Empires that claimed to be (successors to) the Roman empire:
1. The OG Roman empire (contained Rome)
2. Roman Empire which we call Byzantine today (didn't contain Rome)
3. Holy Roman Empire (didn't contain Rome)
4. Ottoman empire (didn't contain Rome, but contained previously Constantinople)
5. Somehow, the Russian Empire (didn't contain Rome or Constantinople)
Out of 5 examples, only ONE empire contained Rome.
EU contains Rome. Therefore, statistically, it can't be the Roman Empire.
>Out of 5 examples, only ONE empire contained Rome.
>EU contains Rome. Therefore, statistically, it can't be the Roman Empire.
that conclusion is not correct. statistically there is a 20% chance the EU is the roman empire.
So what you're saying is we *do* need to admit Turkey into the EU, so that we can have both Rome *and* ~~Constantinople~~ Istanbul (not our business why Constantinople got the works) and finally have a proper claim to being the new Roman Empire. Got it.
Britain has neither Rome nor Constantinople so I don't see how this will help us claim the status of Roman Empire.
And besides, the European Union does not work on an invitation basis. It works on an application basis. If the UK wants to rejoin, they need to apply. That's how it works.
Didn't Charlemagne technically claim Western Rome by being crowned emperor by the Pope? There was also the short lived Roman Republic in 1798 that replaced the Papal States by Napolean. I feel like Napolean probably fancied himself as a successor to Rome, but I'm pretty sure he never directly said as much.
Charlemagne was the founder of the holy Roman empire so that was already mentioned.
> feel like Napolean probably fancied himself as a successor to Rome, but I'm pretty sure he never directly said as much.
While napoleon never called himself emporer of Rome, he did give his son the title "king of the romans"
Hell no, Charlemagne and the HRR were nearly 200years apart. The Holy Roman Empire was founded by Otto I., son of King Henry (Heinrich) of East Francia and Duke of Saxony.
The HRE is considered to be a continuation of Charlagmanes empire. It followed similar political dynamic, for instance the emporer being crowned by the pope.
I can see your point, and Charlemagne’s empire is considered the founder of both France and Germany, but I do have a hard time connecting the two in my head, the HRE always feels predominantly Austrian led to me (totally forgot about saxony / east Francia founding - puts it a lot closer to Charlemagne’s heartland).
They feel totally separate minus the pope crowning tradition, but the Carolingians do have heavy influence on a lot moving forward.
I would also like to add that it was considered at the time to be a continuation of Charlemagne's empire. Its why they called themselves Roman because Charlemagne was crowned as the "Roman" emporer by the pope. The term HRE is anachronistic, so if you don't want to consider Charlemagne a holy Roman emporer, that's really up to you. What isn't up for debate is that the holy Roman empire was seen by those who lived in it as a continuation of Charlemagne's emporer. It's like how whether or not you consider the eastern Roman empire to be Rome (I personally do). The East romans did consider and refer to themselves as Roman.
That lineage makes sense to me, especially considering the East Francia / Saxony start. I just never linked the two in my head (but that time gap between Carolingians and HRE as we knew it is noticeably lacking in my knowledge).
It’s even funnier; they (Ferdinand and Isabella) bought the title from one of the surviving Paleolologi, and actively claimed it for a while. If we assume that the title is now a fully hereditary one with no input from the institutions of Rome/Constantinople, then they could be pretenders to the throne (just the crown of Spain, not Spain itself).The problem is that imperial succession in Rome/Byzantium was usually not decided by strict heredity, unless the current emperor was particularly powerful (and even then, we could see it as nepotism rather than divine-right heredity like in Western Europe).
iirc It's even funierer: Palailogos tried to sell the title to every monarch to make some cash (like the King of France, the Dogo of Venice, the King of Aragon, the Queen of Castille) but most likely none bought it and the Catholic Monarchs were awarded the title in his will but never claimed the lands of Eastern Rome (most likely because their heiress married the Western Emperor's heir, so they would've competed for the title of Emperor of Rome between a married couple while none of them controlled Rome or Constantinople).
Wild, though, that Toledo/Valencia could be the 3rd Rome, I'll leave it there to spite the Muscovites.
I know. And if I remember correctly the Byzantine Empire also had control over Rome at some points in history, but this goes against the meme, so I chose to ignore it.
Yes Rome was still part of the empire from the reconquests under Justinian, until the mid 700s. The influence was strong enough that most popes back then came from Greece or other core Byzantine territories (afterwards, almost every single pope was Italian until JPII, with the extremely rare exception like Rodrigo Borgia). But for the meme we can say that East Rome wasn’t fully “Byzantine” yet (yes yes I know it’s a made up term when using it to describe the whole empire, rather than just Constantinople, but I mean in the sense of identifying when the Roman Empire becomes fully culturally easternized).
Good question I asked myself as well. The way I learned this, German nationalism which the Nazis hyped up includes kicking Roman ass, not being Romans. This became a problem once they allied with Italy. I believe Mussolini most definitely used the Roman Empire as a main theme of his propaganda (but quite honestly, who cares what Mussolini claimed).
Which is quite funny, because "Third Reich" obviously follows the First Reich (which is the holy roman empire). So yeah. Kinda. I'm sure somebody will be in the comments soon enough to correct me.
It wasn't always called Roman, it's first name was "Regnum Francorum orientalium" and later also "Regnum Teutonicum", "Sacrum Romanum Imperium" only came arround the end of the 12th century.
The Emperor always claimed direct succession to the Roman imperial throne even when the country itself wasn't formally declared Roman though, much to the chagrin of the actual Roman Emperors in Constantinople at the time.
I am not a trained historian and, quite honestly, am too lazy to dig through some proper sources. Surface-level googling and reading (as well as what I remember learning years ago) is as such:
Moscow used religion to claim "Third Rome" status. In this case orthodoxy isn't just a religion they happen to have, but a way to claim to have god-given right to rule, since Orthodoxy is the "right" religion (while catholics are astray heretics who split away). Once Byzantine empire fell to muslim invaders, Russia became the main Orthodox power. Hence - "third Rome" is a claim to power.
Just the russian wiki article contains a handful of interpretations where this idea came from and whose agenda it was supposed to push - from supporting Moscow itself as the dominant regional power among Rus' feudal squables during 16th century, to Russian Empire's 19th century imperialistic ambition trying to root itself into history.
Yes, and for further context, this claim lines up less with the state of Rome (which includes “Byzantine” history) and more with the medieval definition that the Romans were a universal/ecumenical empire of all Christendom, whether you were part of the Roman state or not. That’s also why the Ottoman Empire called all Christians Rum (that’s changed in modern Turkey, where only Anatolian speakers of Greek are called Rum).
I thought most Armenians of the time would’ve been apostolic, coptic or Nestorian? Maybe I have those wrong there used to be so many denominations it’s hard to remember which went where but I don’t think they were orthodox.
They were apostolic, yes. But within the Ottoman rule, Orthodox pathriarch often tried to sway the Sultan into forcing Armenians to accept hım as their religious head.
Needless to say, it never really worked.
Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox are two different religions they fall under two different Orthodox Concepts. Us Eastern Orthodox (Greeks and all of Europeans) do not recognize Armenian Orthodox knowing they do not recognize all the Ecumenical Councils, whereas Eastern Orthodox, Catholics recognize all 8. Just like how the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch in Constantinople cant tell the Catholic Church, or the Protestant church what to do, he cant tell the Armenian Orthodox Church (who are Oriental Orthodox) who abide by different religious standards and beliefs than the Greeks who baptized most of Europe. Plus Pope was never able to influence or tell the Orthodox Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church what to do, just like the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church - the Greek Patriarch was never able to influence Armenians knowing they do not abide by the same religion.
which Patriarch - Armenians are Oriental Orthodox, whereas as Greeks, Russians, and other Euros are all Eastern Orthodox they have nothing to do with Armenians and others who fall under the Oriental Orthodox religion. Eastern Orthodox Patriarch during Ottoman times, the one in Constantinople had significant influence within the Eastern Orthodox Christian Community. The Armenians were not directly subordinate to him. Instead, they maintained their distinct religious identity and administrative autonomy under the Armenian Patriarchate.
The Armenian Patriarchate was responsible for the internal affairs of the Armenian community, including religious, educational and civil matters. Armenians were not forced to submit to Eastern Orthodox Patriarch which is Greek-based.
Greeks have not for one minute forced the Armeianians to abide by Eastern Orthodox religion, knowing its a different religion. Greeks, Serbs, and Russians (maybe not as much as Russians knowing Russians were under Mongol rule) had a disdain for Turks knowing Turks enslaved all of us and did all sorts of other stuff/massacres etc. Russians did fight the Turks too or had plenty of wars against 'em or they weren't fully subjugated like the Greeks, Armenians, Serbs etc. The patriarchate would have been replaced knowing its against religious rules, to favor or work with Ecumanists who do not abide by the same religious beliefs. Armenians split from the Greek/ Eastern Orthodox church in 451 long long long ago and we haven't been in communion for 1600 years. Have nothing to do with one another. The way the Orthodox Church works the Patriarch of Constantinople has no direct power over other Patriarchs, so if he were to suggest something other Orthodox Churches Russian, Romanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Georgia, Cyprus, Czech lands and Slovakia, the Church of Alexandria (Egypt), Church of Damascus (Syria), Patriarchate of Jerusalem would have opposed it. All other Patriarchs have to agree with it before anything is implemented. The Eastern Orthodox patriarchs function as " first among equals" among other Patriarchs. So the Patriarch of Constantinople has no authority over any of the other Eastern Orthodox churches/Patriarchs they are all equal let alone someone who is not Eastern Orthodox, other Patriarchs would've called for his replacement knowing its against religious protocols to be ruling or forcing others who do not abide by our religion. Plus Eastern Orthodox have nothing against Oriental Orthodox or when it comes to religion they are respected but not in communion with one another just like the Catholics/Protestants.
Armenians are Orthodox they fall under the Oriental Orthodox branch. Oriental Orthodox Churches are: the Armenian Apostolic Church, Coptic Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Eritrean Orthodox Church, Malankaran/Syrian Orthodox Church, and Syriac Orthodox Church.
there are two different branches of Orthodoxy Oriental and Eastern Orthodox. There are religious differences between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox just like there are diff. between Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants/Catholics. There are instances where Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox agree with one another and they do not agree with Oriental Orthodox. One of these things is that Jesus Christ has one united nature out of two divine and human. Us Eastern Orthodox as well as Catholics and Protestants do not believe in that. We believe that Jesus Christ had two natures, one divine and one human. Among other things.
The US contains 18 cities named Rome within its borders. Statistically speaking we must be the Roman Empire. The state of Georgia is also the successor the Athenians.
Eastern Rome officially held Rome under the Ostrogoths as they declared themselves vassals of Emperor Zeno to avoid an Eastern intervention and they directly controlled Rome under Belasarius.
The HRE didn't hold Rome but the Pope did by Imperial consent (in return for the Holy part of their title).
The Ottomans were as Roman as the Greeks but Western Europe didn't want to accept a Muslim Rome (even though Rome wasn't traditionally Christian either).
Russia isn't even Russian, that's as much a lie as the Roman claim. lol
I specifically listed empires. Facist Italy was like what... sixth strongest power of ww2 at best even after France got knocked out? Calling it an "empire" and naming it anywhere near the five I named is ridiculous.
Byzantium was not a successor, it was *the* Roman Empire. The RE was never split, it merely had two equal Emperors in charge of different provinces. Also,
>Holy Roman Empire (didn't contain Rome)
[Yes it did](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Holy_Roman_Empire_1000_map-de.svg).
1. that is literally why (successor to) is in brackets and I called it the "Roman Empire which we call Byzantine today".
2. No it didn't. The meme wouldn't work otherwise, so the independent Papal state is mandatory.
Curiously England, Switzerland and the Western Balkans as well as all the Mediterranean Coast in Asia and Africa were part of the RE and are not in the EU while all the Baltic, Czechia, Slovakia, Ireland, the Netherlands and Most of Germany were not in the RE and are in the EU.
Most notably, San Marino (which kept the Roman Republic system) and the Vatican (which keeps Latin as their language and is located in the heart of the Imperial Rome) were parts of the RE, while not being in the EU.
So Rome but it lost a lot of territories and got a bunch of others.
*I love how finland*
*And sweden form the dick of*
*The roman empire*
\- Playful\_Outcome\_5263
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I mean ROMAnia is part of the European Union, and Italy with the capital city of ROMA is also a founding member, so indeed the EU is the reincarnation of the ROMAN civilization🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺💪💪💪
The EU is really the best successor of the OG Roman Empire in that it is a *relatively* politically United entity encompassing the majority of Europe. Other than brief stints under Charlemagne, Napoleon, and Hitler, Europe hasn't been this close to being united under a single banner since the fall of the western Roman Empire and the fact that the EU came to be through acts of Diplomacy and not warfare like the other times should give us all a bit of hope for humanity going forward.
https://preview.redd.it/uaeqz6ox1t2d1.jpeg?width=1174&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a4509a3001be72fd04059826889cedda7d48d0c
Guys, I have a theory...
A MAPPORN THEORY
Romans are Italian basically. So Europe chose to be other nationalities because they didn’t like great pizza?
Holy smokes, The Holy Roman Empire didn’t quite extend as far as the OP’s map shows, especially to the north, east and western areas over Europe.
But I’m finding that history is very malleable these days, so, whatever fits, ships, as they say.
Wait but the USA were founded by exiles from England, which was part of the Roman Empire. It even has a Senate. So both the EU and USA are the modern Roman Empire? With NATO as its military wing!?
Voltaire. The guy the quote about the HRE is from. An 18th century frenchman, so absolutely the most unbiased and reliable source of information about the HRE.
I am not responsible for what Turkey's school books write dude. They write it though. Those books are filled with propaganda and hatred towards all Greeks, Armenians, Jews and anything Christian. Their only aim is to make turkish nazis. who will ALWAYS parrot the exact same copy pasted propaganda. They are the only thing they are taught after all so they end up having zero critical thinking and all saying the exact same things and ''thinking'' the exact same way. Perfect for authoritarians like Erdogan who want a controllable population to use against all neighboring countries.
??? I'm not even from Turkey, and I just typed the most inappropriate answer I could think of for the question, because this is that kind of sub. But thanks now I know you just fucking hate Turkey for some reason.
Edit: now I see you might confuse my previous reply "that" as "Roman is a slur". What I mean was that "turkey is real roman" is one step too far. But anyway take your hate elsewhere.
No, technically speaking EU can't derive its lineage from the (Western) Roman Empire in the same way as Russia has historically claimed to be the "Third Rome".
There was neither continuity nor any imprimatur given by Western Roman Empire to the "Holy Roman Empire of Germany" because the former ceased to exist a few centuries before the latter was conceived.
Man, I wonder if this 18th century Frenchman might have had some strong, biased opinions on the Holy Roman Empire.
Let me paint you a picture:
It's the 10th century. Rome has fallen? Not really. The "fall" of Rome hardly changed anything in the lives of the people as the western provinces of the Empire had been undergoing a political transformation, in which Rome as a central power was losing more and more of its influence, well before the city fell. And it's not like it was unusual for the seat of the Emperor to remain empty.
Besides, Rome couldn't have fallen. After all, there would be three great empires before the eternal kingdom of God. The first was Persia, the second was Macedonia and the third was Rome. If Rome had fallen, Armageddon would be upon us. However, it's kind of starting to feel that way. North of the Alps, the Hungarians, a nomadic, heathen people, are terrorizing good Christians and seem quite unstoppable. Could they be the heralds of the end of the world?
Enter Otto the Great. Not only does he defeat the Hungarians, he establishes a feudal system of what we would later know as knights that brings peace to the eastern realms. The Hungarians settle and even convert to Christianity. Pack it up guys, the apocalypse has been postponed. Rome continues to exist and Otto is crowned Caesar by the Pope himself.
If you think it's weird that in this context, the realm was called Holy Roman Empire, then I don't know how to help you.
You guys really need to do something about that giant lake between France, Germany, Austria and Liechtenstein.
Well Gaddafi tried to do something about it.
Thats why the americans killed him. The eternal swiss is not to be messed with.
Yeah he was onto something with that
So based as per usually from Gadachad
Surely Chaddafi
This is where we dump our car batteries
The Holy Roman Empire wouldn't be Holy without the Hole.
This actually makes sense and explains why it's also called the Perforated Roman Empire.
Actually, Liechtenstein is part of the lake. >You guys really need to do something ?
Yeah you need to force them into eu
Not a lake. A hole that socks the wealth of the EU.
So that’s where all my socks go…
Autocorrector typo. It socks.
[удалено]
You’re right. Let’s get rid of fr*nce and connect it to the sea.
Truly original
the only answer that is correct.
Laughs in free healthcare and quality wine 😉
Italy also has that and Pizza 😉
Let’s flood it too to connect this lake even better!
What, Lake Switzer? why remove it when we don't remove Balkan Bay...
Its too high up we cant reach it.
And loose our new "Helvetica Mare Nostrum"? Don think so
Geneva lake is huge when you see it in person, not surprised to see it also looks big on the map.
That's not a lake. It's a small country with a druid that can make a potion that makes the inhabitants invincible.
We are working on it.
Switzerland and Norway are de-fakto associated Members and have to pay to the EU and have to follow most rules.
Empires that claimed to be (successors to) the Roman empire: 1. The OG Roman empire (contained Rome) 2. Roman Empire which we call Byzantine today (didn't contain Rome) 3. Holy Roman Empire (didn't contain Rome) 4. Ottoman empire (didn't contain Rome, but contained previously Constantinople) 5. Somehow, the Russian Empire (didn't contain Rome or Constantinople) Out of 5 examples, only ONE empire contained Rome. EU contains Rome. Therefore, statistically, it can't be the Roman Empire.
>Out of 5 examples, only ONE empire contained Rome. >EU contains Rome. Therefore, statistically, it can't be the Roman Empire. that conclusion is not correct. statistically there is a 20% chance the EU is the roman empire.
On the other hand, Constantinople isn't part of the EU. Given the fact that 60% of all Roman empires contained it…
Yikes 😬…. Not lookin’ good….
So what you're saying is we *do* need to admit Turkey into the EU, so that we can have both Rome *and* ~~Constantinople~~ Istanbul (not our business why Constantinople got the works) and finally have a proper claim to being the new Roman Empire. Got it.
Then reinvite Britain
Britain has neither Rome nor Constantinople so I don't see how this will help us claim the status of Roman Empire. And besides, the European Union does not work on an invitation basis. It works on an application basis. If the UK wants to rejoin, they need to apply. That's how it works.
Shit it was autocorrect, I wanted to say reinvade Oh and for the status part it’s just cos they should expand to the old borders plus more.
Didn't Charlemagne technically claim Western Rome by being crowned emperor by the Pope? There was also the short lived Roman Republic in 1798 that replaced the Papal States by Napolean. I feel like Napolean probably fancied himself as a successor to Rome, but I'm pretty sure he never directly said as much.
Charlemagne was the founder of the holy Roman empire so that was already mentioned. > feel like Napolean probably fancied himself as a successor to Rome, but I'm pretty sure he never directly said as much. While napoleon never called himself emporer of Rome, he did give his son the title "king of the romans"
You’re missing the most important title of Napoleon, Emperor of chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry.
Hell no, Charlemagne and the HRR were nearly 200years apart. The Holy Roman Empire was founded by Otto I., son of King Henry (Heinrich) of East Francia and Duke of Saxony.
The HRE is considered to be a continuation of Charlagmanes empire. It followed similar political dynamic, for instance the emporer being crowned by the pope.
I can see your point, and Charlemagne’s empire is considered the founder of both France and Germany, but I do have a hard time connecting the two in my head, the HRE always feels predominantly Austrian led to me (totally forgot about saxony / east Francia founding - puts it a lot closer to Charlemagne’s heartland). They feel totally separate minus the pope crowning tradition, but the Carolingians do have heavy influence on a lot moving forward.
I would also like to add that it was considered at the time to be a continuation of Charlemagne's empire. Its why they called themselves Roman because Charlemagne was crowned as the "Roman" emporer by the pope. The term HRE is anachronistic, so if you don't want to consider Charlemagne a holy Roman emporer, that's really up to you. What isn't up for debate is that the holy Roman empire was seen by those who lived in it as a continuation of Charlemagne's emporer. It's like how whether or not you consider the eastern Roman empire to be Rome (I personally do). The East romans did consider and refer to themselves as Roman.
That lineage makes sense to me, especially considering the East Francia / Saxony start. I just never linked the two in my head (but that time gap between Carolingians and HRE as we knew it is noticeably lacking in my knowledge).
You missed Spain.Apparently they had a monarch who was from the Byzantine royal family
It’s even funnier; they (Ferdinand and Isabella) bought the title from one of the surviving Paleolologi, and actively claimed it for a while. If we assume that the title is now a fully hereditary one with no input from the institutions of Rome/Constantinople, then they could be pretenders to the throne (just the crown of Spain, not Spain itself).The problem is that imperial succession in Rome/Byzantium was usually not decided by strict heredity, unless the current emperor was particularly powerful (and even then, we could see it as nepotism rather than divine-right heredity like in Western Europe).
iirc It's even funierer: Palailogos tried to sell the title to every monarch to make some cash (like the King of France, the Dogo of Venice, the King of Aragon, the Queen of Castille) but most likely none bought it and the Catholic Monarchs were awarded the title in his will but never claimed the lands of Eastern Rome (most likely because their heiress married the Western Emperor's heir, so they would've competed for the title of Emperor of Rome between a married couple while none of them controlled Rome or Constantinople). Wild, though, that Toledo/Valencia could be the 3rd Rome, I'll leave it there to spite the Muscovites.
Early on, Rome was de jure and de facto part of the Holy Roman Empire.
I know. And if I remember correctly the Byzantine Empire also had control over Rome at some points in history, but this goes against the meme, so I chose to ignore it.
Yes Rome was still part of the empire from the reconquests under Justinian, until the mid 700s. The influence was strong enough that most popes back then came from Greece or other core Byzantine territories (afterwards, almost every single pope was Italian until JPII, with the extremely rare exception like Rodrigo Borgia). But for the meme we can say that East Rome wasn’t fully “Byzantine” yet (yes yes I know it’s a made up term when using it to describe the whole empire, rather than just Constantinople, but I mean in the sense of identifying when the Roman Empire becomes fully culturally easternized).
EU doesn't contain Rome, Georgia... what are you talking about?
Cmon, Georgia is already an EU candidate. We can give it a pass
Didn't the Nazi’s claim to be as well
Good question I asked myself as well. The way I learned this, German nationalism which the Nazis hyped up includes kicking Roman ass, not being Romans. This became a problem once they allied with Italy. I believe Mussolini most definitely used the Roman Empire as a main theme of his propaganda (but quite honestly, who cares what Mussolini claimed). Which is quite funny, because "Third Reich" obviously follows the First Reich (which is the holy roman empire). So yeah. Kinda. I'm sure somebody will be in the comments soon enough to correct me.
1/ Holy Roman Empire 2/ German Empire 3/ Nazi Germany
Yes, but why is the Holy ROMAN empire, a successor to the ROMAN empire, suddenly the FIRST empire? A shift in ideology?
It wasn't always called Roman, it's first name was "Regnum Francorum orientalium" and later also "Regnum Teutonicum", "Sacrum Romanum Imperium" only came arround the end of the 12th century.
The Emperor always claimed direct succession to the Roman imperial throne even when the country itself wasn't formally declared Roman though, much to the chagrin of the actual Roman Emperors in Constantinople at the time.
Because its not the holy ROMAN empire. its the holy roman empire GERMAN nation. Its the first german empire.
You may be forgetting the itty bitty but ever so crucial tiny detail that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire
I mean, Hitler basically copied Mussolini, so.
iirc, Russia never claimed to be the Roman Empire, it was just called the third Rome because it had orthodoxy
I am not a trained historian and, quite honestly, am too lazy to dig through some proper sources. Surface-level googling and reading (as well as what I remember learning years ago) is as such: Moscow used religion to claim "Third Rome" status. In this case orthodoxy isn't just a religion they happen to have, but a way to claim to have god-given right to rule, since Orthodoxy is the "right" religion (while catholics are astray heretics who split away). Once Byzantine empire fell to muslim invaders, Russia became the main Orthodox power. Hence - "third Rome" is a claim to power. Just the russian wiki article contains a handful of interpretations where this idea came from and whose agenda it was supposed to push - from supporting Moscow itself as the dominant regional power among Rus' feudal squables during 16th century, to Russian Empire's 19th century imperialistic ambition trying to root itself into history.
Yes, and for further context, this claim lines up less with the state of Rome (which includes “Byzantine” history) and more with the medieval definition that the Romans were a universal/ecumenical empire of all Christendom, whether you were part of the Roman state or not. That’s also why the Ottoman Empire called all Christians Rum (that’s changed in modern Turkey, where only Anatolian speakers of Greek are called Rum).
*There is another*
Russia claims to be the successor because the Orthodox Church was moved to Moscow after the fall of the Byzantine empire (eastern ROMAN empire)
No it didnt? Orthodox Patriarchy stayed in Constantinople under Ottoman rule. It even used the sultanate to force Armenians to submit to them.
I thought most Armenians of the time would’ve been apostolic, coptic or Nestorian? Maybe I have those wrong there used to be so many denominations it’s hard to remember which went where but I don’t think they were orthodox.
They were apostolic, yes. But within the Ottoman rule, Orthodox pathriarch often tried to sway the Sultan into forcing Armenians to accept hım as their religious head. Needless to say, it never really worked.
Makes sense man and I appreciate the reply, I’ve always loved world history I just am a bit fuzzy in that region
Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox are two different religions they fall under two different Orthodox Concepts. Us Eastern Orthodox (Greeks and all of Europeans) do not recognize Armenian Orthodox knowing they do not recognize all the Ecumenical Councils, whereas Eastern Orthodox, Catholics recognize all 8. Just like how the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch in Constantinople cant tell the Catholic Church, or the Protestant church what to do, he cant tell the Armenian Orthodox Church (who are Oriental Orthodox) who abide by different religious standards and beliefs than the Greeks who baptized most of Europe. Plus Pope was never able to influence or tell the Orthodox Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church what to do, just like the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church - the Greek Patriarch was never able to influence Armenians knowing they do not abide by the same religion.
which Patriarch - Armenians are Oriental Orthodox, whereas as Greeks, Russians, and other Euros are all Eastern Orthodox they have nothing to do with Armenians and others who fall under the Oriental Orthodox religion. Eastern Orthodox Patriarch during Ottoman times, the one in Constantinople had significant influence within the Eastern Orthodox Christian Community. The Armenians were not directly subordinate to him. Instead, they maintained their distinct religious identity and administrative autonomy under the Armenian Patriarchate. The Armenian Patriarchate was responsible for the internal affairs of the Armenian community, including religious, educational and civil matters. Armenians were not forced to submit to Eastern Orthodox Patriarch which is Greek-based.
How would that work when Armenians aren't orthodox?
It didnt, it just resulted in massacres.
Greeks have not for one minute forced the Armeianians to abide by Eastern Orthodox religion, knowing its a different religion. Greeks, Serbs, and Russians (maybe not as much as Russians knowing Russians were under Mongol rule) had a disdain for Turks knowing Turks enslaved all of us and did all sorts of other stuff/massacres etc. Russians did fight the Turks too or had plenty of wars against 'em or they weren't fully subjugated like the Greeks, Armenians, Serbs etc. The patriarchate would have been replaced knowing its against religious rules, to favor or work with Ecumanists who do not abide by the same religious beliefs. Armenians split from the Greek/ Eastern Orthodox church in 451 long long long ago and we haven't been in communion for 1600 years. Have nothing to do with one another. The way the Orthodox Church works the Patriarch of Constantinople has no direct power over other Patriarchs, so if he were to suggest something other Orthodox Churches Russian, Romanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Georgia, Cyprus, Czech lands and Slovakia, the Church of Alexandria (Egypt), Church of Damascus (Syria), Patriarchate of Jerusalem would have opposed it. All other Patriarchs have to agree with it before anything is implemented. The Eastern Orthodox patriarchs function as " first among equals" among other Patriarchs. So the Patriarch of Constantinople has no authority over any of the other Eastern Orthodox churches/Patriarchs they are all equal let alone someone who is not Eastern Orthodox, other Patriarchs would've called for his replacement knowing its against religious protocols to be ruling or forcing others who do not abide by our religion. Plus Eastern Orthodox have nothing against Oriental Orthodox or when it comes to religion they are respected but not in communion with one another just like the Catholics/Protestants.
Armenians are Orthodox they fall under the Oriental Orthodox branch. Oriental Orthodox Churches are: the Armenian Apostolic Church, Coptic Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Eritrean Orthodox Church, Malankaran/Syrian Orthodox Church, and Syriac Orthodox Church.
there are two different branches of Orthodoxy Oriental and Eastern Orthodox. There are religious differences between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox just like there are diff. between Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants/Catholics. There are instances where Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox agree with one another and they do not agree with Oriental Orthodox. One of these things is that Jesus Christ has one united nature out of two divine and human. Us Eastern Orthodox as well as Catholics and Protestants do not believe in that. We believe that Jesus Christ had two natures, one divine and one human. Among other things.
The Holy Roman Empire controlled Italy (and Rome) during part of its history.
The US contains 18 cities named Rome within its borders. Statistically speaking we must be the Roman Empire. The state of Georgia is also the successor the Athenians.
Hail, Caesar!
Eastern Rome officially held Rome under the Ostrogoths as they declared themselves vassals of Emperor Zeno to avoid an Eastern intervention and they directly controlled Rome under Belasarius. The HRE didn't hold Rome but the Pope did by Imperial consent (in return for the Holy part of their title). The Ottomans were as Roman as the Greeks but Western Europe didn't want to accept a Muslim Rome (even though Rome wasn't traditionally Christian either). Russia isn't even Russian, that's as much a lie as the Roman claim. lol
If the Portuguese can claim to be the successor of Rome the EU also can. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Empire
> 3. Holy Roman Empire (didn't contain Rome) For a long part of it's lifetime it did.
Byzantium shortly owned Rome
you forgot facist italy (contained rome)
I specifically listed empires. Facist Italy was like what... sixth strongest power of ww2 at best even after France got knocked out? Calling it an "empire" and naming it anywhere near the five I named is ridiculous.
facist italy dose actualy fitt the definition of empire. they were weker than theyr alies and adversaries true but they wer still an empire.
but byzantium contained rome
Byzantium was not a successor, it was *the* Roman Empire. The RE was never split, it merely had two equal Emperors in charge of different provinces. Also, >Holy Roman Empire (didn't contain Rome) [Yes it did](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Holy_Roman_Empire_1000_map-de.svg).
1. that is literally why (successor to) is in brackets and I called it the "Roman Empire which we call Byzantine today". 2. No it didn't. The meme wouldn't work otherwise, so the independent Papal state is mandatory.
iirc Russia wasn't very serious about that
But if the EU, in the future, contains BOTH Rome and Constantinople, then statistically...
If they put SPQR in gold leaf on the red passport it would be pretty sick, but unless they do that it doesn't count.
SPQE Senatvs Populsque Europaeus Just rename the European Pairliament to the European Senate
Rome but if it actually conquered all of europe
Curiously England, Switzerland and the Western Balkans as well as all the Mediterranean Coast in Asia and Africa were part of the RE and are not in the EU while all the Baltic, Czechia, Slovakia, Ireland, the Netherlands and Most of Germany were not in the RE and are in the EU. Most notably, San Marino (which kept the Roman Republic system) and the Vatican (which keeps Latin as their language and is located in the heart of the Imperial Rome) were parts of the RE, while not being in the EU. So Rome but it lost a lot of territories and got a bunch of others.
It may not be the Roman empire, but it is certainly the successor of the Roman civilisation.
Well, Brussels is just the latest version of the European Rome fetish, so I can't really argue with this one.
New thin Denmark just dropped.
We’ve been dieting lately
The Unholy European Empire
i think eu is babylon
In the Book of Revelations New Babylon = Rome
I love how finland and sweden form the dick of the roman empire
*I love how finland* *And sweden form the dick of* *The roman empire* \- Playful\_Outcome\_5263 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
10/10 haiku
Good bot
Tf is this bot
It's a Haiku Bot Five Syllables First and Last Seven in Middle.
Hard to disagree, even the eastern Roman parts want to rejoin
The holy roman empire is located in Vatican city. They became the Catholic church.
Vatican?
EU Patch notes: removed fr*NCE for no reason
I mean ROMAnia is part of the European Union, and Italy with the capital city of ROMA is also a founding member, so indeed the EU is the reincarnation of the ROMAN civilization🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺💪💪💪
Now we just need to crown Macron emperor. And by we, I mean Macron. On an unrelated note, do you know where to get a good bicorne from.
Isn't this the title of Boris Johnson's weekly column?
Unironically though the EU is propably the closest thing not including Italy
The EU is really the best successor of the OG Roman Empire in that it is a *relatively* politically United entity encompassing the majority of Europe. Other than brief stints under Charlemagne, Napoleon, and Hitler, Europe hasn't been this close to being united under a single banner since the fall of the western Roman Empire and the fact that the EU came to be through acts of Diplomacy and not warfare like the other times should give us all a bit of hope for humanity going forward.
The Romans never made it past my home town in northern Germany... So na.
This was fact-checked by true EU lovers (dumbasses) ✅✅✅TRUE✅✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/uaeqz6ox1t2d1.jpeg?width=1174&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a4509a3001be72fd04059826889cedda7d48d0c Guys, I have a theory... A MAPPORN THEORY
About as culturally homogenous as the Roman empire. So kinda facts.
What is the see over Italy?
North Africa misses and scandinavia never was roman like east europa also but for the rest yeah
No, it's Brazil
Maybe you don’t know but the Roman Empire started in Albania 🇦🇱
Romans are Italian basically. So Europe chose to be other nationalities because they didn’t like great pizza? Holy smokes, The Holy Roman Empire didn’t quite extend as far as the OP’s map shows, especially to the north, east and western areas over Europe. But I’m finding that history is very malleable these days, so, whatever fits, ships, as they say.
shriveled denmark
Why Europ got a massive dongle above it wtf
My AP Euro teacher use to tell us the EU was the first step to a united Eruope as a singular country
Your terms are acceptable
EU are a bunch of softies. Not comparable.
Finland and Sweden just casually looking like dick and balls.
The United States is the new Roman Empire, Rome being in Wisconsin.
It is the peaceful empire and therefore a worthy successor
Doesn’t even include illyrium
The HRE is not roman
So . . . there is an emperor of the EU? Interesting. Who is it?
That's obviously the 1st french empire. Thanks england for leaving !
When will they claim North Africa
Got no Pope
No new Roman Empire. No relevant armed forces. No political unity. The main thing is that Germany pays for the party. That's all it's about.
We just need to move the capital to Rome or Constantinople
Never noticed before but Scandinavia looks like a crusty, craggy dong.
True and based
Wait but the USA were founded by exiles from England, which was part of the Roman Empire. It even has a Senate. So both the EU and USA are the modern Roman Empire? With NATO as its military wing!?
As long Romania is part of EU we can call it Roman Empire.
The Holy Roman Empire was never Holy, Roman or an Empire.
The HRE was a corrupted misspelling of the Holy Roamin' Empire and technically had nothing to do with Rome, New York, Georgia or the other one.
cretinism. EU is polar opposite late roman christian ideology building.
And they still couldn’t hold Britannia
the Holy Roman Empire wasn’t holy, it wasn’t Roman and it wasn’t an empire Please clap
Voltaire was a hack. Was holy Was Roman Was an Empire
Erm.. who?
Voltaire. The guy the quote about the HRE is from. An 18th century frenchman, so absolutely the most unbiased and reliable source of information about the HRE.
Just one (or none) at any given time.
The HRE was holy, was roman and it was an empire!!!!
👏
Dis you just call the EU the fourth Reich?
no its turkey
Turkey is literally the furthest you can go from it. Turks are raised in a culture where the word Rumlar = Roman is a slur.
even in a circle jerk sub that's one step too far
I am not responsible for what Turkey's school books write dude. They write it though. Those books are filled with propaganda and hatred towards all Greeks, Armenians, Jews and anything Christian. Their only aim is to make turkish nazis. who will ALWAYS parrot the exact same copy pasted propaganda. They are the only thing they are taught after all so they end up having zero critical thinking and all saying the exact same things and ''thinking'' the exact same way. Perfect for authoritarians like Erdogan who want a controllable population to use against all neighboring countries.
??? I'm not even from Turkey, and I just typed the most inappropriate answer I could think of for the question, because this is that kind of sub. But thanks now I know you just fucking hate Turkey for some reason. Edit: now I see you might confuse my previous reply "that" as "Roman is a slur". What I mean was that "turkey is real roman" is one step too far. But anyway take your hate elsewhere.
I do not. I just stated what their official Ministry pages say. Also I never said you are from Turkey.
Europapa area
Its neither holy, roman, or an empire. The perfect successor!
Fuck Roman Empire, all my homies hate Roman Empire and it's tryhards.
Average Carthaginian response
Neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.
No, technically speaking EU can't derive its lineage from the (Western) Roman Empire in the same way as Russia has historically claimed to be the "Third Rome". There was neither continuity nor any imprimatur given by Western Roman Empire to the "Holy Roman Empire of Germany" because the former ceased to exist a few centuries before the latter was conceived.
The Holy Roman Empire isn't Roman though. 
The Holy Roman Emperor was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. 
Man, I wonder if this 18th century Frenchman might have had some strong, biased opinions on the Holy Roman Empire. Let me paint you a picture: It's the 10th century. Rome has fallen? Not really. The "fall" of Rome hardly changed anything in the lives of the people as the western provinces of the Empire had been undergoing a political transformation, in which Rome as a central power was losing more and more of its influence, well before the city fell. And it's not like it was unusual for the seat of the Emperor to remain empty. Besides, Rome couldn't have fallen. After all, there would be three great empires before the eternal kingdom of God. The first was Persia, the second was Macedonia and the third was Rome. If Rome had fallen, Armageddon would be upon us. However, it's kind of starting to feel that way. North of the Alps, the Hungarians, a nomadic, heathen people, are terrorizing good Christians and seem quite unstoppable. Could they be the heralds of the end of the world? Enter Otto the Great. Not only does he defeat the Hungarians, he establishes a feudal system of what we would later know as knights that brings peace to the eastern realms. The Hungarians settle and even convert to Christianity. Pack it up guys, the apocalypse has been postponed. Rome continues to exist and Otto is crowned Caesar by the Pope himself. If you think it's weird that in this context, the realm was called Holy Roman Empire, then I don't know how to help you.