Who is the true successor of the Roman Empire?
nor an empire
Byzantium inherited the Roman state, the HRE inherited the WRE's culture, and the Italian peoples are direct blood descendants of the Romans. The remains of empires tend to get spread out like that after they conquer large chunks of the planet.
The Byzantine Empire isn't a heir to the Roman Empire, it's literally the eastern part that managed to survive for centuries after the western part's fall. As for HRE,
Maybe in the 18th century, you meme-loving fag, but it certainly was all 3 of those for much of its life before the 30 Years War.
By association with the Catholic church/by proclamation of the Pope, there's a varying, but nonetheless when it applied, valid level of holiness.
For much of its lifespan, what were once regions of Romance-speaking Europe were within the borders of the Empire, and it was initially contingent on the Pope for its validation, thereby strongly associated with Rome. And with the farcical continuation of the old Empire through an 'Emperor', it was therefore known as 'Roman'. Farcical, sentimental, and spiritual, but not without reasons for the title.
Undeniable. Spanned over a variety of regions, entailed a variety of ethnicities, with High Medieval Emperorship and a strong ambition making for some of the most powerful rulers of Medieval Europe.
Past the Protestant Reformation, it was just a title for the border that went around most of the heavily fragmented German states, but prior to the Early Modern Period, it actually meant some things.
The Byzantine Empire was no successor, but the empire itself. This, incidentally, is a wrong and anachronistic name.
As for HRE, was an attempted usurpation after the fall of the Basileus Constantine VI. Nothing more .
I've come to a different conclusion. The West is divided into two halves as the Roman Empire was. The Byzantines were obviously the successor to the Eastern half but the Western half's successor was the Holy Roman Empire. To be the successor to the Roman Empire one would need to be the ruler of both halves. Obviously all of the other Western states to exist between the fall of Rome and today are all heirs in the biological sense, but to truly be Rome one would need to be both Eastern and Western, by Eastern I do mean Eastern Roman Empire and not China/Korea/Japan.
he could also be implying on the ethnic purity and how the true identity/strength/whatever of the roman state got muddled after the relaxation of their citizenship laws.
but what do i know...
All we need to do is split in half and make our secondary capital San Francisco because it has seven hills.
Neither. France, Spain, Italy and Portugal are the true heirs of the roman empire as they maintained its traditions and, more important, its language.
The Franks assimilated, adopted latin as the main language of their administration and relied on the old roman aristocracy and the church to rule.
The HRE is a shit empire that always lacked its western part (France) to really have a decent claim about being Rome.
The title is directly linked to the frankish one. Otto merely pretended to have "recreated" the empire of Charlemagne. So yes, there is a link between the two. And it's a fact that the western part of the old empire, and the most populated and relevant, wasn't part of the HRE.
Oh yes, a descendant of Rome is a fucking anti-aristocratic republic on the American continent and led by a negro. Why exactly? Because they're big and have a hardon for Roman symbolism?
The Frankish Empire and Holy Roman Empire are officially two entirely different entities.
>And it's a fact that the western part of the old empire, and the most populated and relevant, wasn't part of the HRE.
Yeah, it was a part of the Frankish Empire, and home to the Franks, of course it was the most relevant and populated part of the Frankish Empire.
Central Europe was the most relevant region of the Holy Roman Empire because that's where it was located.
You're a historically illiterate retard, proven by saying
>The HRE is a shit empire that always lacked its western part (France)
Learn basic history before posting. What a joke.
>No civil law.
>No Latin language.
>No state religion of any kind.
>Has never even held any territory from the original empire at any point.
>Isn't even a successor state to a successor state of the empire.
There's nothing Roman about the USA apart from some vague superficial aspects like both having a hard on for eagles.
If we're this determined to find a modern day successor to the Roman empire it's Mount Athos.
>The Frankish Empire and Holy Roman Empire are officially two entirely different entities.
Just like the HRE has nothing to do with Rome then, since it's just two different identities.
And you can't deny France was the most important part of the empire. It always was the most populated kingdom in the middle ages, with the biggest city in western Europe (Paris). Gothic architecture, crusades, all of this came from France, that alwyas was the center of western civilisation, as opposed to the east, barely populated and irrelevant in the middle ages. You could argue that Flanders (that was both vassal of France and the HRE) and Italy were important and part of the HRE too, but let's face it, Flanders is a weird case, and as for Italy, the HRE had no real authority there after the failure of the emperor against the pope
>because they're big and have a hardon for Roman symbolism?
Pretty much yeah. I mean, the idea of an actual successor today is ridiculous enough to me that that alone could constitute it.
>Just like the HRE has nothing to do with Rome then, since it's just two different identities.
Well duh, the 'Roman' title is honorific bullshit.
>And you can't deny France was the most important part of the empire.
The western portion of the Frankish Empire was effectively the home of the Franks and where they consolidated. Considering they were the strongest and largest force in Western/Central Europe in the first millennium AD, what you're saying is incredibly redundant.
>Gothic architecture, crusades, all of this came from France,
The High Medieval period had 'Renaissances' for France, the Holy Roman Empire, and Italy. While it's purported that Italy rejected and didn't embrace Gothic culture, some of the best Gothic sculptors are from Italy. Do you think France was the only country to share in the cultural wealth of International Gothic? German Gothic sculptors were excellent too, along with France and Italy, a Medieval triad of artistry. While France produced troubadours, the Holy Roman Empire had its own poetry movement with the Codex Manesse as testament to that.
>as opposed to the east, barely populated and irrelevant in the middle ages.
If you are referring to the Holy Roman Empire as Eastern Francia, you're an idiot. Just because a lot of Medieval culture originated in France doesn't mean other regions didn't have their own variations. And in terms of political and military power, the High Medieval Period was the height of Imperial strength, along with the economic relevance of Hansa, while the presence of French aristocracy in the seats of other kingdoms was also incredible.
Much of Northern Italy was part of the Holy Roman Empire even after the emergence of city states. You're not only historically illiterate, you have some strange bias slanted towards France too, trying to posit that the HRE was somehow irrelevant, at the only point in history that it was actually relevant. It was a power alongside France.
This "civil religion" is dead as a dodo. Or as racism as acceptable public discourse.
You can thank communist intellectuals who have been controlling education since the 1960s for that. Do you really think kids who have been growing up reading Howard Zinn will follow such "American civil religion".