Which country has the most legitimate claim to the Roman empire?
Italy, Russia, Greece.... Turkey
Mehmet II had Komnenian blood if you are obsessed about it but moreover there were plenty of Roman Emperors who were neither of latin or greek stock.
I understand your mentality is "hurr turkshit aint no emprah" but while try to disqualify him, you also disqualify a lot of the roman emperors themselves.
dumbest shit ive read on /his/ in a while, nice work
>1/16 Byzantine blood WE ROME NOW
>but moreover there were plenty of Roman Emperors who were neither of latin or greek stock.
They were still descended from the existing Roman Empire. The Ottomans were a completely different entity completely who just happened to conquer the already weakened Imperial capital.
Funnily enough it was the one that fell quicker as well.
None of the above? What is this bullshit about "claiming" an empire that has nothing to do with your own civilization?
I don't remember the Persians rebranding themselves as the Babylonian or Assyrian Empire when they blobbed over their clay, or Alexander theming his conquest the Persian Empire when he did his thing.
476 - 800: Vacant
800 - 814: Frankish Empire
800 - 1453: Holy Roman Empire
1444 - 1683: Ottoman Empire
1683 - 1815: French Empire
1815 - 1945: British Empire
1945 - present: American Empire
Ottomans sold the title Qasr al Rom to the French, Spanish, and Russian monarchies. Russia and France offer their monarchs, meaning Spanish Monarch is the rightful Caesar of Rome.
Not that it matters now of course as the United States is the heir in practice.
Simple answer: no one. The Western empire died in the 5th century when Odoacer kciked the last emperor of his throne. The easern roman empire followed suit later to the Turks. With that, the roman empire was gone.
If you want to look at it officially, either Germany or France, as the remains of the Holy Roman Empire, which was officially stated to be the empires successor by the pope. Of course, that does not mean that they carry any of the culture or historical significance with them.
Didn't they? Assuming by "Constitution worship" you mean the kind of nascent ancestor-worship of constantly invoking "the Founders" and regarding "the Constitution" as some embodiment of all that's good and proper, while happily ignoring bits of it that aren't convenient, I'd say the similarities are striking. The Romans also couldn't shut up about their founders and they were forever etching their laws on stone tablets and whatnot.
there is no proper claim to the roman empire, it fell with the byzantines
ottomans had the most legitimacy though for the ruler was part byzantine, they controlled eastern byzantine lands and they also controlled the orthodox church based on constantinople, the problem is that they didn't follow latin traditions or religions, making them not roman
russians claiming to be the continuation of the roman empire based off of a backseat princess and the russian orthodox church is just pants on head retarded though
>implying the Founding Fathers weren't divinely inspired by the Lady Liberty, patron goddess of the divine republic
>implying the Constitution isn't a holy document
>implying America wouldn't be the premier super power if they weren't the favorite of the Gods (founders)
Heretic (liberal) detected
>not seeing the republics decline into decadence and empire
>not seeing congressional inaction and increased presidential power as signs of the erosion of the seperation of powers
>not seeing increasing public support of executive action as the public beginning to favor autocracy
>not seeing the rise of socialism as a threat to the constitution a la Gracchi Brothers
History rhymes pleb
>the rise of socialism as a threat to the constitution a la Gracchi Brothers
Actually, at least some of what Tiberius Sempronius, at least, wanted to do involved merely enforcing the existing laws. Richies weren't 'aving it.
>calls others liberals
True, but he also favored radical reforms that would've redistributed the land. There's similar rhetoric today for people calling for redistribution of wealth. Also the wealthy flaunting laws is similair in both Rome and America
None has any formally valid claim, Rome died in 1453.
Informally, Italy is culturally and ethnically the closest one overall, I guess, but it doesn't really matter.
Interestingly, during Fascist Italy the Italian empire was called the new Roman Empire by the regime, interesting shit.
While it is certainly true that they took most heavily from the republic, the apex of Rome's glory was built during the transition and lifetime of the Empire, so saying they took no inspiration from that time period is asinine.
well according to ISIS and their warped teachings they're trying to meet rome in battle at some town in syria which i guess has some apocalyptic significance
but it's generally assumed that rome is just "the west" now in their eyes
Though they appeared at almost the same time, I recall reading that the US "liberal" and the Euro "liberal" were never actually the same; that Euro liberals were your classical capital-L Liberals, while the US "liberal" was a theological term with a modern cognate in "Liberation theology".
It sure explains the current split a hell of a lot better than just the generic idea that "liberal" drifted massively in the US and much more slowly in Europe.
>some town in syria
Dabiq. It's what their magazine is called.
They only get like 12 caliphs and they're on their ninth, I think. Should just go kill-crazy nuts on whoever's caliph until they run out.
Assume it's Turkey or possibly some current Western army. The prophecy says three other things that are important.
1. The last Islamic State will control the Levant, Jerusalem, and Anatolia.
2. They will face a great general from central Asia that will really hurt them.
3. Jesus will save them at Jerusalem after they've been pretty much defeated.
This means they need to defeat that army at Raqqah. Then there are the Christian prophecies that pretty much line up with the Islamic ones. They're summed up at this - a great Christian king will unite the Christendom and help mend the great schism before defeating Islam. One can think of a number of reasons that a leader might save IS at their last stand in Jerusalem in place of Christ.
It is my belief that this great king is the first Horseman of the Apocalypse.
There is the idea that a katechon (that which withholds) must exist to keep the End Times from happening. This is both good and bad since preventing the End Times is desirable for human life as well as keeping the Antichrist at bay but it is bad since then Jesus is not allowed to return.
>a great Christian king will unite the Christendom and help mend the great schism before defeating Islam.
The Marble Emperor will rise again!
The last remaining piece of the Western Empire was conquered by Clovis in 486, thus founding France. On top of that France also conquered and dissolved the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.
It's Turkey or France, depending on whether you consider the Eastern or Western Empire more legitimate.
The Orthodox Church, of course
>not to the legal government
After the execution of the Tzar the Russian state lost it's legitimacy over the Grand Duchy of Finland (or some argue that Russia lost it already in 1911 after breaking the Tzars guarantee). To Finns, the highest legal authority had ceased to exist, and the power to control Finland had passed to Finnish senate.
>>The founding fathers were heavily inspired by greek and roman states.
>So was literally everyone in medieval Europe.
So was all of medieval North Africa and the Levant and Anatolia and Persia west of Zagros Mountains (the border of Iran and Iraq basically).
Also, how the shit can you believe any bloodline? The people with the most power claimed bloodlines. Especially when the only shit keeping track were people...from the family claiming a bloodline who wrote it on paper and rocks.
What's even more retarded is this entire thread is basically fake Christian ideas of what Rome is.
It died when the Eastern Roman empire stopped acting like an ancient empire and reorganized itself after losing its Eastern Provinces.
I would date this to around A.D 610-30. 2 Centuries after the fall of the West
Byzantium was more Greek then Roman in character, and was very much not Roman by the time the Turks rolled up. And even then the Turks developed an Islamic culture and empire, completely different from the Roman Mediterranean culture.
Otherwise I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. This date (630's) HAS to become more well known, it's the most logical choice.
Anyway, the Turks did adopt the bureaucratic Byzantine state apparatus to some extent, especially where administration of the only city they had left was concerned.
An empire is a state. The Roman state and the states directly descended from it ended in the 15h century.
It's especially laughable when Italy is brought up considering it was part of the empire for a shorter period of time than the southern Balkans and Anatolia.
I deem Laconia the rightful heir to Rome considering it was part of the empire the longest.
Prince Phillip is the pretender to the Roman Imperial throne on the count of his grandfather being King of Greece.
Meaning that when he and the Queen die the UK will be the most legitimate claimant to Rome.
You know Protestants and Muslims scare me, I'll take my religion with free wine and pedophillic priests over obsessed doomsday prophecies. Fucking premillienial dispansaionalists man, can't trust 'em.
There is no claim. Romans were ethnically a Latin people. It's a stretch to even say that all of Italy can "claim" the Roman Empire. Russians are Russian. Not Roman. Turks are Turkish. Not Roman. Stop trying to excite yourselves by claiming that the city and empire sacked in 476 can exist today as anything other than an idea. Fuck.
Vatican City is the only real answer. I'm not catholic either but they are literally in Rome, have continuity with the Roman Empire through chriatianity, and use Latin and outdated soldiers more than anybody else. Also things tend to be more authentic when they don't claim to be authentic and the Pope really doesn't, who is also a single monarch like the emperors of old, throw around being the new or old Rome. Plus they keep up the tradition of extensive power and the last roman characteristics of small size.
>I don't remember the Persians rebranding themselves as the Babylonian or Assyrian Empire when they blobbed over their clay, or Alexander theming his conquest the Persian Empire when he did his thing.
They did, what are you talking about? That is why Alex kept the royal Persians alive and tried to intermarry. The Persians did a similar thing in their rise to power. All of Alexander's men tried to be his legitimate successors hence the body stealing and whatnot.