Can we have an actual argument about the true inheritors of the

The Byzantine Empire WAS Rome, dipshit. The name "Byzantine" wasn't even a thing until many many years after its fall. When it was still in existence, everyone just called it what it was: Rome.

Who gives a shit. Western Roman Empire fell 400 ad, eastern Roman Empire fell 1500 ad.

There were no successors. Shut up and get over it, not every empire needs a successor.

File: op.jpg (16KB, 226x350px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 226x350px

>>2534813 Highly false.

>>2534817 Many historians actually care deeply about the claim to the Roman Throne as many nations have claimed the title since the fall of both Rome and Constantinople.

As for both of you, Fuck off. your shit responses have no place here or anywhere on this board.

The successors are all speakers of romantic languages. They survive the Roman culture, and the "Romanness" of an empire stems from that culture.

>>2534883
OK, I see your taking a logical approach that the Empire was in fact divided by the successors via Church, Byzantines, Latin Culture in general.
I totally agree! Personally I am just trying to spark a conversation about the legacy of Rome and see if anyone would argue differently then what I stated in op.

But, If you had to say which successor truly represented Roman culture best, who would that be?
whether that be through political structure or influence, literature, cuisine, religion, so on.

>>2534778
>Or did the Church have right to deliver the title to one Charlemagne in 800?
no. emperor was always supposed to be head of the church, and charlemagne likely forced leio III to crown him.

>caring much about fallen empire
Even the Chink today don't resemble the Chinks Dynasty. Egyptian got mixed out of history. Babylon and Persian being arabized

>>2534937
>emperor was always supposed to be head of the church.
So your making a claim to prior Roman Emperors where they would have a higher role than the Pope? Interesting how post fall of Rome the role shifts and the Pope all of the sudden has the ladder to heaven and the Emperor is under him as we see with the Holy Roman Emperors. How do you personally think that this change happened, where the old Roman Emperors had supreme rule, as opposed to the Pope having power over all in the middle ages?

also
>Likely forced Leo III to crown him
Not sure I heard too much on evidence supporting that theory. do you have any examples to enlighten me with as to why youd claim that the crowning of Roman Emperor to Charlemagne was forced?

>Roman empire splits
>One of the two halves of the former Roman empire dies
>The other half isn't roman anymore

>>2534931
Not my expertise, but from my knowledge I would contend that since France immediately provided an expansionist empire that was Christian (with the spiritual leader based in Rome), it inherited Rome. It served as the center of Western European politics for hundreds of years and carried many lingual traditions with them from Rome.

>>2534955
Not that I care too much, I find that it can be a heated topic to discus and enjoy hearing people's opposing opinions.

also are you saying that fallen empires have no role or reasons to study? Even those of great Empires like China and Persia?
Not sure if i understand you but I assure you that China, Arabia, and Egypt are all highly intuitive of their past. As does every person who enjoys History. It is not simply a case of studying the past to learn from these fallen empires. Rather how their Role impacted the World and The history we know today for the reason of understanding why things happened as well as out of pure interest for the topic.

>>2534987
That's a fair argument, anon! Thanks for your insight, I hadn't thought much of France's role like that. Though I'm not sure if I agree entirely, I'll surely research up on it a bit to see if that statement is more true then perhaps what some might say would be Greece or the Byzantines.

>>2534984
Not sure if youre being condescending and agreeing that the Byzantines were surely Roman. or that The Byzantines were not Roman anymore after the fall of Roman and the Split of the two empires?

None the less, I'd like to hear why youd say either side of the argument.

>>2534984
The problem is that from a nationalist perspective the Byzantines didn't have as much in common with the Italian Romans as it may seem. Their primary language was Greek, they embodied a whole different ethnicity, and they overall were more Hellenic than Roman.

Not saying you're necessarily wrong at all, but there is some serious considerations to be made for other states.

>>2534778
Easy the Roman Catholic Church is the inheritor of the Western Empire it closely mirrors the administration of the Western Empire and took on the role of administering it after the Empire's fall, and basically has become an authority throughout the centuries in the West, even conferring the title of Roman Emperor to secular rulers.
The Roman Catholic Church has kept things from the Empire from clothing, knowledge, to the language.

The Eastern Roman Empire, the Russians are really the only ones holding on to claim of the East, there was a very short period in which the Turks styled themselves as Roman Caesars.
Since the Russian claim is more or less a religious one, with the Eastern-Western conflict and all, I kinda like to think that the Eastern Roman Empire ended at 1453.

>>2535100
I meant to say there are no inheritors of the Eastern Empire.