>Chinese dynasties are considered each legitimate successors

File: 377b0f0c90763ab57b69c80c93667785.jpg (375KB, 1505x1000px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1505x1000px

>>2994210
The Byzantine Empire isn't a successor of Rome, it IS Rome. The only ones who deny it are le epic memesters or legitimate retards.

No professional historians dismiss the Byzantine Empire. They consider it to be the same state as the Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire, the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire have no relation to the Roman Empire at all, and only claimed the title out of desire for prestige. In actual fact, the Russians and Ottomans never seriously claimed to be the Roman Empire at all, it's just something that gets blown way out of proportion.

>>2994223
If Britain had been conquered by Hitler would Canada have been considered the new Britain?

>>2994210
Western historians have the freedom to be more critical of their own history, while the Chinese have to deal with political ramifications for their ideas.
As for Western historians on China, they're either Sinoboos or popular historians who think they all look the same.

>>2994260
>comparing the literal other part of the Roman empire with a colony
you're a moron

>>2994239
>Ottomans
The Ottoman Sultan held the title of "Kayser-i Rum" and was bestowed the title of "Caesar of Rome" by the Patriarch of Constantinople. This was done starting with Mehmed the II who, coincidentally, was also blood related to the deposed Imperial Family. The Ottomans styled themselves as being the descendants of the Roman Empire. The title was eventually sold to the monarchies of Spain, Russia, and France. Russia and France offed their monarchs, which is why the King of Spain to this day holds the title "Emperor of Rome".

>>2994311
>The Ottoman Sultan held the title of "Kayser-i Rum" and was bestowed the title of "Caesar of Rome" by the Patriarch of Constantinople.
the title means nothing other than trying to sound prestigious and the patriarch isn't the one to say who is Caesar and who is not. Not to mention that even if he refused to say that, Mehmed would've just disposed him and install a more friendly patriarch.
>This was done starting with Mehmed the II who, coincidentally, was also blood related to the deposed Imperial Family.
Half of Europen nobility had Byzantine blood in them, even the Mongols were being married with Byzantine princesses

>>2994320
And Russian ruler around the same time had as much if not more than Mehmed.

he Byzzies has about as much claim to rome as the ottomans, the only people who can be said as the true successor of the romans is the italian city-states and modern italy

>>2994210
>The Chinese dynasties arose from different geographical regions, were based in different capitals, controlled different territories
That's not true tho, all dynasties ruled China from Inner China and controlled the area. Just like the ERE was in fact considered the actual roman empire after the fall of WRE, but only as long as it held Italy and Rome. Once they were forced to abandon the region, legitimacy shifted to those who took over: the papacy and the HRE. The HRE, let's remember, that was considered in Europe THE empire in the same way Rome used to be (and the imperial dynasties in China) for centuries, until the imperial see lost the ability to project its influence beyond Germany.

Also let's not forget that steppenigger dynasties in China saw themselves as the imperial rulers of China holding the Mandate of Heaven, not as a fucking khanate, same goes for Charlemagne (yet not the germs in general). Compare with the ottos who didn't consider themselves as successors to Rome at all, only conquerors.

File: smug.png (326KB, 635x592px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 635x592px

>>2994410
>Just like the ERE was in fact considered the actual roman empire after the fall of WRE, but only as long as it held Italy and Rome. Once they were forced to abandon the region, legitimacy shifted to those who took over: the papacy and the HRE.
this is why nobody takes /his/ seriously

>>2994311
>The Ottomans styled themselves as being the descendants of the Roman Empire.
Mehmet was a big byzaboo, but he didn't assume the title as a way to proclaim himself successor to Rome, it was just a sovereign title for Anatolia and Greece. Let's not forget, the turks called Anatolia "Rum".
The seljuk remnants in Anatolia after the fall of the empire also called themselves rulers of Rum, because that's what they called the region.

>>2994423
What are you actually trying to say, that the ERE wasn't considered legitimate, or that the HRE didn't take over that legitimacy in Europe?

File: Jean_II_Comnene.jpg (2MB, 1055x1681px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1055x1681px

>>2994320
>Half of Europen nobility had Byzantine blood in them, even the Mongols were being married with Byzantine princesses
Half of Europe's people, never mind nobility, are probably descended from Byzantine royals.
There must be tens, perhaps hundreds-of-thousands of people in England alone who are descended from Edward III, for example, and by extension from the Komnenian Emperors

>not trying to kangz, just suggesting statistical possibilities

>>2994410
>all dynasties ruled China from Inner China and controlled the area.
What was Eastern Jin
What was Southern Song

>>2994432
The second though I may have misread your post if you meant that western Europe saw HRE as the legitimate successor of Rome at the time and if that's the case then I apologise.

File: Ming_foreign_relations_1580[1].jpg (321KB, 555x650px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 555x650px

>>2994450
Both Jin and Song dynasties ruled over China proper, and even when they lost territory they still were within China proper.

>>2994468
They lost the northern plains of China which were considered to be the birthplace and heart of Chinese civilization and ruled from the South, and had to move their capital cities, but didn't automatically lose their legitimacy to the barbarians who took over the north.

>>2994311
>The patriarch of Constantinople..
And the Pope, the patriarch of Rome, crowned Charlemagne Roman Emperor. Neither actually had the authority to do so, however, and thus neither claim has any real legitimacy.
The Ottomans were as much successors of Rome as the HRE was.

>>2994210
isn't being taken over by manchus the equivalent of if rome was hijacked by huns. How could the Yuan dynasty be considered a continuation of the previous dynasty. If anything that should mark an end to china until the next real chinese dynasty.

>>2994210
>Why is this the case?
Chinese dynasties always managed to become the one ruler over China. Those who didn't, aren't generally acknowledged by history (when was the last time you heard someone call Shu Han an imperial dynasty? Or Northern Wei?).
Once Rome split in WRE and ERE, no real hegemon ever took its place. Neither the HRE nor the ERE nor the ottos were ever in a position to rule over the Mediterranean basin and western Europe unchallenged at any point.

>>2994311
and Idi Amin called himself the last king of Scotland

>>2994494
>didn't automatically lose their legitimacy to the barbarians who took over the north
Did too (in the north anyway). Great Jin was considered a legitimate holder of the mandate in the north.

>>2994499
>people still pushing this meme

Well, if your goal was to look retarded so you can inevitably fall back on the 'I was just pretending' defense, then good job.

>>2994311

1. 'Caesar' wasn't the imperial title, that was an office often given to the heir, and later it was just an honourific, like so much else.

2. Relation to the 'imperial family' means nothing at all. You ought to know how often dynasties changed in Constantinople, and that adoption was a perfectly legitimate Roman practice.

3. Patriarchal sanction does not make an emperor. That began with Leo I, its not even something that all Christian emperors did. I'm fairly sure that one of the shitty 10th century emperors was was in fetters when he was made emperor by his clique.

4. The ERE considered itself still to be the res publica of the Roman people. That doesn't preclude monarchical rule, however. Watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbx6SSt9bq8

Had the successors of Justinian kept Italy, Spain and the middle-east, there would be no "western civilization", just Rome and everyone else, much like Han China was.

Rome didn't had anything similar to the concept of Mandate of Heaven

>>2994210
China also has the Twenty-Four Histories, which are officially recognized as historical canon, so the succession of dynasties is clearly defined.

>>2994210
The Byzantines weren't a successor they were Rome. The hre had no legitimate claim. Russia was called because of religion i believe and the ottomans were a joke

>>2994468
>Both Jin and Song dynasties ruled over China proper
The Western concept of China proper is wholly inaccurate and anachronistic.

Only the Central Plains geopolitical heartland was considered "Chinese" while legitimacy was never based on ethnicity.

>>2995813
The south and west are not "Chinese"?

File: Tyrone Huang-di, first emperor of the Wu Tang Dynasty..jpg (58KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x450px

>>2994210
>The Chinese dynasties arose from different geographical regions, were based in different capitals, controlled different territories, were ruled by different ethnicities, spoke different languages, and yet the narrative of "4000 years of Chinese history" is often taken for granted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

All you need to be ruler of China.
Not belonging to some speshul family.
Not hailing in "China Proper" (historically that took a long time to define)
Not belonging to a particular race.
But having Mandate.

File: Qianlong in Armor.jpg (571KB, 1200x1674px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 1200x1674px

>>2994210
In addition OP, the Chinese dynasties recognized each other as rulers of China so as to further the image of state continuity of the realm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven#Enfeoffing_members_of_Overthrown_Dynasties

"It was a custom in China for the new dynasty to ennoble and enfeoff a member of the dynasty which they overthrew with a title of nobility and a fief of land so that they could offer sacrifices to their ancestors, in addition to members of other preceding dynasties. This practice was referred to as 二王三恪."

>The Han dynasty bestowed the hereditary title 周子南君 upon the Zhou dynasty royal descendant Ji Jia (姬嘉) and his descendants.[4]
>When the Han dynasty Emperor Xian of Han was dethroned by the Cao Wei Emperor Cao Pi, Cao granted Emperor Xian the title Duke of Shanyang (山陽公).
>When the Jin Dynasty Emperor Gong of Jin was overthrown by the Liu Song Emperor Wu of Liu Song, Emperor Wu enfeoffed Emperor Gong as Prince of Lingling.
>When the Northern Zhou Emperor Jing of Northern Zhou was overthrown by the Sui dynasty Emperor Wen of Sui, Emperor Wen enfeoffed Emperor Jing as Duke of Jie.
>When the Tang dynasty Emperor Ai of Tang was overthrown by the Later Liang Emperor Zhu Wen, Zhu Wen enfeoffed Emperor Ai as Prince of Jiyin.
>There were Dukedoms for the offspring of the royal families of the Zhou dynasty, Sui dynasty, and Tang dynasty in the Later Jin (Five Dynasties).[11]
>When the Ming dynasty fell and the Qing dynasty took over, the Qing Emperors granted a Ming descendant the title Marquis of Extended Grace and gave him a stipend to perform sacrifices to his ancestors, the Ming Emperors at the Ming Imperial Tombs.

Alongside the image of an eternal empire, the practice was also had ancestor-worship roots, in which every preceding dynasty was treated as an ancestor that deserved to be honored. While they were overthrown they *did* possess the Mandate at one point, making many of them favored by Heaven.

>>2996547
>The south and west are not "Chinese"?
Warring States era "Zhongguo" was defined by the Western Zhou heartland and the former lands of the Shang polity.

>south
Chu of the Jianghan plain was an indigenous confederation that spoke a form of para-Sinitic with a Hmong Mien/Tai Kadai substrate while Wu/Yue was non-Sinitic,possibly pre-Austronesian or Tai Kadai. "Southerners" regardless of their linguistic affiliation,were considered barbarians.

>west
Gansu was inhabited by semi-pastoralists known as the Rong,with their linguistic affiliation leaning towards Sino-Tibetans. Some of these tribes were known to carry the royal clan affiliations of Ji and Jiang.

>>2994260
if it was where the government went in exile, then yeah - the land would still be known as Canada, but it would still be the British Empire is per se. Likewise, as the Western half fell, the duty of maintaining the empire fell to the East. The Byzantines aren't the successors of Rome, they ARE Rome.

>>2996561
And all you needed to rule Rome was imperium which was literally the ability to be the most stronk in the empire

File: Qin Shi Huangdi.jpg (145KB, 321x406px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 321x406px

>>2996587
Contd.

It is, however, interesting to note that hated dynasties did not receive 二王三恪

For example, no such thing was granted to the descendants of the Qin Emperor. The Yuan Mongol Emperors were also denied the rites.

>>2996605
True but while the Mandate extends to the whole dynasty via succession laws, every Roman Emperor seemed to be forced to prove his possessing of the Imperium.

>>2994210
Hmmm it is almost like completely different ethnic rulers who use a non-native language, honor different cultural traditions, and follow a different religion are not actually "successors" and instead are LARPing for muh legitimacy points.

>>2994261
The PRC hasn't existed for 4000 years anon.

>>2994494
>"Northern Plains"
>birthplace of Chinese civilization

You meant the North China Plain.
The literal capitals of the Xia and Zhou are located in a small region in the southwestern part of the North China Plain. Both Jin and Song controlled it for an extensive period of their histories.

Only in the latter stages of their collapse was it lost.

>>2994505
Far more complex than that.

If one Ethiopian takes political control of a group of a thousand Russians, does it become a completely different society/nation?

>>2994260
If the government went in exile there it would still be considered the British Empire.

>>2996642
>The literal capitals of the Xia
Xia doesn't exist,the textual records attesting the polity date towards the Warring States.
http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp238_xia_dynasty_china.pdf

> Both Jin and Song controlled it for an extensive period of their histories.
The Jin and the subsequent southern dynasties used Zhongguo metaphorically,the geopolitical Zhongguo was always recognized as the northern Chinese plains.

The Southern dynasties were Northern Sinitic emigres ruling over local Sinitic speaking natives(who weren't considered Chinese) as well as non-Sinitic barbarians in the far south.

>>2996744
>Xia doesn't exist
[Citation needed]

Also, did the Zhou exist? 100 years ago everyone said they did not, even Chinese scholars.

>>2996790
Shang*

File: 1428658512805.jpg (22KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x400px

>>2996790
>did the Zhou exist? 100 years ago everyone said they did not

>>2996808
> >>2996803

>>2996790
Can't prove a negative.

>>2994210
"Byzantine" Empire was literally the same state. The capital was moved from Rome to Constantinople because it is in a better position to govern the empire.

HRE was supposed to be a resumption of Imperial rule in the West, but its legitimacy at that was very dubious, and it mostly was its own thing. Ottomans and Russia were never considered to be the same state, even by their rulers.

>>2994223
It didn't control Rome. Half an empire that doesn't hold the original capital that the empire is named after is not that empire.

>>2997120
>It didn't control Rome.

Not a true statement. It sometimes did.

File: spengler.jpg (10KB, 200x302px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x302px

>>2994210
>chinese dynasties, prc & republic continued same culture
>think confucius, legalism & ancestor worship

>greco-roman culture was the classical culture
>think mount olympus & stoicism

>late rome, byzantium & ottomans were middle-eastern culture
>think 1001 prophets (moses, jesus, muhammad)

>holy roman empire was west-european culture
>think confession & faust

>moscow is russian culture
>think dostoyevsky & rasputin

>>2996790
>[Citation needed]
Read the link I've provided.

For starters "Xia" doesn't appear once in the Shang oracle bones or the Western/Eastern Zhou bronze inscriptions as a dynastonym or polity.

The bulk of the textual evidence that references the Xia dynasty/polity dates towards the late Spring and Autumn period or the Warring states,more than a millennium later.

Erlitou is only one of many archaeological sites that predate the late Shang polity,with some scholars making the claim that the Erlitou culture was representative of the early Shang.

>>2996790
>For starters "Xia" doesn't appear once in the Shang oracle bones
That is not really evidence against it, considering Shang oracle bones was only concerned with divination, not record keeping

>Western/Eastern Zhou bronze inscriptions as a dynastonym or polity.
It was during the Western Zhou records of Xia is found

>Western/Eastern Zhou bronze inscriptions as a dynastonym or polity
It is listen in Western Zhou Dynasty records

Do not forget the legends surrounding the Xia, especially the flood and Yu the Great, the legendary founder actually happened http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6299/579.full

Also sino-platonic papers are really not a good citation, considering the paper itself lack citations and can be written by nearly everyone. Infact, I could post work for the site proving the existence of Xia with the wewuz articles about how the Yellow Emperor was a blond nordic. You could at least listed respective works of Ian Morris or Sarah Allan. . .

>>2997288
>>2997455
I don't know how I fucked that up

>>2997455
>It was during the Western Zhou records of Xia is found
No,the character for Xia was used as seasonal word,toponym and a contemporary polity not a dynastonym(see Gilbert Mattos reply).

>It is listen in Western Zhou Dynasty records
List those bronze inscriptions and textual records.

>Do not forget the legends surrounding the Xia, especially the flood and Yu the Great, the legendary founder actually happened http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6299/579.full
A deluge doesn't prove the historicity of legendary figures or a purported dynasty.

>Also sino-platonic papers are really not a good citation, considering the paper itself lack citations and can be written by nearly everyone.
Perhaps. But unless you can point out flaws with the textual sources he referenced I would rather believe a accredited Sinologist(however biased he may be) than random user of an imageboard.

> Infact, I could post work for the site proving the existence of Xia with the wewuz articles about how the Yellow Emperor was a blond nordic.
I'm well aware of Mair's obsession with the Indo-European origin of Chinese civilization.

He would have to look elsewhere as this easily debunked by anthropology,archaeology,genetics etc.

>>2994239
Sorry but byzantines aren't roman. I used to think so too but other than calling themselves Rhomanoi they didn't speak latin, were greek (a people conquered by romans), worshipped christ and not roman gods. So yeah greeks larping as romans is accurate.

Ask yourself this, if USA split apart and in the west was a state full of mexicans who spoke spanish, and adopted islam or something but called themselves americans and american laws would you consider that to be USA?

Arr rook same

>>2997505
now this is the type of content I come to this board for

File: 1415451.jpg (30KB, 250x200px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 250x200px

>>2994223
>Rome
>Didn't even hold Rome

>>2997120
>>2997525
Constantinople is New Rome
>hurr b-b-but muh mental gymnastics

Each chinese dynasty basically took over the last's state apparatus. There's no real continuity in the west after the Byzantines

>>2997493
Does being Christian instead of pagan really disqualified from being Roman? The Roman Empire had already become Christian before the Westin have collapsed. And the Chinese also shifted philosophies overtime sometimes favouring Taoism sometimes favouring Buddhism sometimes favouring confucianism.

>>2997493
>if USA split apart and in the west was a state full of mexicans who spoke spanish, and adopted islam or something but called themselves americans and american laws would you consider that to be USA?
Depending on how things turned out arguably yes, they would be a successor state to the USA if they continued to follow the US Constitution and the US form of government and law. Is Hawaii less American than Massachusetts?

>>2997661
Constantinople is Constantinople, Rome is Rome

>>2998021
tell that to Constantine :^)

File: 1498130248858.jpg (898KB, 908x720px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 908x720px

The Holy Roman Empire was a bunch of krauts LARPING.

China was a contiguous blob.

Rome was a donut around the Mediterranean that was pulled apart when land powers became more powerful.

>>2997493
>>2998015

it would be more like

>eastern USA and western USA split for reasons
>western USA gets overrun by syrian and middle eastern and african refugees
>they set up their own little states in the territory of the former eastern USA and adopt US laws and state apparatus, to varying degrees
>some even end up speaking weird local derivatives of english
>in the west, the majority language is spanish
>rulers and upper classes still speak english
>they try to reconquer the east, but while they take the former confederacy and even washington DC, the areas they capture are economically devastated
>slowly lose ground to maghrebi successor states in viginia
>meanwhile, weirdo voodoo prophet galvanises carribean islands, takes mexico, texas, southern states and the south west
>western USA is left with california and pacific northwest
>it soldiers on, it has the US army, USAF and marines, and part of the military industrial complex it inherited
>eventually, since pretty much everyone speaks spanish, the government bows to public pressure and adopts spanish as the language of government
>gets hemmed in by barbars from all directions - death of a thousand cuts
>religious tension between baptist kingdoms to the east and catholic US
>the voodoohoodoos covet los angeles and try to conquer it several times
>eventually, some guy unites the northeast and the televangelist in chief calls him the president of the holy united states
>holy
>united
>states
>eventually the hoodoos march into the much reduced los angeles.
>the US is finally extinguished, the last president falls among a platoon of CMEU (USMC)
>the voodoo tete d'etat calls himself the president
>some strayan cunt calls himself the third washington because he married el presidente's sister
>some faggot on the future internet says there's no continuity between the USA and the western USA because its capital was in los angeles and not washington DC

>>2998058
didn't they realize those giant pants look silly, it's not the 16th century anymore

>>2998074
>western USA gets overrun by syrian and middle eastern and african refugees
Except that the Romans conquered the Eastern provinces, not the other way round.

>>2998074

shit, should actually be

>eastern USA gets overrun by syrian and middle eastern and african refugees

>>2998076
Interwar Italian fascism was /fa/ as fuck what are you on about

>>2998079

yeah, but i'm trying to make the analogy work with the geography. if the US had been founded in the west and had spread eastwards, i would have done that.

>>2994210
the core population areas were always 90% or more Han Chinese. so i think the 4000 years is referring more to the ethnic/linguistic/cultural bloc rather than a particular state

File: Scholar Gentleman Pepe.png (82KB, 624x434px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 624x434px

>>2994210
>How come two vastly different states have different histories?

Dis dumb question, OP.

>>2998087
>so i think the 4000 years is referring more to the ethnic/linguistic/cultural bloc rather than a particular state

Nope.jpg

There was a state, to which there ought to be a Heavenly Mandated dynasty to rule. Otherwise nobody would've given a shit about the mandate or kill other people who claim mandate. It forms a big part of Chinese culture to this day, it's largely the cause of shit like "One China Solution" and various autisms related to a singular Chink state.

That state hasn't been called Zhongguo for a long time however. Zhongguo in history has largely been a philosophical/cultural conception. Rather, the inhabitants simply called it Tianxia ("All under Heaven" literally. But means "Empire.")

>>2994210
Chinese legitimacy is based on Mandate of Heaven, which is not limited by ethnicities. Dynastic changes are considered as part of the course of nature.

File: fabrisbanemeetup.jpg (411KB, 3110x2073px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 3110x2073px

>>2998081
>/fa/

>>2997288
Wrong on many accounts. Xia is considered semi-legendary because it is known that a sinitic polity existed before the Shang, but many of the other claims from Simi Qian have not been proven yet.

Erlitou culture appears to be sinitic and is in the same location as Shang during the attested time period.

We do not know if the Xia (a sinitic dynasty with the attested line of kings) existed. That is a fact.

>>2994373
dulce incarnate?

File: 1489688310642.jpg (42KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 604x604px

>>2994210
>China gets conquered by someone
>heh they're Chinese anyway, we'll just call them a start of a new dynasty.
>Woops, China has survived 5000 years.

Simply the Chinks thought of anyone that conquered them as Chinks, that's why they claim to be the oldest surviving ancient civilization even though they were conquered so many times. Modern day Chinks are complete posers that have absolutely no relation to the ancient dynasties besides being of Asian descent.

Rome was special because it survived almost 2,000 years uninterupted and once it fell, it fell. There was no "Third Rome", "Fourth Rome" or any of that bullshit.

>>2994554
What was wrong with his argument?

>>2994518
I think this is a good point. Nobody really could replicate what Rome did (control the whole Mediterranean) so any nation that claimed to be Rome was just laughed at and not acknowledged simply because they didn't have the power Rome did.

That's why so many people don't acknowledge even Byzantium as Rome even though they were a literal continuation of Rome itself. They just didn't have the power (even though they were pretty much the strongest European nation for most of their existence) and controlled an extremely small part of what Rome was for most of it's history.

>>2998774
Well if you are not strong enough to fight of an invader or not clever enough economically clearly you have lost your "Mandate of Heaven".

>>2998774
But in almost every instance, the conquerors do adopt many of the "Chinese ways" in policies and philosophies many of which still survive to this day and are the foundation of Chinese culture.

To say chinks today have no relation to previous Chinese civilization is poor b8 m8

>>2998021
Constantinople was literally called "Nova Roma"(New Rome) by Romans, you idiot.

>>2998774
>Simply the Chinks thought of anyone that conquered them as Chinks, that's why they claim to be the oldest surviving ancient civilization even though they were conquered so many times.
There were only 2 nomadic dynasties and they're all basically Sinicized in the end in order to claim the mandate of heaven. Get your head out of your ass for once, please.

>Modern day Chinks are complete posers that have absolutely no relation to the ancient dynasties besides being of Asian descent.
Modern Chinese basically still has same languages, customs, religions and ethnicity. You really are some /pol/ tier shithead, aren't you?

>There was no "Third Rome", "Fourth Rome" or any of that bullshit.
Russian Empire literally called themselves "Third Rome". You fucking imbecile.

How comes an ignorant idiot like you still have balls to shitpost is really beyond me.

>>2994210
>Why is this the case?
Because of politically motivated Renaissance German historians.
Throughout history, until the 100 years after the collapse of Constantinople in 1453 to the Ottomans, the "Eastern Roman Empire" was called the Roman Empire by everyone.
The term "Byzantine Empire" did not show up until 1557 by Hieronymus Wolf, who was born in the Holy Roman Empire.

So for basically 500+ years, the Latins and Germans brainwashed everyone into thinking the Eastern Roman Empire was not a legitimate successor state of Rome, because of political reasons, mainly to boost the Holy Roman Empire's authority, especially after the fall of Constantinople.

Understand that during the Renaissance (1300-1700), a lot of people were fawning over the great Golden Age of the Roman Empire. They could not do that reconcile that with a collapsing Roman Empire existing at the same time. So 100 years later after the Romans (Byzantines) disappeared, historians went on a historical revisionism tour that has fucked world history to this point.

>b-b-but the Byzantines didn't control Rome
The ERE was the senior partner of the WRE, and it also controlled Rome for almost a collective 200 years after the fall of the WRE.
The WRE's capital was not Rome for 190 years.
They moved it to Milan from 286 to 402, then to Ravenna from 402 to 476.

>>2999039
To add, it was not until Heraclius, who was still crowned with a Latin name in 610 AD, did the empire change its language to Greek from Latin.

>>2998398
>Wrong on many accounts.
Name one source prior to the late Spring and Autumn period that speaks of a Xia dynasty.

>Erlitou culture appears to be sinitic and is in the same location as Shang during the attested time period.
No. Sinitic is a linguistic term,neolithic cultures such as Erlitou lacks any sort of script. Same reason why Liangzhu or Dawenkou can't be Austronesian.

>We do not know if the Xia (a sinitic dynasty with the attested line of kings) existed. That is a fact.
Correct. The Xia dynasty was most likely a Warring States forgery based on surviving texts.

>>2998774
>Simply the Chinks thought of anyone that conquered them as Chinks
Not since the late Tang where the ethnocentric Hua-Yi school supplanted the Gongyang school(Sinicization).

> Modern day Chinks are complete posers that have absolutely no relation to the ancient dynasties besides being of Asian descent.
Modern ethnicities have little to do with past empires.

>>2999072
Why would warring states in the Warring States forge something like that?

>>2999085
>Why would warring states in the Warring States forge something like that?
Any number of reason: to provide a linear succession of the Xia and the subsequent Zhou conquest of the Shang,shared mythology etc.

Semi-legendary figures such as Huang Di were propagated during that time period,some of which were non-Sinitic in origin.

>>2997525
But they did hold Rome for long periods of time.

>>2994410
>Once they were forced to abandon the region, legitimacy shifted to those who took over: the papacy and the HRE. The HRE, let's remember, that was considered in Europe THE empire in the same way Rome used to be (and the imperial dynasties in China) for centuries, until the imperial see lost the ability to project its influence beyond Germany.
Historical revisionism.
The ERE were still called Romans until the conquest of Constantinople by 1453. Retroactively calling them Byzantine did not start until 1557.
ERE controlled Rome as well after the fall of the WRE under the reign of Justinian I and his successors. HRE did not officially start until 962 AD. The earliest it may be claimed to have started was in the early 800s. There was no other Roman Empire from the fall of the WRE 476 AD to at least 800 AD. That's over 320 years of nothing in between to claim a line of legitimate succession. The Papacy as we know it was established in power in 538 AD. That's a 62 year line of succession/legitimacy gap. During both gaps, the ERE still functioned as a direct successor of the full Roman Empire.
The ERE was an actual Roman administrative region (half of the empire) that started when the Roman Emperor moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople in 330 AD. That's over 145 years before the fall of the WRE. The HRE was also never considered "THE" Empire in the same way Rome used to be. The ERE was still the richer (and more scientifically advanced in terms of technology applications) empire during the same time period because the ERE controlled almost all trade routes into Europe until the Venetians came along and started to take away commerce from the ERE around 1000 to 1100 AD.
The HRE also had legitimacy problems during its existence in a way that the ERE did not.

>>2999118
So if you're right, then really, how long is Chinese history in actual historical terms?

>>2998074
I can get behind this alt future.
>Weird Mexican Asian fusion culture in LA basin, ruled by the Emperor of California his seat from San Francisco
>Comanche pagan raiders of the great plains, following the great herds of bison that have returned to the land
>Michigan and Ontarian Vikings, with Germanicized settlements in Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin
>Southern knights and elite lancers, with Capitoline cataphracts
>New York + New Jersey become the Serene Republic of Gotham
>New England become home to the Puritan clergy, a Protestant Rome
>Quebec become New France
>Newfoundland becomes New Scotland

>>2999502
>So if you're right, then really, how long is Chinese history in actual historical terms?
Do keep in mind that polities that formed within modern nation states aren't easily delineated in neat categories e.g. Gojoseon was originally a polity in Hebei/Liaoxi that moved eastwards towards the Liaodong peninsula/Northwestern Korea but it considered part of "Korean" history.

The Shang was earliest known Sinitic speaking polity that identified with the geopolitical center.

In my opinion Zhou high culture established a framework for a geopolitical Zhongguo,the autonyms of Hua(florescent) and Xia(grand,variegated) and the gradually inclusion of periphery barbarians(Dongyi,Nanman etc.) that paved the way for a Chinese identity.

File: Chinesisch Kaiser Kangxi Jagd.jpg (225KB, 709x532px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 709x532px

>>2998774
>China gets conquered by someone
>Someone: WE CHINA NOW!
China has survive 5000 years.

>>2994210
Rome is a city

China is an empire

Latin is a spoken language

Chinese is a written language

>>2999085
IIRC someone suggested that the suspicious parallels and contrasts between the Xia "history" and the Shang history suggest the Xia may have been an invention for the purpose of giving the Zhou's overthrow of the Shang more legitimacy. Something like "it was totally okay for us to overthrow the Shang because we got the Mandate of Heaven, just like how the Shang were granted the mandate to overthrow the Xia.

>>2994518
>>2998805
So was Rome at the time of the Punic wars not actually the roman empire?

>>3000193
Punic Wars happened in BC. Roman Empire started in Anno Domini.

>>3000320
Rome was arguably an empire even before Augustus made himself the first emperor, since they had already conquered and incorporated most of their subject peoples in places like Gaul and Spain and North Africa by then.

>>2994373
is this loss?

>>2996679
>one Ethiopian
It was a little more than thst. Not like there was a massive Manchu immigration/colonization of China and attempted Manchuization. What even was the Banner system if not that?

What is it with Rome and China? Nobody ever mentions the Persians and how the Achaemanid, Parthian, and Sassanian were all considered Persian empires.

>>3000529
Because they were all based out of Persia. They weren't considered the same polity by anyone. The Sassanians barely even remembered the Achaemanids.

>>2994210
It's because the Chinese successor dynasties ended up adopting Chinese customs, and were based in the same cities. Byzantines can be considered Romans IMO but Germans, T*rks, Russians, and Frogs are just LARPers.

>>2998951
That was by the Greeks.
>>2999039
>German historians
No you dumb-ass. It was and is to this primarily concentrated from Gibbons shitting on the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines for being Christians, for being everything he hated about the late Western Roman Empire, and being Greeks that the Byzantines are shitted on in modern histography.

>>2999058
Justinian was the last native Roman as well as last native Latin speaking Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire.

>>3000768
>Justinian was the last native Roman as well as last native Latin speaking Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Does that change anything? Justinian's reign lasted into 565.

>>3000768
The separation of the ERE from the Roman Empire as "Byzantines" did not start with some British guy from the 18th century. It started with the HRE Germans 2 centuries before.

File: Chinese Empire Master Race.png (376KB, 1800x810px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1800x810px

>>2994210
The Chinese word for dynasty is Chao (朝)

That translates into Imperial Court or Reign (of someone). Over the Chink Empire. And as many have pointed out, only one can have mandate over the whole thing.

They weren't understood as separate empires. Hell when China breaks up, the resultant dynasties don't live side by side like a community of states in Medieval Europe or the Middle East, its a free-for-all deathmatch between them to claim Mandate.

>>2996633
But the people have, especially in tibet.

>Holy
>Roman
>Empire

>>2997525

Justinian would like to have a word with you. They reconquered that bitch, the only problem was instead of a gleaming city on seven hills it was like the antique equivalent of detroit. By this point all the patricians packed up their slaves and fled east.

>>3000816

>when China breaks up, the resultant dynasties don't live side by side like a community of states in Medieval Europe or the Middle East, its a free-for-all deathmatch between them to claim Mandate.

Despite having done so on numerous occasions.

>>2998774

Oh come on, it's not like Egypt didn't do the same.

>>2999072

>The Xia dynasty was most likely a Warring States forgery based on surviving texts.

They said the same thing about whether or not Troy actually existed, until someone went and found it. Existence has an extremely low burden of proof. It would suffice for the ruler of a single village to call himself "Xia Wang" for the Xia to exist. No one is foolish enough to suggest the land was uninhabited, and kingship certainly exists among pre-state tribal societies. The only criticism seems to be that it is unlikely to be exactly as described, and in ancient history nothing is exactly as described.

>>3000796
Justinian pre-dates Heraclius so....

>>3000816
>the resultant dynasties don't live side by side like a community of states in Medieval Europe or the Middle East
The European states weren't living side by side either, they kept going to war to try to take each other's stuff.

>>3000961
That was pretty cool when Troy was found to be historical.

>>2994912
Russia is often called "Third Rome" because one of their kings married a Byzantine Princess

>>3000961
>It would suffice for the ruler of a single village to call himself "Xia Wang" for the Xia to exist
Xia wasn't even a word back then since Mandarin didn't exist.. For them to be the Xia they would have to identify themselves by a word that would later be written in the Shang script as something that would over time morph into the character 夏, which, especially as the Xia dynasty probably predate the invention of writing in the region, means they are basically impossible to prove without any reference to them in the Shang records.

>>3000529
Rome and China have been compared to each other for centuries. Even the Chinese were comparing the Romans to themselves.

>>3001095
Also this thing

>200s BC
-Roman Republic defeats Carthage for control of the Mediterranean
-Qin defeats Chu for control of the warring states
>100s BC - 0AD
-Rome destroys Carthage in the Third Punic War, conquers the Gauls in the Gallic Wars, and rises to dominate the Mediterranean
-Han defeats Chu in the Chu-Han Contention, defeats the Xiongnu in the Han-Xiongnu War, and rises to dominate the empire
>0-100s AD
-Roman Imperial Golden Ages
-Han dynasty Golden Ages
>200s
-The Crisis of the Third Century in Rome. The empire is divided into the Gallic Empire, the Palmyran Empire, and the central remains of the Roman Empire.
-The Three Kingdoms Period in China. The empire is divided into Wei, Wu, and Shu.
>300s
-Reunion under the Tetrarchy and Christianity.
-Reunion under the Sima Jin Dynasty.
>400s-500s
-The Western Empire falls and the West is occupied by barbarians who found their own kingdoms. Romaness moves to the Eastern Empire which becomes the Byzantine Empire.
-The Jin falls and the North is occupied by barbarians who found their own kingdoms, which eventually become the Northern Dynasties. Chineseness moves to the South where the Eastern Jin is established, which becomes the Southern Dynasties.
>600s-800s
-The Byzantine golden ages.
-Sui reunification and the Tang golden ages.
>900s
-Turkic Invasions lead to huge losses for Byzantines. Instability at home and and in the Balkans.
-Fall of the Tang, infighting and chaos create the 5 Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms.
>1000s-1100s
-The Byzantine Renaissance after the Komnenian Restoration. Stability and sciences. Problems with the Latins.
-The Song Renaissance Period after the reunion under the Song. Stability and sciences. Problems with the Liao and Jin.
>1200s-1600s
-Byzantine Empire nearly falls to Crusaders and Muslims, rallies under the Palaiologos dynasty, then falls to the Muslim Ottomans.
-Song falls to the Mongol Yuan dynasty, Chinese rally under the Ming, then fall to the Manchu Qing dynasty.

>>3000768
>Justinian was the last native Roman
>born in Tauresium in modern-day FYROM
>native Roman

>>3001115
Climate and plagues are the only reason why I think those things happened in basically the same time frames on both sides of the Asian continent.

>>3000961
>They said the same thing about whether or not Troy actually existed, until someone went and found it.
Except there are doubts whether the Shang are a continuation of Erlitou or whether Erlitou ever spoke Sinitic.

> It would suffice for the ruler of a single village to call himself "Xia Wang" for the Xia to exist.
>>3001090
See >>2997487 the orthographic character for "Xia" existed,it wasn't used as a reference to the purported dynasty.

>The only criticism seems to be that it is unlikely to be exactly as described, and in ancient history nothing is exactly as described.
While there were definitely antecedents to the Shang polity,its too much of a stretch to say that there were polities that held as much sway as Shang/Zhou hegemony.

Furthermore,the lack of Xia dynastonym during the Zhou era is the final nail in the coffin.

File: cringe.webm (548KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 400x400px

>>2998991
>There were only 2 nomadic dynasties and they're all basically Sinicized in the end in order to claim the mandate of heaven. Get your head out of your ass for once, please.

They were all extremely different culturally when they conquered China, you absolute moron. The Han, for example, were vastly different than the Qin dynasty. The only common thing between all the dynasties was the Mandate of Heaven that allowed a supreme head to claim suzerainty of China (the territories under the Qin dynast and later the Han) and it's territories. They didn't even a have a unifying religion, for Christ sake.

>Modern Chinese basically still has same languages, customs, religions and ethnicity. You really are some /pol/ tier shithead, aren't you?
What a fucking retard. Modern Mandarin has almost no similiarity to the language used in the Warring Kingdoms. The differences between old Chinese and modern Chinese are even greater than old Latin and modern Italian. And the dialects of modern Mandarin are quite different from one another.
>"China has the same customs"...
well, so does most of the former held territories of Rome. Does that make them Roman?
>religion
No, they don't. During different periods in history the Chinese empires have followed Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism.
>ethnicity
What? You dumb fuck, China has many, many ethnicities. And they were vastly different from one another, they didn't call themselves "Han" until much later. What you may call was their ethnicity is simply: "We're the civilized ones while those around us are barbarians". Nothing more, nothing less.


>Russian Empire literally called themselves "Third Rome". You fucking imbecile.
And I can call myself the heir of Julius Caesar, would that make it so? Almost every nation in Europe called themselves the heir of Rome, doesn't mean they had the legitimacy to do so.

>How comes an ignorant idiot like you still have balls to shitpost is really beyond me.
How ironic.

>>2998074
The Western Empire could be overrun by Germanic tribes because there was nothing but a couple of rivers dividing them from the empire. For large numbers of migrants to overrun the east coast of the USA there something very, very bad would have had to happen to the US Navy's Atlantic Fleet.

Greece had been under Roman control for 800 years when Heraclius changed the language from Latin to Greek, and as long as Rome was anything considered notable, Romans loved to use the Greek language and act like Greeks. This argument about the Byzantine Empire being "Greek" LEPErs is retarded, because Greece was Roman longer then it was independently Greek.

Also the argument that "They weren't Roman because they didn't hold Rome" is also retarded. By the 5th century Rome had lost all relevance to the empire, the capital of the WRE was fucking Ravenna. The identity of the Roman Empire had long since transcended Rome and the Italian peninsula.

File: 1498066622856.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

You have to have genuine autism to not consider the Byzantines as Romans.

I genuinely could only imagine that people who have absolutely no grasp of what the Roman Empire was to seriously hold this opinion, in this sense you're literally on the same level of historical misunderstanding as Afro-Americans who believe their ancestors were Egyptians..

>>3001933
They were part of the continuity of the Roman state, but their language and culture and religion were all very different from what the Roman empire had been for much of its history.

>>3001115
China x Rome is the OTP that was never meant to be.

File: 1498418272263.webm (348KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 640x360px

>>3002148
Because China x Escalator is a better meme

>>2994210
Because then the Western Europeans couldn't call themselves the rightful successors to Rome.

How could the >H>R>E be Rome if Rome's still around?

>>3002195
why not
why cant there just be two romes like before

>>3003781
T. Constantinos Doukas

>>3001090

If the language is different, then lacking the word is not proof of anything. For example, ancient Armenia is usually known as Urartu, which is an Assyrian word. It doesn't mean they weren't a real kingdom, it just means we have to use the words of whomever bothered to write things down.

>>2997487

>its too much of a stretch to say that there were polities that held as much sway as Shang/Zhou hegemony.

Call it a classic example of ancient inflation of scale. Look at the important and influential Minoan civilization, which only held sway in a single island that hasn't had any real significance since. Once again you are looking for proof based on preconceived expectations. Saying that the record doesn't fit the embellishment ignores that embellishment or lack thereof is not proof of anything.

The story of Yu the Great has him travelling among various barbarian tribes and undertaking hydrological works there, suggesting a canonical interpretation that large portions of the yellow river basin were not of the same polity. It is not by writ or force but by pursuasion that cooperation came to be. The fact that you haven't found an empire is because you are looking for something that wasn't there, and a closer reading of the texts will support this. In fact it is far more likely for the Xia (whatever their actual name was) to have been a prosperous state at a time of duress that took a leading role in combating the common disaster due to its prestige. The metatextual references of leadership by example actually contain a whisper down the lane truth that Xia was a prestige state, not a hegemony.

File: diocletian.png (108KB, 500x366px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 500x366px

>>3003781

>>2994210
There are literally
>historians
right fucking now that think the Roman Empire collapsed in 476 AD and that the Byzantine Empire is actually a real thing.

>>3002086
The Roman Empire in 300 AD looked nothing like the Republic in 300 B.C., are you going to argue the Empire is not the continuation of the Roman state, what's the cut-off point?

Also Greek was always a popular language within the Roman state.

>>3004748
>Call it a classic example of ancient inflation of scale. Look at the important and influential Minoan civilization, which only held sway in a single island that hasn't had any real significance since.
Erlitou was only one of many neolithic cultures that contributed to the formation of "Chinese" culture. What evidence that Erlitou was singular power that had the administrative capacity of later historical dynasties?

>Once again you are looking for proof based on preconceived expectations.
I don't know what you're trying to prove,I've never stated that the northern Chinese plains were devoid of civilization prior to the Shang.

Even if there were dynastic polities preceding the Shang,none of these neolithic cultures can be objectively defined as the Xia.

The lack of a Xia dynastonym in Shang/Zhou sources warrants further investigation.

>The story of Yu the Great has him travelling among various barbarian tribes and undertaking hydrological works there, suggesting a canonical interpretation that large portions of the yellow river basin were not of the same polity.
While these sources may be embellished historical truths,the matter still stands that they remain uncorroborated.

If apocryphal textual sources are the only evidence you presented,I'm afraid Xia is on the same level of Tangun Gojoseon,Van Lang and other political constructs.

>>2994239
The Ottomans married Byzantine princesses so there's genetic relation right there.

>>3005622
So did the Bulgarians, the Russians, the Germans, the Franks, the Normans, the Mongols, etc...

>>3005606
Troy was uncorroborated until the 21st century.

>>3005674
But those guys didn't take over Constantinople and all the Eastern Roman provinces.

>>3005795
>Bulgarians didn't have the Balkans
>the Franks didn't take over Constantinople

>>3005825
>Constantinople AND all the Eastern Roman provinces

>>2998079
He's talking about the germans

>>3005910
Yeah I misunderstood since he mixed up Western and Eastern at first.

>>2994260
If London split in 2 administrative regions, wouldn't they still both be London?

>>3006958
You mean like London and the City of London?

>>3007124
If the city of London was split in two parts for administrative purposes, wouldn't it still be London nonetheless?

>>2994210
Because all the chinese states ruled over all the lands of ancient china. Byzantine only ruled over eastern half and all the other states over even smaller parts. China always had a strong central government ruling everything.

>>3007139
But that's historically and factually wrong. There are times in China's history where the Chinese state is pushed out of its original heartlands by northerners and forced to stay in relatively new lands south of the Central Plains.
China had the same problem that the Byzantine Empire (ERE) had, just that it was north-south instead of west-east.

>>3006958

It happened with Berlin.

>>3007385
Yeah, and it was still Berlin

>>3007390

That's what I said.

>>3007349

Not really. This all occured after the Warring Kingdoms period where China was firmly established in the south. The only time they'd be driven further south than the WK was the Yuan/Qing to my knowledge.

>>3007349
>There are times in China's history where the Chinese state is pushed out of its original heartlands by northerners and forced to stay in relatively new lands south of the Central Plains.
The Gongyang commentary on "Chineseness" i.e. Hua, was the dominant school prior to the late Tang. Yi(barbarians) could become Hua and vice versa.

Non-Sinitic rulers were accepted as Hua, with the geopolitical Zhongguo being limited towards the northern Chinese plains.

>VE VUZ IMPERATORS CYKA BLYAT

>>3007349
Yes, but those relatively short periods of times. For the most part all of China was governed by one central governemnt.

>>3007670
>Non-Sinitic rulers were accepted as Hua
Extremely grudgingly so, there was a huge backlash against both the Mongols and the Manchus after they had ruled for some time.

>>3007588
Southern China was not originally part of the Chinese homeland in the Central Plains. Colonization of the Chinese south started in earnest during the Three Kingdoms period, after the collapse of the Han Dynasty.
That is equivalent to the Roman Empire moving its capital from Rome to Constantinople. The eastern lands of the Empire have been under Roman control for centuries before the move.
Same with the Chinese move of its capital to the south from the North.
>>3007942
Relative short periods of times? The Warring States period was around 200 years, Three Kingdoms lasted for 60 if we don't count the de facto division of China during the last years of the Han dynasty under Tsao Tsao.

>>3009197
>Extremely grudgingly so, there was a huge backlash against both the Mongols and the Manchus after they had ruled for some time.
That's why I I've explicitly mentioned the time frame,Hua-Yi school (intrinsic differences between the Chinese and barbarians based on the their qi) eclipsed the Gongyang school by the late Tang.
https://www.academia.edu/12259811/_Their_Lands_are_Peripheral_and_Their_Qi_is_Blocked_Up_The_Uses_of_Environmental_Determinism_in_Han_and_Tang_Chinese_Interpretations_of_the_Barbarians_

The ancient usage of Hua wasn't strictly ethnic based,Koreans/Vietnamese were considered part of Confucian civilization.

>>3009697
Wait, they could notice qi to tell a barbarian from a Chinese guy? That doesn't sound historical anon.

>>2994210
>Why is this the case?
Frankish/German propaganda.

>>2994210
>Why is this the case?

Roman Empire is the father, he has two kids.

One kid died early, another kid survives but in a pitiful state for many years, he failed to live up to his father's legacy therefore people did not adknowledge him.

File: mongol warriors 1800's.jpg (89KB, 960x648px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 960x648px

>>3009197
>there was a huge backlash against both the Mongols and the Manchus after they had ruled for some time.
Only the Mongols because the Yuan Emperors made it clear to everyone that they were not fully Chinese by:
1) Literally having a race-based Caste System that put the Chinese at the bottom.
2) Forcing the meme that they are still Great Khans of a Mongol Empire that has long been fractured.

No such thing with the Manchus. They called themselves Emperor through and through and eventually got acculturated. There's a reason why they lasted longer than the Mongols.

Hell, "Manchuness" was so fucking new an identity it couldnt hope to survive it latching itself to Chinese Imperial Identity. When the Qing was collapsing, the Chinese were rebelling against the Emperor not because he was a foreign cunt, but because his dynasty was failing.

>>3010666
On the other hand, tens of thousands of people did get executed for not wearing the Manchu queue hairstyle for some reason.

>>3010655
>he has two kids
Only in the sense that a dividing cell has "two kids"

File: 1447538962006.jpg (70KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 500x333px

>>2998774
there was no "Third Rome" but there was "Third Reich"

>>3012162
Literally populism.
Fuck this nigger socialist.

>>2998079
He's talking about Justinian's conquests you complete and utter retard.

>>2994260
I don't know, was the British capital located in Canada during WW2?

>>3012689
No, he was talking about the fall of the western empire.

How can the Byzantine Empire not be the Roman Empire? It controlled Rome for 200 some odd years and was the better part of the Roman Empire centuries before that.

>>3013902
Is Taiwan really the Republic of China by any reasonable metric?

File: 1498074074290.jpg (41KB, 480x542px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x542px

>>3015162
what the fuq kind of rationalization is that??

>>3013902
So when Alexander's generals carved up his empire, which of the resulting states were considered to be the continuation of the empire?

>>3015747
None, because they essentially ruled as their own states and kingdoms in the same way when the WRE fell to a new barbarian kingdom.
ERE is still the Roman Empire and never stopped claiming to be the Roman Empire. At the same time, the WRE was quite dependent on the ERE as well.

>>3015747
They are called successor states. They were Macedonian Empires associated with Alexander, but not Alexander's Empire, because he had no heir.