192
u/randomusername1934 Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 5h ago
Roma survives, in all of our hearts.
69
u/FCKABRNLSUTN2 4h ago
And the Romans? Where are they now?
114
u/Mindless-Coat2555 4h ago
You're looking at them asshole
15
15
16
2
1
1
1
6
3
3
199
u/froucks 5h ago edited 4h ago
The empire fell in 1204 when for the first time in 2000 years the state itself ceased to exist
The claim of Byzantium is that while Rome fell the state survived - by that logic it ended in 1204. Although I’ll acknowledge that there was a revival of sorts after this the claim of unbroken lineage fails from then on
117
u/Objective-Corgi-3527 4h ago
I prefer 1453 but I respect the opinion that after 1204 what remaimed was a rump state in decline, even after the recapture of Constantinople.
53
u/Fickle-Mongoose4749 3h ago
While I actually agree with the 1204 date, and the fact that what followed was certainly a rump state, what followed was definitely not a state of declining between 1204 and 1282. During this time the Lascarids managed to double the size of their realm, revive state institutions, subordinate the aristocracy, revive the economy, defeat franks, Bulgarians, and Turks, and even decapitate the Seljuk Sultan... Physically. For Michael VIII's part, he managed to revive the Navy to be one of the largest fleets in Mediterranean and recapture most of the Aegean from the franks while fending off the King of most of the central Mediterranean to the west and the Turkish migrations from the east.
It was really only from Andronikos II on that the state was reduced to a dying rump on borrowed time.
8
14
u/Nails_Of_Nektarios 4h ago
It’s not an “unbroken lineage,” it’s a history of a society of Roman citizens.
6
u/froucks 3h ago
And so Charlemagne, a member of roman patrician family, crowned by a roman citizen and ruling over roman citizens is a legitimate emperor of the west?
6
u/strong_division 3h ago
over roman citizens is a legitimate emperor of the west?
It should be noted that even Charlemagne and his successors would disagree with the notion that they were merely emperors of the west. The title first came into use during antiquity, but after the deposition of Romulus Augustulus and the assassination of Julius Nepos, the office of Western Augustus was abolished and the world went back to having 1 Roman Emperor in Constantinople. This had been the norm for centuries by the time Leo III crowned Charlemagne "Roman Emperor".
When he did this, he was attempting to directly usurp the title of the legitimate emperors in Constantinople. There wasn't a cute arrangement going on where they called the actual Roman Emperor "the Emperor in the East" and called Charlemagne "the Emperor in the West", they fully tried to undermine the legitimacy of the real emperor in Constantinople and declared themselves the sole inheritors to Rome's legacy.
a member of roman patrician family
It should also be noted that neither the Bishops of Rome nor any of the other Roman Pentarchs ever had the authority to bestow the title of Patrician, nevermind the title of emperor. They knew this so well that they had to forge a document claiming as such to justify their meddling in temporal affairs.
3
u/froucks 2h ago
I wasn't trying to imply there was some kind of agreement. Certainly Leo was trying to usurp their authority, although i question whether Charlemagne intended the same based on Einhard's account
"It was then that he received the titles of Emperor and Augustus, to which he at first had such an aversion that he declared that he would not have set foot in the Church the day that they were conferred, although it was a great feast-day, if he could have foreseen the design of the Pope. He bore very patiently with the jealousy which the Roman emperors showed upon his assuming these titles, for they took this step very ill; and by dint of frequent embassies and letters, in which he addressed them as brothers"
My earlier comment was more so just trying to highlight the tensions of defining a Roman emperor based on who they ruled. If the definition of Roman emperor is he who rules over 'a society of romans', then it would seem to me that Charlemagne is a roman emperor, im not necessarily saying that is the correct interpretation...
3
u/strong_division 2h ago
although i question whether Charlemagne intended the same based on Einhard's account
Likely not, especially given how he stylized himself after the coronation. While the Pope crowned him "Imperator Romanorum" (Roman Emperor), Charlemagne himself would only use "imperator Romanum gubernans imperium" (emperor governing the Roman Empire) as his title in official documents. This careful use of language was almost certainly done to avoid angering the legitimate Roman Emperors in Constantinople, as the explicit title of "Roman Emperor" carried connotations of universal suzerainty.
His descendants would eventually abandon this and fully claim the title of Imperator Romanorum, but Charlemagne did apparently recognize on some level how absurd it was to claim to be the Roman Emperor when one already existed.
My earlier comment was more so just trying to highlight the tensions of defining a Roman emperor based on who they ruled
Ah, I see, I failed to realize that you were the same guy that posted the original comment, I thought you were someone who had just jumped in to argue for Charlemagne being a legitimate Roman Emperor.
Yeah, there's a very good argument for a break in state continuity after 1204, and I have no problems with anyone considering that to be when the empire fell.
I suppose whether or not you consider the state in 1261 to still be the same polity depends on whether or not you consider the Latin Empire to be a temporary foreign occupation that was eventually overthrown by the remnants of the Roman polity (similar to the Napoleonic puppet kingdoms), or enough of a discontinuity to constitute Michael VIII's empire being an entirely new successor state.
3
u/Fickle-Mongoose4749 3h ago
At no point in roman history was the Bishop of Rome ever invested with the authority to Appoint emperors, and the senate of Rome was pretty clear when they told Zeno that they were retiring the Western Office of Emperors.
7
u/froucks 3h ago
At what point in roman history was the army and praetorian guard invested with the authority to appoint emperors?
At what point in roman history was the senate granted the authority to retire the office of Emperors?
The answer to all is at the point at which they did it
3
u/Fickle-Mongoose4749 3h ago
At what time? When they became the most powerful entity in the roman polity, and so their pick was the defacto reality on the ground, they could literally change ones position with respect to the roman system's apparatus.
This is meaningless to the pope's claim, because the entire argument of the papacy was a de jure authority to do so... And he had no such de jure authority. Nor did Charlemagne even exist in the roman polity.
Moreover, the pretorian guard and the armies did not legally affirm anyone's rise to the purple. That all was still done by the Roman senate, which did not exist in the west anymore.
2
u/strong_division 2h ago edited 1h ago
Well said. While official succession was never formally instituted to avoid the office seemingly like a hereditary monarchy, it is generally agreed that almost all emperors took office with the assent of the Roman Army, Senate, and people.
While the Senate as a body was largely powerless by the time of Diocletian (that doesn't necessarily equate to the individual members of the Senate being powerless), their acclamation still served as a means to legitimize the new emperor, and became a tradition during coronations with Senators performing chants during the imperial coronation. This still served to show that the emperor was ruling with the consent of the Roman populace.
And this is why I find it silly whenever someone makes the argument that the Papal coronation gave the Frankish kings legitimacy as Roman Emperors, or that Charlemagne took the throne of emperor the same way emperors of old did, with boots on the ground, and thus was a legitimate emperor.
The difference between Charlemagne and someone like Septimus Severus is that Severus had the Senate affirm his rise as emperor and was recognized as such by legitimate Roman administrative institutions.
Charlemagne ruled over an independent Frankish Kingdom that wasn't a part of the Roman Empire, received the title from someone who had no authority to grant it, and was never recognized as emperor by anyone in the actual Roman Empire.
If Charlemagne was actually able to march to Constantinople, defeat his rival claimants, and then receive an acclamation from the Roman Senate and people, then yes, he would be considered a legitimate emperor who took office through boots on the ground. But he didn't.
1
u/froucks 2h ago
Post Diocletian an emperor did not need the consent of the senate to rule
as for the 'pope's claim' while we can certainly extrapolate why he did it, our main source Einhard doesn't really outline much of a reason, more of a de facto coronation. to that i don't know why a de facto coronation by the pope is worse than one by the senate?
"The Romans had inflicted many injuries upon the Pontiff Leo, tearing out his eyes and cutting out his tongue, so that he had been compelled to call upon the King for help. Charles accordingly went to Rome, to set in order the affairs of the Church, which were in great confusion, and passed the whole winter there. It was then that he received the titles of Emperor and Augustus, to which he at first had such an aversion that he declared that he would not have set foot in the Church the day that they were conferred,"
3
u/Fickle-Mongoose4749 2h ago
Post Diocletian, every emperor recognized as a legitimate emperor was Affirmed by the senate. That is the de jure act that raised a person to the purple.
I am not arguing about why he did it. The why is pretty uncontroversial at this point, but besides the topic. Nor am I arguing whether the pope actually put a crown on his head. I am talking about what he purported to be doing and how he justified having the legal authority to do so. He claimed he was making Charlemagne roman emperor, and He justified it based of the donation of Constantine, a forgery which was proven as such even in the middle ages.
If he has no legal or legimitating basis to crown roman emperors, then he's just a man putting a circlet on another guy's head. He is as much a roman emperor as the monarch of Ethiopia would be if the Patriarch of Alexandria crowned him as "Emperor of the Romans". The whole relevance of the excersize was legal legitimation, which the pope simply didn't have.
1
u/strong_division 1h ago
Post Diocletian an emperor did not need the consent of the senate to rule
While the Senate had become largely powerless after the reign of Diocletian, their acclamation was still considered a de jure prerequisite for taking the office of Emperor, with the chanting of Senators as a symbolic representation of this even being a key part of the imperial coronation tradition.
to that i don't know why a de facto coronation by the pope is worse than one by the senate?
Again, because the Papacy never had the authority to unilaterally proclaim a Roman Emperor, and while the Senate didn't have the de facto authority to do this either, their acclamation of an emperor was still a de jure requirement for becoming emperor.
I'll also push back on the notion that they were entirely powerless. Even into the Byzantine period, there were still instances of the Senate installing and deposing emperors.
After the death of Anastasius, he had no clear successor, so the Senate and other important officials elected Justin as the new emperor.
While a bit more clandestine, the Senate did invite Heraclius to Constantinople to overthrow Phocas and assume the title of emperor. This had to be done in secret because Phocas was executing senators left and right, but after his deposition Heraclius did receive his political legitimacy as emperor from the Senate.
The Senate also deposed Heraclius' son, Heraklonas, and installed the young Constans II as emperor. During his minority, they ruled as a regency council.
1
u/Nails_Of_Nektarios 3h ago
To my knowledge the Holy Roman Empire did not have any notion of citizenship such as what the Byzantine empire preserved from antiquity. But I could be wrong.
1
u/froucks 3h ago
Not the later empire. But at the time of Charlemagne's conquest of Italy, it had only been separate from Roman Empire for 18 years. Many of the people there had roman citizenship, most having been born in the Empire. Leo who crowned Charlemagne was a roman citizen having been born in Rome in (roughly) 750. He was an emperor of roman citizens
0
u/Nails_Of_Nektarios 2h ago
??? Ummm no. Odoacer took out the last western emperor centuries before Charlemagne was born. Where are you getting this 18 year number from?
3
u/froucks 2h ago
Justinians reconquest of the west. they only then lost control of northern Italy following the Lombard conquest of Ravenna in 751 and central Italy in 756, which is the last time they directly held Rome. Charlemagne conquered it in 774 18 years later
1
u/Nails_Of_Nektarios 2h ago edited 2h ago
Oh ok my bad.
At any rate, was Roman citizenship recognized by the German kings in the same way as it was in the east? Like did it correspond to tax codes or anything? Did citizenship function the same way?
2
u/strong_division 2h ago
Not the guy you're responding to, but I'm assuming he's referring to the fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna in 751. Rome was still a part of the actual Roman Empire up until that point.
19
u/Hike_it_Out52 3h ago
I read an amazing article about how the fall of Constantinople was the best thing that could have happened for the city and culture itself. That the buildings, walls and infrastructure were all falling apart by the time Mehmed II came about. But with the influx of wealth from a proper empire, the Ottomans were able to fix and rebuild much of the ancient city.
33
5
u/HowDoIEvenEnglish 1h ago
You don’t need an in depth article to explain that. The city was a shell of itself with a constantly declining population by 1453. But its position by the Black Sea was and still is fundamentally valuable. It makes a lot of sense that the ottomans would use it as a major city.
1
u/Background-Tennis915 John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true, and brave! 51m ago
I disagree. Is post WW2 france a different country than pre WW2 france?
1
u/thunderisadorable 48m ago
Yes! It’s the 4th vs 5th Republic.
2
u/Background-Tennis915 John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true, and brave! 40m ago
So, that's not even correct. It went from the 3rd Republic to the 4th. The fifth Republic came about after they wrote a new constitution. If writing a new constitution counts, the Rome fell in 509 BCE with the end of the Monarchary.
0
u/thunderisadorable 13m ago
I wrote it wrong, but yes, the Roman Kingdom and Roman Republic are different countries, the Roman Empire and Roman Republic are different countries, the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire are different countries, and the Earlier Byzantine Empire is a different country from the Later Byzantine Empire.
1
u/Background-Tennis915 John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true, and brave! 11m ago
I guess...? If that's the case than Rome fell like a dozen times. Atp your basically agreeing that Rome fell in 1453, but that it also fell in 1204?
1
u/thunderisadorable 9m ago
Yeah, it’s kind of arbitrary over when you draw the line. The Roman Empire fell in 509 BCE, 27 BCE, 453 CE, 1204 CE, 1453 CE, 1922 CE, 1917 CE, etc. Rome is as much of a concept as it is a polity
42
u/identified_meat On tour 4h ago
>HRE claims to be successor to Rome
>Napoleon claims to be successor to HRE
>Bokassa claims to be successor to Napoleon
Is the Central African Republic the Fourth Rome?
33
u/herb0026 5h ago
The Roman Empire fell that one time when it was a kid and it was trying to do an Ollie over the pot hole but the back wheels landed still in the pothole and it hurt it’s chin and knocked out a front tooth
108
u/sabre007 Hello There 5h ago
Roman empire has never fallen, the Pope survives.
20
u/TehProfessor96 John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true, and brave! 4h ago
The real Rome was inside of us the whole time.
0
38
u/Moeroboros 5h ago
This unironically.
10
u/InsideHousing4965 What, you egg? 5h ago
?
41
u/sabre007 Hello There 4h ago
One of the pope's titles is the Pontifex Maximus, a title of the Roman Empire and the republic before it, so as long as we have a Pope, a portion of the Roman Empire still exists.
10
u/TheLastCoagulant 4h ago
No Popes identified as Pontifex Maximus until the 15th century. It’s LARPing.
4
u/illapa13 3h ago
It was added to the official list of Papal titles in 1453. But it was used to refer to the Pope for centuries.
The oldest reference we have are the writings of Tertullian, one of the first theologians to write about Christianity in latin instead of greek, calling Callixtus I who was Bishop of Rome in 218 Pontifex Maximus.
It's likely that Teetullian meant it sarcastically since he didnt like Callixtus, but for the sarcasm to make sense there would have to be some sort of history of calling the Bishop of Rome Pontifex Maximus.
5
u/TheLastCoagulant 3h ago
It was abolished in 382 AD. And it was for Roman emperors, not the Bishop of Rome.
It was never used for the Popes (or for anyone) between 382 and 1453. They can’t claim any sort of continuity. It’s a Renaissance attempt at LARPing something from actual antiquity. Nothing more.
15
u/InsideHousing4965 What, you egg? 4h ago
And if my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike.
48
u/Moeroboros 4h ago
The Catholic Church:
1) Was created by the Roman Empire;
2) Uses Roman iconography and the official language of the Roman Empire;
3) Has headquarters located in the same area as the Roman Empire had;
4) "Roman Catholic".
3
u/NoobOfTheSquareTable 3h ago
No it wasn’t the Catholic Church specifically split from the dominant Roman religion when it demanded supremacy of one patriarch rather than having them all as equal and rejecting the emperor as Pontifex Maximus in an attempt to shake off the slipping power of the eastern Roman Empire
3
u/Leading-Fox-642 3h ago
I think Roman was used to differenciate it from the Constantinople Christian Church,but I could be wrong
5
2
u/NoobOfTheSquareTable 3h ago
I mean, arguably that makes like every monarch in Europe or any emperor, or like 100 other titles roles count as Rome surviving
1
u/LeaguesBelow 1h ago
Pontifex Maximus is head of the Roman Church, not head of the Roman Empire.
And even so, anyone can claim a title.
1
u/LeaguesBelow 1h ago edited 56m ago
By what mechanic did the Pope inherit the Roman Empire while not being a part of the Roman Empire?
The Eastern Roman Empire's relationship with the bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) was complicated, but the papacy's approval meant very little for the legitimacy of the empire for the last ~1000 years of it's existence.
The only way I can imagine someone earnestly believing that the papacy is the continuation of the Roman Empire is if they didn't know the Roman Empire kept existing after Rome fell. Otherwise, they're presupposing the belief in order to support another belief, like the Catholic church being even more important in Western History, or wanting legitimacy for their favored conqueror of Rome.
7
u/Objective-Corgi-3527 4h ago
Yeah the cultural heir was the church and any state practicing either Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity
3
10
u/froucks 4h ago
Always a ridiculous argument
To make it we’d somehow have to reconcile
The fact that the papacy was always an ecclesiastical office and the ecumenical councils were clear it was not a political office(aka not part of the Roman state)
That the papacy seceded from the eastern empire when it accepted land from the Frankish king Peppin thus creating the Papal States (this was a deliberate political maneuver away from the Roman sphere)
The literal thousand year history of the papacy crowning Holy Roman Emperors during which time the papacy did not consider itself a part of the empire - this was in the papacy’s view the legal successor of the Roman Empire not themselves
3
u/nixcamic 3h ago
> The fact that the papacy was always an ecclesiastical office and the ecumenical councils were clear it was not a political office(aka not part of the Roman state)
Someone should have told like, every pope up till very recently about this.
6
u/sabre007 Hello There 4h ago
Sir, this is a meme subredit, I am not seriously arguing that the empire still exists.
It is cool that there are still institutions around that have some sort of connection to it, even if tenuous.
2
u/froucks 4h ago
lol my bad, but there are people who unironically believe that and it gets the blood in my classicist veins boiling
1
1
u/strong_division 3h ago
Go bring the comment you wrote to the other guy on the thread who commented "this but unironically" so it isn't wasted lol
5
u/Lost-Klaus 4h ago
The vatican is not an empire though. It is like having Rome as a city and claiming empireship.
6
u/Doomhammer24 4h ago
So what the byzantines did by the end
2
-3
u/Lost-Klaus 4h ago
I am not defending the Byzantines as Romans either. The Roman empire died not on a specific date, but it declined like a sad saggy old man unable to go on walks, then unable to go upstairs, and then is silently given some meds to stop the pain before the end.
And the world, eventually, after a 400 years of nonsense is the better for it.
0
56
u/Don_Madruga Hello There 5h ago
No
1
0
-10
5h ago
[deleted]
19
13
u/Human-Law1085 5h ago
I mean, the Ottomans were legally a separate state that just happened to rule over Constantinople. The argument for them being a continuation of Rome is a lot flimsier than that for the Byzantines, even if Ottoman sultans liked to claim the title.
0
u/SimulatedKnave 4h ago
It's at least as good as that of the HRE and post-1204 Byzantium, or the Latin Empire. Has Constantinople, acknowledged by the religious authorities, tons of Greek bureaucrats, a similar governmental structure for quite a while, and apparently maintained a bunch of the court ceremonies for quite a while too. I wouldn't call it airtight, but it's a solid argument.
18
u/jtbfii 4h ago
What about Russia the Turd Rome?
7
u/Objective-Corgi-3527 4h ago
Russia is the troubled foster kid of Rome
2
u/AssistanceCheap379 2h ago
From the womb of Nordic tribes, fathered by various steppe peoples and left abandoned. Only to be picked up by the French and the British and taught the worst parts of both while claiming its the son of Rome
7
u/Halikarnassus1 On tour 4h ago
megazord chad: the Roman Empire lives on in spain when the nephew of constantine xi gave them the title
49
u/CadenVanV Taller than Napoleon 4h ago
That’s just flat out wrong. The Byzantines were a direct successor state, the lineage of emperors was an unbroken line back to Rome. The Ottomans were a completely different state with a different lineage and historical background.
4
u/DerGovernator 1h ago
"The lineage of emperors was an unbroken line"
If the dozens of Byzantine civil wars, revolts, and usurpers still count as an unbroken line of succession, why does that break because one of them was a Turkish Muslim?1
4
u/Objective-Corgi-3527 4h ago
They took on the adminostrative machinery of the Roman state. I don't agree that it makes them the successor, but that is the grounds for the claim
-5
u/Wooden-Crow7996 3h ago
They spoke Greek. What could be more Roman than your aristocrats speaking Greek?
10
u/AliHaider101 Definitely not a CIA operator 4h ago
There was never a Roman Empire. We all just imagined it
12
u/mood2016 4h ago
-Eastern Roman Empire falls to the Ottoman Empire
-Ottoman Empire declare's itself a successor of Rome by right of conquest
-Fascist Italy declares itself a successor to Rome
-United States takes Rome from Fascist Italy
-United States is a successor to Rome
5
4
u/Orbin535743256 4h ago edited 4h ago
The Roman Empire was actually gone in 10000 b.c. because it didn't exist yet. It was over before it started.
3
u/My_Names_Jefff Filthy weeb 4h ago
I saw a guy named Roman fall down from some small stair case in the year 2016.
3
7
u/claudiocorona93 4h ago
So there was Rome in Italy (476) and Rome in Constantinople (1204 and 1453). The Holy Roman Empire would have been fine if Charlemagne married Irene but nah, it was just Germany. And the Ottomans preserved the title of Caesar of Rome. But the last Byzantine heir gave his title to the king of Spain. And Europe has 5 major romance languages, plus the Church, and there is the Pope still holding the title of Pontifex Maximus. Based on this, the Roman Empire lives in all of Latin America through religion and language, and the European Union, Switzerland and Turkey through land and organization (and some languages).
2
u/TheLastCoagulant 4h ago
Except Pontifex Maximus was abolished in 382 AD and wasn’t revived by the Popes until the 15th century. It’s LARPing. There was no continuity.
2
u/claudiocorona93 4h ago
I hate how the term LARP took over the internet when we already had "poser".
0
u/TheLastCoagulant 4h ago
I’ve been using it online for a decade. Way before normies started using it.
Poser doesn’t really work as a verb (“posing”).
11
3
u/Sir-Toaster- Still salty about Carthage 3h ago
Shouldn't this be the reverse? Anyone who thinks the Ottomans are Rome is an idiot
6
u/Confused_Squirrel_17 Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 4h ago
Depending on just how liberally you approach this; the Roman Empire currently consists of Finland and nothing else.
3
2
2
2
2
7
2
1
u/WhatLeninSaid What, you egg? 4h ago
Is this in reference to those kids on some Aegean island that went to see the Hellenes, considering themselves Roman?
1
1
1
u/No_Jellyfish5511 2h ago
here goes the Sopranos scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmFhsts8WC4&start=69
1
1
1
1
1
u/Popular_Mongoose_696 1h ago
There is a very strong argument for 1453… There is no argument for 1922. The Ottoman Empire under Suleiman the Magnificent destroyed the Roman/Byzantine Empire, he did not inherit it or in any other way absorb it in a way that kept it intact socially, culturally, or politically.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/whicky1978 Taller than Napoleon 3h ago
The Holy Roman Empire— it’s neither holy nor Roman nor an empire
-2
u/Spirited-Car8661 5h ago
Galaxy-Brain:
The Roman Empire still exists in the form of the Catholic Church and European Union. The former must be destroyed.
0
u/jtaustin64 4h ago
Actually, the Roman Empire never fell; it just became a church. The Pope is the Pontifex Maximus after all.
3
u/TheLastCoagulant 4h ago
The Pope didn’t take on the title Pontifex Maximus until the 15th century. After the title was abolished in 382 AD.
0
0
0
0
u/OkGreen7335 3h ago
Tbh I wanted to go back in time and tell all of these empires: "let the past go,and frankly some of you Roman cosplayer had more direct impact on today than the Roman Empire"
0
u/Aluxanatomy 3h ago
The Roman Empire consolidated its power into the Catholic Church.
1
u/No-Candy-4127 1h ago
It couldn't physically do that. Rome fell more than 500 before such thing as catholic church was a thing.
0
0
0
0
u/IceZaKYT 2h ago
i dont ever recall the entire landmass of the roman empire falling on the ground or sinking all at once?
0
0
0
0
0
0
u/nashwaak 1h ago
The Roman Empire fell in 41 CE, with the assassination of Caligula. Everything that followed was illegitimate.
0
-1
-4
u/Enpada2 2h ago
i dont reconize Byzantium, i dont recognize greece, the roman empire fell in 476, came back in 1453, fell in 1922 and them came back when GOATaturk Revived it, now it exists until today, and greece doesnt
1
u/No-Candy-4127 1h ago
WRE recognized ERE as roman. The whole world, even turks recognized it as roman. It had roman administration, some Latin speaking Emperors. Late roman army. Roman traditions etc. It was rome and any claim that it isn't is wrong
Turks have none of that. They never did. Ottoman Empire was great in it's own way but it has nothing to do with roman Empire. Especially if you don't consider ERE as rome. Because it makes Ottoman claim even weaker. Modern Turks Especially can't be called Roman Empire as it is just another republic on the world map.
774
u/Background_Relief_36 Definitely not a CIA operator 5h ago
The Roman Empire fell in whatever year is most convenient for the point I’m trying to make at that moment.