western Roman Empire after the death of Julius Nepos, I have to say no.
Odoacer acting in the way a feoderati did towards the Roman Emperor but I don't think he was the only barbarian king to do so at the time. I believe the Franks were basically considered feoderati too. Besides, given that Justinian eventually felt the need to reconquer Italy later on... It's hard not to see why the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy would be considered a continuation of the Roman Empire.
Odoacer acting in the way a feoderati did towards the Roman Emperor but I don't think he was the only barbarian king to do so at the time. I believe the Franks were basically considered feoderati too. Besides, given that Justinian eventually felt the need to reconquer Italy later on... It's hard not to see why the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy would be considered a continuation of the Roman Empire.
He wanted to conquer Italy, because it had legitimacy. It's the same reason the Ottomans wanted it and the HRE and the Caliphate etc.. The fact tht the Byzantines wanted to conquer Taly doesn't bolster their claim to Rome, it weakens their claim to Rome.
scholar
Banned
No, it doesn't. You seem to be thinking that they would derive such legitimacy purely from geography, but that is blatantly false. The HRE had Italy, it lost Italy. Its desire to reclaim Italy had nothing to do with lacking Legitimacy once it lost the Italian territories, and the fact that Northern Italy was tearing itself apart with pro- and anti- HRE factions would argue strongly for its legitimacy, with its lack of martial ability being its greatest failure. The Eastern Roman Empire's desire to reclaim Italy was never about Italy not being part of the Roman Empire, Italy was considered part of the Roman Empire - and thus the Byzantine Empire - before Justinian invaded. Justinian's invasion was rather to suppress a parallel political authority independent of Constantinople. It was always considered Rome and Roman, and the Italian populous knew this well from their own very accounts. Constantine, Otto, and Mehmet are very different men and derived legitimacy in very different ways. The more Islamic their empire became, demographically speaking, the more they deemphasized their initial connection to the Romans. Their play for Italy had little to do with the Roman Empire, and far more to do with the Pope and the Sultan's own position as Caliph.
No. That's patently false. You seem to think that Islam was incompatible with a Roman identity. The Ottomans did in fact consider their state Roman and were even recognized as their successors widely. The reason these claimants to Rome wanted Italy was because Italy was seen as the historic, geographic and cultural heart of Rome and control of it would lend legitimacy to their identity as Romans.
scholar
Banned
Saying a thing is false does not make it so, the Ottoman Caliphate claimed that it was the successor state to Rome initially, but deemphasized this title as the years went on. Instead, as its role expanded, it emphasized its nature as a Caliphate far more. If the two were mutually exclusive, I would not have brought up a shift in emphasis and would have instead stated that because it was Muslim, it could not be Roman. Politely take that nonsense far away from here.
So I invite you to provide a source.
It's false becaus it's false. There was no effort to deemphasize their claim to Rome. They did move away from what would be considered Roman culture, but so did the Byzantines. Until the very end the Sultan had Roman titles. He was the Kayser i Rum. Get that garbage out of here, kid.
scholar
Banned
A roman title, more similar to the way that the King of Spain still claims to be the King of Jerusalem. Titles alone mean very little, it is how those titles are utilized and how they are seen that matters. Like it or not, Mehmed styled himself a Roman Emperor, while Selim styled himself Caliph, and the Magnificent began using the neutral title of Padishah (Emperor) and gave it greater status among his many titles. The idea of the Ottoman Empire being a successor state to Rome was born under Mehmed, but after Selim the Ottoman Empire say themselves as the successor state to the older Islamic Caliphates. The emphasis I referred to was their own to themselves.
In order to support your point you will need to explain why the Ottoman Sultan's barely even used their status as Roman Emperor in their diplomatic overtures to the rest of Europe regarding their interests in Italy. Or, more usefully, the Ottoman-Russian relations cables between them after Russia attempted to restart the Roman Empire.
scholar
Banned
This is a weird goal-post shift. The Ottoman Emperors styled themselves Emperors of Rome and the Romans, but the Romans were their Greek subjects. The Queen of the United Kingdom claims to be Queen of Australia, but this doesn't make her Australian, or of Normandy for a potentially useful example. Mehmed made the strongest claim for the Ottomans being the Roman Empire, and a number made an active effort to portray themselves as such, but after the time of Selim they claimed they were a continuation of the Arab Caliphates of Old, and this was the primary means through which they were regarded diplomatically afterwards. After Greek independence, the Ottomans almost never talked about their defunct title of Emperor of the Romans, in the same way Spain rarely brings up its title of King of Israel, or the British infrequently brought up the title King/Queen of France. All dealings with the Ottomans after Suleiman the Magnificent was with respect to their status as Caliph of Islam, and the Ottomans responded in kind, only infrequently referring to their other titles.
scholar
Banned
I had made my post with regards to your claims about the need to conquer Italy to legitimize their claims to being Roman, never with regards to their titles.
This discussion would be pertinent if Odoacer or Theoderic had ever proclaimed themselves Roman Emperor.
But they didn't.
But they didn't.
I didn't say they needed to take Italy to call themselves Romans. I said that the fact that Italy was the heart of Rome culturally, geographically and historically did play a role in why these claimants to Romw wanted it. If you think it wasn't you're being naive. For the recrd, the Ottomans and the Caliphate wanted Constantinople for similar reasons. Having it would in their eyes lend legitimacy to their claims to the Byzantine Empire.
And yet the people living there were still being called Roman a hundred years later.
The Turkish discussion can hence be best done in a thread actually about the Ottomans, is all I'm saying.
Just to put my two cents in about why Justinian went to war in Italy, seeing as you two wish to argue over the Ottomans. I've always believed it to be a mixture of Justinian's romantic ideal for Rome, one that was whole, powerful and not to mention, barbarian free; that and enough surplus wealth and arms to make good on his revanchism.
Client states are only useful until they aren't, Zeno was strapped for cash and manpower by the time Odoacer staged his coup and the only reason he allowed him to remain in his position was because he had no other recourse and once an opening showed itself, in the form of the Goths growing increasingly rowdy and land-hungry, he immediately sicced them on Odoacer. That callous arrangement of situational usefulness came into play as soon Justinian felt he had the cards in play to oust an unwanted people from a land which he didn't believe them to have a right to; it wasn't an invasion of a foreign land, it was ethnic cleansing. I don't say that to be hyperbolic, just to recognize the point of the conquest was to remove the undue influence of a barbarian people over a land that had never ceased to be Roman, but had ceased to answer directly to the emperor. Justinian couldn't stand that level of autonomy, not in the east by good Romans and certainly not in the birthplace of Rome by a race he no doubt saw as savage and uncultured.
EDIT: Just to add, this is in no way made for a break of continuity with the Western government, in assuming the roles of the previous rulers in Italy they did much the same job as any other before them. They just happened to allow foreign peoples to settle within their borders whilst doing that job.
Last edited: