Every Claimant To Rome Ever || How Rome Finally Fell in 2011
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มี.ค. 2023
- #possiblehistory #rome #romanempire #byzantium #russia #ottoman #francia #holyromanempire #italy
Who is and isn't Rome? This is a question asked across history. Rome itself fell in 476 with the raiding of the city, but did Rome truly fall? After all, the Western Roman Empire continued under Julius Nepos until 480, the Kingdom of Soissons lasted for another couple decades, and most importantly, the Byzantine empire in the East kept going for millenia after this point. Then we have the "new" Roman Empires of the Middle-Ages. Francia and the Holy Roman Empire were elevated by the Pope into new "Roman Empires". And with the fall of Byzantium in 1453, two more "Rome's" emerged, the Ottoman Empire and Russia. This video will be an exploration of the successor states to Rome, where their claims come from, how good those claims are and how long they lasted.
Join us on a captivating journey through history as we dive into the intricate web of Rome's successor states. Discover the fascinating tales of empires that rose and fell, each vying for the title of the eternal city. From the Eastern Roman Empire to the Holy Roman Empire and beyond, we explore the relentless pursuit of power and the enduring legacy of Rome.
But that's not all! Uncover the intriguing story of how Rome finally met its ultimate demise in the surprising year of 2011. Prepare to be amazed as we reveal the modern-day events that brought this ancient city to its knees.
Delve into the riveting narrative of political intrigue, cultural clashes, and military conquests that shaped the destiny of Rome and its successor states. Gain insight into the struggles, triumphs, and ultimate fate of those who sought to claim the mantle of Rome throughout history.
Join us for an eye-opening exploration of Rome's successors and the shocking revelation of how Rome's influence persisted until recent times. Subscribe now to witness the grandeur and downfall of empires, and to unlock the secrets of Rome's legacy that still reverberate in the world today.
If you like the content please like, comment and subscribe, it helps smaller channels like mine to get noticed!
If you want to support the channel you can go to my Patreon or become a member! You will get early access to video's and will be allowed to suggest priority video subjects!
/ possiblehistory
/ @possiblehistory
www.buymeacoffee.com/Possible...
Possible Extra's a channel where we do not necessarily history related stuff, like podcasts and more!
/ @theobserverph
Gaming Channel:
/ @deletedchannel1010
Feel free to follow or join our social media platforms:
/ possiblehistory
/ possiblehistor1
/ discord
/ possible_history0
Most of our music by Beta Records. He's great, check him out!
Link: goo.gl/peHHCX
A lot of other music by Kevin McLoad. The Copyrightfree Music Creator
/ kevinmacleodarchive
(could/should have included the German Empire and the Third Reich as well, since they claim heritage from the Holy Roman Empire)
Thank you for watching! To support the content consider leaving a like and a comment, it really helps against the algorithm! Subscribe for at least one (alternate) history video every single week!
first
You should've included spain too as they got sold the claim of the eastern roman empire even though they stopped using it they never relinquished the title either
you forgot Wallachia, Moldovia and of course Romania
@Possible History One thing about video... Serbia and Bulgaria claim actually had point. Both of that countries never claimed to be successor of Ancient Roman empire, they claimed to be successor of Eastern Roman empire(also it was never called in history Byzantium, that term was made by scholar Hieronymus Wolf) because they made orthodox empires.
The people of Eastern Roman empire called themselves Romans, not Greeks not Byzantines. That is why they also put that in title. Russia also claimed to be succesor state of orthodox Eastern Roman empire not ancient Roman empire.
Last thing is that all three Slavic empires had big impact on Orthodox faith. Russia made largest orthodox empire, in Bulgaria was made cyrillic alphabet that was spread on all Slavic othodox people, and Serbia two times refused to unite Catholic and Orthodox church; because Serbia refused that we still have two major Christian branches.
First time they refused during Serbian empire, and second time in 15. century.
When Ottomans conquered the Balkans in the 15th century, Byzantium and other Orthodox countries were unable to resist it. They asked for help from Western Christians, and the Vatican met them with blackmail. They were promised help from the countries of Western Roman Catholic Europe, on the condition that they sign a union with the Roman Catholic Church, that the Orthodox Church recognize the supreme authority of the Vatican. The ruler of Serbia, the despot Đurađ Branković, told the Serbian patriarch that he would hang him if he went to Florence.
In 1439, in Florence, the union with the Vatican was signed by all Orthodox religious leaders, all except Serbian. Upon learning that Serbia had opposed the powerful Vatican, the Russian Grand Duke executed his patriarch, because of the shame he had brought to Russia. When it became known in Constantinople that the Serbs had not signed the union, riots broke out. At the request of the people, the Ecumenical Patriarch had to step down. The Vatican never forgive the Serbs.
On the other hand great video, but I just wanted to gave you some informations that you didn't know and couldn't find. 😁
I think including the German Empire also makes sense because they kind of stole the title from the French. So if the French empires are included then the German Empire has a double indirect claim, although they were largely protestant. Third Reich seems a bit further though. The nazis may have had the emperor restored if they survived, but during their existence they allied with an active "rome-restorer", made up fake germanic heritage stories and tried to found a German Church, which was explicitly not connected to Rome.
Every European empire : "You know I'm something of a Roman myself."
underrated comment lol
*Jew
@@joaojonito3764 overrated*
😂😂😂👍
@@Whayleejay Jealous
You know you‘ve created a legendary empire when a whole civilisation claims to be you (or at least tries to)
Here before this blows up
Two actually. The turks are from mongolia, and rome never conquered Russia.
How about the UK roman empire????
Sumer from 4000BC-313BC
America maybe eventually from 1776-???
Rome isn’t an empire, it’s an idea.
You didn't mention Venice, which actually survived the collapse of the Western Rome and had a pretty good run until it was conquered by Napoleon, increasing Napoleon's kill count of Roman claimants
San Marino too
Good ol' Napoleon was kicking Roman ass as well.
ugh. So based and frenchpilled
@@saosaosson6139San Marino is a joke
@@saosaosson6139 If I'm not mistaken San Marino is the only state left in the world that actually got its independence from Rome.
Fun Fact: Ivan the Terrible, who was the first Russian ruler to title himself Czar (i.e. Caesar) actually had a legitimate claim to the title. He was the grandson of a Byzantine princess, a neice of the last Byzantine emperor. Unfortunately that claim died out with Ivan’s son Fyodor, who died without an heir, but the title stuck.
Yeah... about that. You forget that European family trees are more like a circle. It's probably likely that there were others with stronger claims, which we've just conveniently forgotten or just disappeared from records over time. However I would still argue that a title doesn't give you a proper claim. You need to have boots on the ground to make the claim. That's why Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the Romans. They held much of the Roman lands. And even the Ottomans styled themselves as Kayser-i Rum (Caesar of Rome) and they almost certainly had more chops to say that than the Russian Czar, because Ottomans actually held Constantinople, which was one of the Roman capitals. It's why this Russian Third Rome fantasy is the most ludicrous out of them all, because they never held any of the key Roman lands. They only held a border region today known as Crimea and they only got that in the 1780 long after the Paleiologos family ties had died out.
He was also the descendant of Swedish Vikings belonging to the line of Rörik
I think Spain has the best claim to the title currently as they bought the title off the last Byzantine Emperor.
@@whitegoose2017saying the ottomans had stronger grounds than ivan the terrible on claiming the title of successor of rome because they conquered constantinople is absolutely laughable 😂 neither of them had any grounds, and the ottomans even less so than the russians
@@whitegoose2017 Definitely not. Russia's claim to being rome isn't very strong, but it's still much better than the Ottomans. That is because of russia's religion tracing it's origins to Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. Due to this, as well as the rise of the Tsar, russia's culture was also very much influenced by Byzantium. So while they are missing a territorial claim, they do have a valid cultural one, which imo means a lot more, as culture is what creates an empire's identity. Meanwhile not only do the Ottomans have no real cultural connection to byzantium, they directly fought against and destroyed it. Thus, in my eyes rendering them an outside force which has as much of a claim to the title of Rome as do the germanic tribes who conquered and destroyed the Western Roman Empire.
Maybe the real Rome was the friends we made along the way.
had to burn a few fields, salt a little bit of earth so that not even a blade of grass will grow in carthage ever again.....but all in all things turned out great!
Balkans 😎🥵
Or the barbarians and claimers that we slain along the way
Underrated comment
*the wars we made along the way
There are two more important facts that you didn't mention.
1. Soissons was conquered by Francia under King Clovis, which is somewhat of a legitimacy boost for Francia by right of conquest (as the Ottoman example shows)
2. The title of Eastern Roman Emperor was given to the King of Aragon by the last Byzantine Emperor, which gives the King of Spain a good claim to it.
The "right of conquest" is BS, by conquering a thing you literally destroy it
*By a nephew of the last emperor
@@caiawlodarski5339 who would be the dynasty head due to the laws of succession. So technically he had the title but it all depends if the last emperor (who died before the official dissolution at the battle) dissolved the title when it was conquered
France Clovis also got a diploma from the Byzantine.
@@KeithR2002 Here is the thing though, Rome was not a dynastic state, Emperorship was an office of the state, not a title of land ownership. Andreas had no more right to sell the title of "roman emperor" than Trump Jr would have to sell the title of "president of the united states". You are applying western european ideas of noble titles where they don't make sense.
Of course, in practice Byzantium was little more than a dynastic kingdom of the palaiologi since the fourth crusade, but I think that does more to throw their legitimacy as roman emperors into question than it does to make their sale of the title make sense.
As for the Papacy, it is interesting to note that the fall of the Western Roman Emperor did not mean the fall of the Roman *State* (The Empire fell but the State remained in Rome), the Senate was still there along with other institutions. There was quite a bit of jockeying among Western Roman institutions for power and the Papacy definitely conquered the power vacuum of the Western Roman State, and it still exists.
Nonsense. The Ostrogoths were the successor. They were conquered by the Greeks.
@@tompatterson1548I agree with the man. The papacy is a roman institution. Both a liturgical and political institution
@@thessop9439 iirc it was never a Government institution per se.
@@tompatterson1548 true, but it still was a roman political and liturgical institution
@@thessop9439i still think that that is a pretty weak claim. the papacy could be considered a remnant institution.. but the papal state wouldn’t form for another few centuries. this was after the Ostrogoths already had set up and ruled kingdoms in Italy with the expressed blessing of the Byzantines (the legitimate Rome and successor of Western Rome imo)
I personally like the Spanish claim-Constantine XI died, the city fell, and his preferred heir was his brother, the Despot of Morea. His heir was his son, Andreas. In his will, Andreas left his claims and titles to the Catholic Monarchs of what would become Spain. One could also argue that, through Carlos V/I, Spain unified the Western claim of the Holy Roman Empire to the Eastern Roman claim he already had, being the first claimant since 395 to be legitimate through both lines of succession. Now, one can argue about what happens after him personally (his empire fell apart, split between Ferdinand and Phillip) but if anyone could be considered the Roman Emperor in the Sixteenth Century, I know who’d be my nominee.
With the bonus that spain was a part of roman so its not far from the claims of france but also has the rigth of the romans given them the title instead of the pope
@@mariox204 Spain gave many good Roman emperors as well and Felipe VI is the only one to be a currently reigning monarch. Ave Imperator Philippus III!
@@MrOceMcCool thinking more about it they where THE CATOLIC monarchs with very good ties to the pope so they pass the religion check (the religion from the other half of the empire but the point is they conserve they religion that come from the empire) and in biggernes they create the realm where the sun doesnt set
@@mariox204 if you think about it. They spread a Roman religion, a Romance language, and revived Hispania, a prominent Roman province.
Charles V/I was nicknamed Caesar as he had the two most powerful Catholic states at his disposal at the time.
Rome's Legacy is so important and legendary that an entire race in the eastern world that you didn't even conquer claims to be IT'S successor.
China? Turks? America? ????
@@deiansalazar140 specifically turks since saying muslims is a broad statement
@RoroPiRoro i mean the turks where conquered by the goooofy romans
@@Grid-the-goofy ? When?
You mean the Sassanid empire? Or the minor turkic bayelics?
@RoroPiRoro dude did you forget that rome took anitolia where mainland turkey is?
tbh I see myself as the only rightful successor to the roman empire
Proof?
@@fildafernandes4366 It was revealed to me in a dream
@@e4arakon reliable + true 🗿
@@e4arakon so true
@@e4arakonI, being a direct representative of myself, support your claim to be the successor of the Roman Empire.
Culturally, Italy and Greece are the closest successors be it in terms of religion, music , language etc.. In terms of claims ,as you mentioned 🙂
As a byzantine geek its just funny that my brother's name is Belisarius and his (italian) girlfriends name is Regina 😂
I mean i could argue that the Romans were Greek lol
@@SiJullianToGuysyes if u buy into the ignorant idea that Roman culture was more Greek than italic or Etruscan
@@Boretheory Obviously the Byzantine meme completely overlooks reality. If you look at Spain for example, it had far more in common with Rome than the later Byzantines did. They had a Roman religion, a Romance language, and Hispania was an important founding province of the Empire. All created with absolutely no contact, if not minimal contact with the Greeks
Proud to say that Italy Is the most roman one. But hey, we Romans(Italians) always loved you Greeks ❤
Love from Senatus PopulusQue Romanus
@@Boretheorythey were very heavily influenced by Greek culture, just like any other peoples living on the coasts of the eastern Mediterranean
A few other potential claimants:
1) I feel the strongest claimant which you did not explicitly mention, is the Vatican City. Whether it be its current incarnation, the Papal States, or simply the papacy itself, the Roman Catholic Church is the last standing institution that was born in the Roman Empire, grew in the Roman Empire, and was officially recognized and participated in by a Roman Emperor, Constantine I, at the Council of Nicaea, in 325. It became an official Roman institution in 380. Additionally, it has a geographic claim by literally being centered in Rome, and "Roman" is in its official name. Also the last claimant to retain the monarchy. This claim has lasted 1990 years if you start at Christ's Great Commission in 33 AD, 1698 years if you start at the Council of Nicaea, or 1643 years if you start at its institution as the official state religion
2) The German Empire evolved from many of the successor states of the Holy Roman Empire, primarily the Kingdom of Prussia. The German Empire claimed succession from the HRE as the Second Reich, and its emperor was crowned as Kaiser, derived from Caesar. The Imperial German claim lasted from 1871-1918, for a total of 47 years
3) National Socialist Germany. While the Weimar Republic had claimed no Roman legacy, National Socialist Germany claimed itself as the true successor to Imperial Germany as the Third Reich. National Socialist claims lasted 12 years between 1933 and 1945
4) The Tsardom of Bulgaria. This claim is by far the weakest, only deriving from the use of Tsar (Caesar) for the monarchical title, but I thought I'd throw that out there. Tsarist Bulgarian claims lasted 38 years from 1908 to 1946
Although it has never claimed the title San Marino is the most legitimate successer of the Roman Empire that still exists, as it did split from the Western Roman Empire a few years before it collapsed, it even has a heavily modified form of the Roman Senate based directly off of the Western Roman Senate. San Marino has never been conquered and has had a continuous system of governance the whole time, this should suffice for it to be considered a Roman successor. Should it not?
If a country split off of an institution wont it take away their right of being under that title? Its like saying bosnia is the legal continuation of yugoslavua
@@KeithR2002 Well Bosnia is a successor state to Yugoslavia.
@@KeithR2002 The Western Roman Empire is by default a split of the original Roman empire
What makes San Marino any different?
@@TnD_BigJax it is different because it is not a legally a roman state. The split was two roman states.
@@TnD_BigJax on a side note san marino was not really independent and seceded out of the empire. It was founded in the roman empire as a municipality. Only did it gain full independence after 17th century
Fun fact: The Roman Empire had technically reunited under Charles V (King of Spain and HRE Emperor). He inherited the Title of Eastern Roman Emperor from his Spanish grandparents (The Catholic Monarchs, who received the title from Bizantium after it fell) and the HRE, as he was elected. Tho his inheritance wouldnt continue on one person since it was his son the king Philip II of Spain the one who received the Eastern Roman Emperor (Or just Roman Emperor, call it what you want) and his Brother the one who got to rule the HRE. The HRE no longer exists and the Roman Emperor title still belongs to the Spanish royal family, but they have never really used it
That ends the debate byzantine empire is the Roman Empire!
Therefor! By right of victory in war against Spain, Mexico is the rightful roman successor state!
@@browneyeofsauron1244
wrong.
The Philippines is the rightful roman successor state.
Ave Marcos! Ave Jollibee
@@browneyeofsauron1244 continuing this right of succession by victory, the title would then fall to a few native american tribes for a bit, then to USA, then finally to Vietnam. So therefore Vietnam is the rightful successor to Rome!!
@@genghiskhan5701 As a pinoy, I agree
Rome never fell. We are Rome. The western civilization. We learn their history in detail, we use their letters, words, their calendar. Their architecture. Almost all of the native descendents of Rome are living in western countries. Etc. We are Rome.
by that logic, Japan is China, despite never being a part of it
Best comment❤️🔥❤️🔥
Also another notable mention; Ottoman Sultans also claim heritage of Rome by blood as well as conquest, due to mothers of some sultans such as Theodora Kantakouzene were sisters and daughters of Byzantine Emperors. Ruling families of two neighbouring empires intermarry during times of peace. So Mehmet the conqueror was related to Roman emperors as well.
Yes but, none of the Actual Sultans of the Ottomans were sons of THeodora Kantakouzanes. They had no *REAL* roman blood.
Ottomans just destroyed the most beautiful city in earth , even now days the copy the Hagia Sophia Greek archiecture to build mosques cause they have not creativity
@@gabrielmaldonado1903constantinople was a city in ruins, de-populated. The turks conquered it and made it great again.
@gabrielmaldonado1903 You are so ignorant lol If it wasnt because of the Ottomans, Constantinople would be a decayed, depopulated village... The Ottomans rebuilt Constantinople and made it a beautiful, big and populated city again
@@gabrielmaldonado1903 as if the entirety of western Europe didn't have an entire age called the Renaissance that was literally completely focused around copying Rome
The ONLY REAL TRUE Roman empire fell in 1453, byzantine empire never existed, not even eastern Roman empire, IT ALWAYS WAS THE ROMAN EMPIRE
It was more like a zombie of the Roman empire
Neh, i think romania is the real roman empire
@ProstyProtos71 was the hre Rome debatable I like to think so was it the true Rome no not at all
@ProstyProtos71 The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire
@ProstyProtos71 we do a bit of trolling
There were two Byzantine rump states that you didn't mention, which makes sense because of how small they were: the Principality of Theodoro and the Despotate of the Morea.
The main reason why Theodoro is interesting is because it lasted until 1475, nearly 22 years after the fall of Constantinople, making it one of the last territorial remnants of Rome.
The Morea is interesting because it wasn’t so much of a successor state, as it was actually a province of the Empire that remained after the fall of Constantinople, in part due to Morea being semi-autonomous. It lasted only 7 years after Constantinople fell, but still interesting.
Edit: Also, while Epirus stopped claiming to be a continuation of the Empire after 1246, remnants of the regime lasted until 1479, although by that time they only controlled a few isolated forts and towns.
Are you referring to Vonitsa in your edit?
You forgot Trebizond
Since when people used Byzantine to describes Eastern Romans??
Also when Byzantine term was found?
@@faleilham8334 If you’re asking why the Eastern Roman Empire is commonly called the Byzantine Empire, the city of Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) used to be known as Byzantium. People have used the term “Byzantine” since the late 17th century.
0:48 imagine if All the nations that had a claim to being romen united into one, like they basically become almost unstoppable
As an Italian, I can confirm that ours is more of a cultural recognition, at least since the establishment of the republic (1946), since many customs and traditions have remained to this day, not to mention the language, one of the closest to Latin, and in phrases and proverbs where Latin idioms are still used today (Example: in Roman justice, the names Tizio, Caio and Sempronio were always used to refer to hypothetical people, as is still the case in Italian). I'm not here to be controversial, honestly in 2023 it seems anachronistic to me that anyone would declare themselves the successor of the Roman empire.
You guys sure didn’t inherit Rome’s martial culture and military prestige.
Yes, it is really anachronistic to claim to be a successor of the Roman Empire by now, and I think that claiming to be a descendant of it makes more sense.
@@polishherowitoldpilecki5521 Yep, you're absolutely right
Does that including the Roman corruption and Roman coup?
@@G.A.C_Preserve Those are trademarks
If you are counting Napoleonic France and the Austrian Empire, you should logically also count the German Empire, which also referenced the Holy Roman Empire as its claim to the imperial title. Also the whole idea of the Third Reich was in reference to the two previous Reichs, the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire, so you could count that as a claimant as well. As for the Ottoman claim, it is an interesting one because they had a strong claim at first but just kind of gradually stopped emphasizing it so it is hard to really consider them a Roman claimant in the 1900s.
The Ottoman claim is indeed interesting because they do control Constantinople and its sultans considered themselves as Roman emperors (as they rule over Romans as well, the Rum Millet), and they also emphasized that by appointing Patriarchs of Constantinople, creating what was essentially a multicultural state (at first at least), fighting against the Habsburg emperors of HRE to ensure there's only one Roman emperor, and even forging a four-tiered crown (Suleiman the Magnificent's Venetian Helmet) to rival the three-tiered Papal Tiara. That Roman claim gradually recedes after Ottoman sultans claim the title of Caliph, however, when they started to emphasize their Islamness rather than Romanness
@@jdcsiahaan By this definition, the ostrogoths had just as strong a claim to the empire...
@Azahel 000 Well yeah, they did.
@@azahel542 They would have, yes, but they decided to recognize the Eastern Roman emperors rather than stake their own claim. The Ottomans actually actively claimed Roman emperorship, at least at first.
The Germans never claimed to be the successor to rome though, infact Hilter thought the Romans made the italians less aryan than the other Europeans. While they technically would be by that logic the Germans would consider themselves there own race, and there own Empire unlike any seen before.
Technically, the emperor couldn’t unilaterally dissolve the HRE, so theoretically, the prince of Lichtenstein or grand Duke of Luxemburg could ask the pope to be made the Holy Roman Emperor, being the last noble lines from that era to retain power.
What about Bavarian king? Those guys did fight Austria at war of Austrian succession.
@@alexzero3736 At the end of WW1 bavarian people decided that they don't need a king anymore.
I suppose you could make a similar claim then on behalf of the British monarchy, since they were the rulers of Hanover and electors within the HRE until it was dissolved. Although their rule of Hanover did end when Victoria I ascended the throne as Hanover didn't allow female heirs. Still, they were part of the HRE nobility until it's end and would be the most senior such noble house still around today.
@@someguy3766 because Hanover didn’t allow female heirs, the Hanoverian line of succession would not be in British hands today.
@@jwil4286 Yeah I said as much. But that royal house was the monarchy of Hanover, and it still exists today. So there is a link from King Charles III to the HRE, and therefore to Rome. A weak link ofc.
3:00 i love the Asterix reference! Great stuff.
I was searching for this comment haha
Just here to say that, having grown up watching Asterix & Obelix, I really appreciate the nod to the show you made at 2:50, it really caught me off guard :D
there is a show? I never knew there was more than the comic books
@@reinjouke9743 definitely look into it! In particular, The 12 Tasks of Asterix is my favourite, and it is a story originally made for the show, and only later adapted into a comic :)
The Ostrogothic Kingdom is worth noting as well. They had the blessing of the Eastern Roman Emperors to rule for decades until the Gothic Wars. The Senate still met and even did more governance than any time since at least the Principate, and the people there didn't see themselves as being subjects of a foreign king, but still in a part of Rome. The Gothic kings might not have called themselves imperator, but they were a state that was part of Rome.
Odoacer and Theodoric both also considered themselves romans. Odoacer was also magister militum before he took italy.
So technically it wasnt a barbarian invasion but a civil war and a reunification with the east until the gothic war. 🤔
I do recall that part of history. Historians teach that under that ruler, the Western Roman Empire lasted until 550 AD.
The Ostrogothic Kingdom was a Breakaway Entity from the Roman Empire.
If Balochistan breaks away from Pakistan, Balochistan is Balochistan and isnt the Continuation from Pakistan, same with the Ostrogothic Kingdom
@@DiveEntertainment47 This
@@DiveEntertainment47nah this is not even comparable
Russia didn’t just claim because of religion, it’s was because of marriages of rus princes and “Byzantine” (Roman) monarch family
Also Moscow literally adopted Byzantine political institutions, including those related to the status of the Orthodox Church.
I mean same goes for ottomans
@@olvustin6671 Not officially. No Roman emperor would actually approve of an Roman-Ottoman marriage. Also, Orthodox Christianity was a vital part of the Roman identity. If one wasn’t Christian or didn’t speak Greek then they were not considered Romans according to the actual Romans
@@universetraveler5826 but they approved the marriages.
@@universetraveler5826 claiming any christianity was vital to Roman identity is the most revisionist shit... Rome was Pagan for the majority of it's existence.
Not gonna lie, I liked this video before I got through 5 seconds purely because I love the idea so much.
Watching the whole thing of course. Always like to hear about the cultural justifications and claims of virtue, I find it much more interesting than what often comes up in history, like simple displays of territory and descriptions of fighting.
I have watched several videos on the subject. So far, this video is best of them:
- top tear objectivity.
- clear presentation of the information and ideas.
🎉
The Eastern Romans Empire wasn't a successor state. That was literally the Roman Empire. Byzantium is a term the HRE made up to disenfranchise them.
Exactly
Facts
Also some say it was Greek Empire. They influance a lot but it wasnt Greek Empire . It was multiethnic Eastern Roman Empire
They were greek
@@AlexDragonfire96 No . They were Romans . Most of the population was Anatolians.
The Prince of Moscow also married Zoe, the daughter of the younger brother (Thomas Paleologus) to the last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine. So the Tsars and later Emperors of Russia have a dynastical claim to Rome too.
niece of the last emperor, also meaning granddaughter of the second-to-last emperor, so there's a direct descendance lmao
If so, this claim would only refer to Rurik dynasty, not Romanovs, who never had a single drop of Constantine's blood.
The Ottomans have the claim too. Orhan married the Byzantine princess of the Palailogi.
Romanovs actually have Rurik blood duh few drops at least
@@PraetorAkin Good for the people.... Bad for rich pigs.
You forgot the biggest Rome's son, the Spanish empire.
Rome lives forever in every European heart.
Italian heart*
There's a few other weird ones: Montferrat had a dynastic claim owing to them having a Palaiologos Duke, the Visigoths under Burdunelles and Petrus also claimed the title, the last Palaiologos heir (the brother of the last Emperor) sold his rights to the title to the Catholic monarchs, so the Spanish monarchy is also tied to the Roman title and does have some support as the most likely claimant
I will also explain this again so that people can see: even though Andreas Palaiologos did try to sell the title to the King of France first, this was only on the condition that the King would launch a crusade to take back Constantinople and Greece, rewarding Andreas with lordship of the Morea if they won. This never happened, as the King died four years later, so Andreas withdrew the offer and sold the title to the Catholic Monarchs instead.
@@kiernanhowell-mackinley1733 I pretty sure he didn't even manage to sell, he willed it to the king of Spain
No he did, the Spanish monarchy has just never used the title, it was likely more of a vanity thing for them & to help the guy out.
Given how selling titles is accepted and recognized I think they have the best claim to the title of Romen Emperors today. If I ever get rich I will try and see if I can buy the title off of them if only for the memes of declaring myself Emperor of Rome.
The Last Brother, *TRIED* to sell his titles to the Spanish, they didn't accept. He ended up dying and *LEFT* his titles to the Spanish.
Honorable mentions:
Theodoro, Successor of Trebizond, Fell in 1475
Despotate of the Morea, successors of the Byzantines, Fell in 1460
March of Montferrat, Successors of the Byzantines, last roman ruler died in 1533 & fell in 1708 (Duchy of Montferrat)
Kingdom of France, Granted by Andreas Palaiologos, fell into disuse 1565, fell in 1789/1800
Kingdom of Castile-Aragon/Spain, Granted by Andreas Palaiologos, Fell in 1700 with the death of Charles II
Romania, Claims heritage to Roman Dacians
I don't think claiming to be descended of roman people means they claim to be the Roman empire
Yup, Romania never claimed any continuation... but many former Byzantine imperial families actually settled in Romania and became nobles but this happened at least a century after the fall of the empire, I don't know how much claim they had to anything. Were they from the main families? If some were deposed at some time in Byzantine history they obviously lost any pretense... Anyway, nobody really cared in Romania. The only attempt done in this direction I think was done immediately after the fall of Constantinople, Trebizond and Morea. Stephen the Great of Moldavia married with the sister of the prince of Theodoro the last Byzantine rump state and tried to stop Ottoman expansion. It failed, both militarily and marriage wise, they had no children and the prince of Theodor's family was extinguished.
@@Bayard1503he meant something else about Romania lmao
@@alextg23 I know, I just added some info
@@ElKITENAUT Yes, and the Bourbon line was a cousin of distance from the Habsburg one, so it wasn't like "new guys in charge".
I think you missed Romania as a relevant one. Romania means "Roman" or "of Rome" and technically we call ourselves Romans (romanians), as well as speaking romance language and arguably one of the closest to Latin despite the Slavic influence. And we are Orthodox, the religion of the Eastern Rome. While romanians do not claim to be successors, you did mentioned Greece.
Romanians certainly have a good claim to be directly descended from Romans, or at least Daco-Romans. And they’ve been good at keeping some significant cultural markers alive through the centuries (as you say in your comment).
But perhaps not so good at the Empire bit - not only by never having one themselves but also by having spent most of their history fighting off the domination of powerful empires all around them!
By the way, I see this as an incredible survival story - how the Romanian people somehow kept together as a national community throughout all those centuries of foreign power domination, before finally a kind of two-stage independence in 1878 & 1918.
Regarding Russia, plus everything, Ivan III, who ascended the throne in 1462, was married to Sophia, who, before the adoption of Orthodoxy, was called Zoya Palaiologos and was the niece of the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos. This was traced to heredity. In addition, around this time, the double-headed eagle, which migrated from Byzantium, became the coat of arms of the Russian state (again, a hint of continuity).
The successor of Thomas Palaiologos, Despot of Morea and brother of Constantine XI, the last Roman Emperor, was his son Andreas Palaiologos, who appointed the king and queen of Spain as successors of his title, which negates the Russian claim to the title through Zoe Palaiologina as she never had a claim to it.
It would be interesting to see the topic of "Weird anttemps for imperial revivals"
Like that of Italy and Greece to revive roman identity in the 20th century, the spanish loyalist in the american colonies claiming to be the legitimate Spanish empire before being overrun by revolutions, Hungary's anttemp to restore it's monarchy and former boarders, etc.
(Welp, i hope the algorithm takes this as an endorsement)
In WW2 when the Allies helped free Greece in some of the rural and less populated islands, the Allies said something about congrats on having a free Greece. When they said that the Greek people stared at them confused, responding “we are not Greek, we are Romans” some Greek people never gave up their Roman identity
Maybe something about everyone who claimed to be a successor to the Caliphate?
That happened in the andes during the independence. Incan nobles rebelled against the revolutionaries, remaining loyal to the spanish crown.
Which also reminded me of an argentinian funding father looking for an Inca noble, his plan was to restore the Inca empire.
@@xELITExKILLAx We are both the Ellines (Hellenes/Greeks) and Romioi (Romans). Greece itself IS the Rhomania/Byzantine empire. We just failed to liberate our capital (most consider Konstantinoupoli as the real capital not Athens) due to internal issues and the fact that noone really wanted us to revive the byzantine empire. The russians also had a plan in the 1600s for a new greek byzantine empire but preferred the declining ottomans and the same thing was true for the british french and italians + soviets. Thats the main reason we actually lost eastern thrace. Turkey couldn't actually get it even after we lost in Asia minor. We mainly had to give it up because of pressure by the british. The Greek army was getting ready to re-enter the city at some point. But at least im happy some Greeks entered into Hagia Sophia and finished the Byzantine liturgy that hadn't finished in 1453 because of the siege of Constantinople. Either way things can change again.
Would the Spaniards count? I know they didn't have any real desire towards Rome compared to the others, but didn't the last Roman emperor Constantine XI give his titles before the empire fell as a reassurance the empire would continue? I think if this were to be considered or not, it would have to come down to if we find any value towards emperor Constantine's XI final commands, almost like taking the Pope's word/authority. It's very interesting, and I am happy to have seen this video!
I count them, their history and culture probably are closer to the Romans than any other country except Greece and Italy, on top of the reason you mentioned.
No, the person who gave the title of Roman Emperor was a member of the Palaiologos dynasty, but Constantine XI never gave his titles to Spain
@@iexist3919 yes it was Andreas Palaiologos who gave the title of Roman Emperor to the Catholic Monarchs of Spain.
@@jcsfc2842They didn't use the title nor cared so nope....
@@iexist3919 exactly, my bad for saying it was Constantine XI, it was his nephew Andreas who was "heir" as the next in line. So he sold his claim and titles to them
Very wonderful video!
Good video man
Being so detailed I miss that you didn't mention that the king of Spain nowadays has the claim of Roman Emperors as the last Byzantine Emperor gave them to Isabella of Castille and Fernando of Aragon.
nope, the title was sold by a nephew of the last Byzantine Emperor, who was in need of cash. going by the Byzantine (and therefore Roman) laws of succession, that nephew doesn't hold the tile of Roman Emperor, given that the emperorship is an office, not a noble title inherited by birth or lineage, although in practice having a lineage to the previous emperor can boost one's claim for the office
@@jdcsiahaan thanks for clarifying :) I didn't know that
@@jdcsiahaan The nephew was the recognized heir before the fall though
@@alonsoACR Yeah, and he sold it to pretty much everyone: the Pope, the King of France, the King of Hungary, the Holy Roman Emperor, and then only to the King of Aragon.
@@jdcsiahaanIt may have been an office at first, but it certainly evolved into a noble title over time, starting with the dominate. Dynasties were especially prevalent in the Byzantine empire as in any other medieval kingdom.
2:52 I see what you did there. Nice Asterix reference. Soissons would be a cool alternate history state. Or an Arthurian romano celtic Britannia and Northern Gaul.
ill never understand the claim that the ottomans have a claim to the roman empire but those same people will say the HRE has barely any claim.
I’ll never understand it too
The Manchu conquered China and became the new China. Everybody agrees on that.
The Ottomans did the same. Yet, westerners don't consider them to have been the new Rome.
The HRE claim to Rome comes from the Pope saying so.
@@JuanManuel-ii1ov The Manchus that ruled over china adopted chinese culture in there later years of rule, unlike the ottomans who renamed everything that was once roman or byzantine greek and suppressed the greeks that tried to have = rights and forced them into service until the hellas were finally able to rebel.
The Pope actually rules over Rome so he has the most power to claim the roman empire out of anyone. The HRE is the successor to western rome that existed along side eastern rome more commonly referred to as the Byzantine empire
@@knightspearhead5718 The Manchu respond is a good one. On the other hand, the Pope merely rules a tiny plaza inside the city of Rome by grace of the Italian state, nothing more. I remind you I support neither the HRE nor Ottoman claim to Rome but merely present arguments.
Very nice video and even got some new info I wasn't privy of.
Great video however you missed 2 things
First the Russians have a dynastic claim to rome aswell through sophia palaiologina
Second :Andreas palaiologos sold his titles to Ferdinand II of aragon and Isabella I of castille
Now I'm intrigued with what could have happend if Julius Nepos managed to reclaim most of the western roman empire
It was impossible. There were too many barbarians squatting in its ruins.
it would have been interesting if he even managed to reclaim italy for rome, because then there is a possibility that the roman empire would still be around, although much smaller
If he had started a dynasty, you could have called them the Nepos Babies
Perhaps with some incredibly skilled successors, he could take back the empire bit by bit.
It would be a more interesting alternate history if honorius didn’t backstab stillicho or hell valentenian killed aetius. Some stupid moves by some young emperor doomed it completelt
"One small kingdom of indomitable Romans still holds out" I saw it coming and it still made me laugh out loud
Asterix?
I think it is important to mention two things that you did not cover
1. The Russian Empire/Russia/Muscovy had another claim to legitimacy: The final emperor of the eastern roman empire died fighting when Constantinople fell, but his brother continued to rule the despotate of Morea for 7 more years. His daughter, the niece of the last eastern roman emperor, was Zoe Palaiologina was born 4 years before Constantinople fell and in 1472 she would marry Ivan the third of Muscovy, a marriage actually suggested by the Pope. Ivan the third and Zoe Palaiologina's grandson Ivan the fourth would be the man to reform Muscovy into Russia and be the first Tsar (caesar - tsaetsar - tsar) of Russia.
As such Russia's Tsars had a bloodline connection to the brother of the last emperor of the eastern roman empire up until 1598 when the Rjurikovich dynasty ended their rule of Russia.
2. Before the great schism, there was no difference between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. They were both one united church; often called the chalcedonic church. In this church there were 5 leaders called patriarchs: one for Rome, one for Constantinople, one for Antioch, one for Alexandria and one for Jerusalem. The Pope was the patriarch of Rome, a successor to the Roman "Pontifex Maximus" and was a more prestigious position than the other patriachs. However all 5 patriarchs had to agree to crown the new emperor of Rome. When the eastern and western parts of the church split, the Pope claimed to be the only authority on god's will.
At this point, the western Roman empire had long ago fallen and the papal states had existed for a long time. This makes it kind of odd that the one patriarch that did not live in the Roman empire claimed to be the only one who could crown the Roman emperor alone.
The successor of Thomas Palaiologos, Despot of Morea and brother of Constantine XI, the last Roman Emperor, was his son Andreas Palaiologos, who appointed the king and queen of Spain as successors of his title, which negates the Russian claim to the title through Zoe Palaiologina.
Somewhere amongst the heavens, Romulus sheds a single tear of pride.
meanwhile remus:.....
Romulus would be horrified to see his Legacy turn against the Gods he glorified.
@@anitathakur9340 Remus weeps while Romulus joys
Octavian did a stellar job
@@xShadowChrisx he probabaly would be confused as rome was still technically small during his life
Man I can't believe you didn't even mention Spain! and I'm not even Spanish!
For example, I am only going to refer to the King of Spain and the Spain of today.
1) Have a legal claim
2) Already a head of state
3) Member of Capetian family, oldest still royal line in Europe
4) Theodoric was given western imperial regalia from Eastern Emperor and Spain is the successor state of the Visigothic Kingdom meaning both titles east and west can be claimed by the Spanish crown
5) A Latin speaker
The Roman Empire had "technically" reunited under Charles V (King of Spain and HRE Emperor). He inherited the Title of Eastern Roman Emperor from his Spanish grandparents (The Catholic Monarchs, who received the title from Byzantium after it fell) and the HRE, as he was elected. Tho his inheritance from him wouldnt continue on one person since it was his son from him the king Philip II of Spain the one who received the Eastern Roman Emperor (Or just Roman Emperor, call it what you want) and his Brother from him the one who got to rule the HRE. The HRE no longer exists and the Roman Emperor title still belongs to the Spanish royal family, but they have never really used it
A less serious but arguably more utilitarian idea is whoever is upholding the Pax like the Pax Romana is the functional equivalent of Rome. Thanks for the video.
That'd be America, but for how long ? And who replaces them ?
You forgot Palaeologus-Montferrat house, who ruled Montferrat City State, since palaeologus house ruled Roman successor state (Eastern Rome) the city state was literally another successor state imo. Also, it was ruled by branch of Palaeologus Dynasty called "Palaeologus-Montferrat".
There is also the Kaiser (Caesar) of Germany, when they dissolve from HRE.
Also, the Spanish claim that the last Byzantine emperor wrote a letter saying that Frederick and Isabella of New founded Spain are the ancestors/ successors to the Eastern Roman Empire title, but that line mixed with the Western Roman Empire line through the Habusburgs ruling Italy. And then, they stop claiming that title due to the treaty at the end of the Spainsh throne war between Bourbons and Habusburgs, until Napoleon Bonaparte claimed that line.
I suspect the Spanish claim is likely a fabrication.
One possibility not mentioned is Lichtenstein as successor of the Holy Roman Empire. Spain and San Marino also have arguments for successor states as well.
I wonder how much larger this list would be if we even included countries that didn't claim to be Rome but do claim to be heavily influenced by its customs, culture and ideas. The founding fathers of the United States were very consciously basing the Constitution on the Roman Republic, and the Roman inspired architecture in Washington DC and the choosing of an eagle (the bald eagle chosen because it's native to the Americas) as the national bird show that.
America has the spirit of Rome maybe, but it's not Rome lol. Not by a longshot.
One of the best videos on this topic
No, kinda pathetic but good to understand that everyone that claims to be Rome apart from Italy is a stupid country. Like how can you claim it if you don't have Roman culture, a Latin language like Italian and ROMA?
This video is amazing, I always have this thought in mind and didn´t know all the claims! Keep the good work!
Napoleonic France had some interesting parallels to Rome: First a kingdom, then a republic, and then an empire. Napoleon was a consul that became an emperor, and all the imagery he used reminded Rome: his coronation (which was "his version" of the coronation of Charlemagne), the arc the triomphe etc...
Also, I feel like being an empire that actually dominated the continent, including large lands that used to belong to the Roman empire, makes the claim more credible. Indeed, I can't even begin to understand why you think Austria or some insignificant states such as Epirus had a "better claim".
Because it makes more sense doing it that way
@@Azurethewolf168no it doesn't
@@basedkaiser5352 yes
Phenomenal work!
Nice! Important analysis.
I think it makes more sense to count the ERE as falling in 1204 and Byzantium after that as the Nicean sucessor state. Byzantium as an entity after the fourth crusade was much closer to greek feudal kingdom than to the Imperial State that preceded it, and even culturally they were already moving away from a "Roman" identity into a "Greek/Hellenic" one, see Gemistos Plethon as an example of that.
Where did the crusaders that ruled and conquer it come from again? Venice helped them I think but it was mixed but which group had the most influence?
@@deiansalazar140 and Venice is funny, because they were formerly East Roman.
@@deiansalazar140 the latin emperors were all french
He was so cool an entire Greek dish was named after him
I wouldn't agree to that. Even before 1204, there was still a large Hellenic influence and grip over the entire empire. Sure, the emperors did have to speak Latin, but it wasn't until emperor Heraclius which started the empire to favour their inner Hellenic side more. Back then, being called Hellenic was seen as a pagan, referring to the faith of the Olympians, while Roman evolved to be meaning Christians. Roman was no longer just Latin ethnics, but it became an umbrella term with many ethnicity's that shared Roman values and way of life. The empire was already Hellenic from the start, indirectly and directly. Technically the term Byzantine isn't even correct since the term was created way after their extinction.
Your videos are seriously amazing! Love the topic of Rome!
Very cool video!
Loved the Asterix reference at 2:55 :)
Funny enough, Charles V of the HRE was nicknamed "el César" as he virtually controlled Western continental Europe (except for France, Portugal and some parts of Northern Italy). Was also the last HRE emperor crowned by the pope.
And the americas... Really a very big empire
@@diegoyqulki
With terrible adminstration
@@HashimyHuseini impossible to succes wiht that amount of money and only reliying on Castille treasure, He put the stone to spanish downfall
could we consider also the fact that ''On April 7, 1502, Andreas executed his testament designating Ferdinand and Isabel and their successors as his universal heirs.'' This refers to the bizantine empire in the era of Thomas Palaiologos's succesor Andreas (Thomas being the brother of Constantine XI if recall correctly). Correct me if i'm wrong, i love learning through making mistakes
I think this is a legitimate claim, but if the current Kings of Spain tried to claim themselves of Roman inheritance, they would mainly go by the "Visigothic Kingdom succesor of Rome" line of thinking. I think it's the most important (without discrediting the Palailogos selling of the title).
I think you should have mentioned the Principality of Theodoro, the successor to Trebizond, that lasted until 1475 in Crimea until its conquest by the Ottomans.
I liked your subtle Asterix reference.
Also I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that Austria post-1806 didn’t control any Roman lands, they still had held Lombardy-Venetia and the Po Valley, as well as Istria and Dalmatia, part of the very heart of the Roman world.
Even after losing Lombardy-Venetia, they still held on to South Tyrol and the Brenner Pass, parts of the old Roman core, and actually briefly recaptured Venetia during WWI (although not the city of Venice itself).
Of course the empire subsequently collapsed, though the old Holy Roman crown is on display in Vienna in the now-Republic of Austria.
Austria (Raetia) and Hungary (Pannonia) were also parts of the Roman Empire for a long time as Dalmatia and Illirya (Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia) also were
@@vectorstrike yes Illyria, Istria and Dalmatia are definitely great examples as well
I would go as far as to say that having the same territory as the Roman Empire did doesn’t really matter tbh. The Russian empire had literally 0 former Roman land and yet they still had some legitimacy to Rome.
@@VOTE_REFORM_UK it’s certainly a boost, that’s why Russia wanted to conquer Constantinople from 1453 until 1917
@@VOTE_REFORM_UK russia certanly did own former roman land
I think under the byzantine successors Theodoro would also be worth a mention, as a somewhat independent but closely allied breakaway of Trebizond it existed until 1475 in Crimea.
Nicely researched
Great analysis!
Do I agree with everything? No, I do think the Latin Empire is underappreciated here, given Frankokratia (Frankish rule in Greece) lasted until around 1450 with the fall of the Athenian Duchy. A minor state missing would be Theodoro, which broke off from Trebizond sometime around 1300 and continued as a Gothic-Greek state until the 1470's.
But, do I like the video? Damn yes I do! The video is the best one I've seen here, and while not up to the rigorous standards of a university, you still state your claims and provide evidence and reasoning to back up. Combined with your moderate historical views compared to other, more bombastic alt history creators and I'd say I've found one of the go-to channels during free time.
Technically there is also Spain.
You see, the grandson of the last Byzantine emperor decided that upon his death (he had no children) the title of Roman emperor should go to Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, thus giving Spain the chance to establish itself as Rome's successor.
I'am not from Spai btw.
The last Roman emperor also didn’t have any children. The guy who sold the title was an unimportant nephew, and he himself considered it a false sale. Even if the king did have a claim as heir of the emperor, that doesn’t mean Spain has a claim. Also, as far as I know, Spain never even claimed to be Rome, so I’m not sure why it’d be on this list
@@universetraveler5826it does mean Spain has a claim, read his comment again?
They didn't claim Rome but they defeated it to the point it ended "the renaissance" in the 16th century in the "Sack of Rome"
@@universetraveler5826 That "unimportant" nephew was the son of the brother of Constantine XI. That brother was the last emperor's designated heir.
Does anyone have any information on the kingdom mentioned at 3:20? I searched about it online but I found nothing. Thanks in advance!
Personally I find it unfair to the people that defended Constantinople and the last emperor Palaiologos to call any empire after him "roman",especially the Ottomans.Rome wasn't just the land it occupied,it was the way of life that these people practised for hundreds of years.
I love how you always make a video on topic I am interested in and almost nobody discussed
I think you missed one. I forget where I read this, but apparently one of the relatives of Constantine XI (the guy who died defending Constantinople in 1453) claimed to be the successor, and in his will gifted the title to the King of Spain and his descendants. Seeing as how this claim was never formally abandoned, and how there is still a King of Spain, they are arguably yet another claimant.
I was looking for this comment
The Roman Empire started in 70 BC and ended in 1453. This should be the actual video and that's it. No successors
@@alechboy3578 arguably they were long gone before that. the romans that most people know only existed around 500 years
Yes but the question is did that guy have the right to gift the title?? Did he really hold it?
All right, great video. I do have a criticism though. It’s ridiculous to say the western roman empire lasted for such a short time, since it was an empire before the “split”. But the thing is there wasn’t a formal split and everybody paid lip service to the idea of one rome. So in my conception both the western and “byzantine” empire should date their founding to Caesar, or at the very least Augustus (let’s split the difference and date it to caesar assassination, since the empire is definitely formed by that point on 44BC, or maybe to the formation of the second triumvirate on 43BC). The 395 AD date seems artificial and makes little sense
The Rightful claimants being the lineage of Macsen Wledig, whose final direct descendant ended in the 11th century in Wales, Iestyn Ap Gwrgan. And their offshoots ended with The Stuart’s after a marriage with the Tudors.
Very interesting video! I missed Spain though (shaky claim through selling of titles, buut it has an interesting mixture with the Habsburgs and the HRE)
You should've included Spain, as the son of the last eastern roman emperor, who held land before the Ottoman's captured it, stated in his will, that the title of Roman Emperor should be transferred to two monarch's in Spain who were married and would've through generation's passed the title to the current king of Spain, Filipe IV
🙌Filipe VI😅😂
No he didn't, that was his nephew. Andreas Palaiologos never had the right to give away the title as it was never officially hereditary and more recognised as an office. The title itself was defunct by that point as the imperial government was gone.
The guy that sold the rights considered the sale illegitimate, and he never even met the last Roman emperor. Also, this video is about successor states, not people with titles. If Filipe did have a claim as emperor, that doesn’t mean Spain has a claim to the Roman Empire
I wrote that out of memory not doing a bunch of research before it.
It's hilarious how everyone's pointing out every single mistake.
It's probably best if I don't correct it or all the fun falls away 😂
I guess posting history comments on TH-cam out of memory isn't a great idea 😆
@@universetraveler5826 well is the head of the state in the end. It could be used as a claim.
Really cool video
In Cyprus many still refer to themselves as Ρωμιοί or Romans and Byzantine imagery is very common.
You didn't include one that I consider pretty interesting:
The Spanish monarchs technically have a claim to Rome. After Constantinople fell in 1453, the Despot of Morea and younger brother of Emperor Constantine XII, Palaeologus, was still alive and inherited the title of Roman Emperor by virtue of being Constantines' closest surviving relative. After Morea fell to the Ottomans, he went into exile somewhere in Italy (forgot precisely where). In his will, he stated that his title of Roman Emperor would go to Queen Isabella of Castille and King Ferdinand II of Aragon. Thus this title would eventually pass down from king to king, finding itself in limbo a few times during the war of Spanish succession, its 2 republics and a 20th century dictatorship. However, currently, as Spain is still a functioning Monarchy, our boy Phillip is the real Roman Emperor if you ask me.
Now, this story may not be exactly correct, but I know the gist of.
The person you're talking about is Andreas Palaiologos, he had a claim but never the title, and it wasn't his to give away. The Western Europeans misidentified the title as hereditary but it wasn't.
Huh, interesting.
@@monetizedyay6827 except it was
"You recall the the title of Roman Emperor is passed down from Emperor to heir right? Not by conquest. The Eastern Romans (Or Byzantines for the uncultured swine) didn't become the successor because of conquest, but because Theodosious I gave the eastern lands and title of Emperor to his son Arcadius. So to be truly known as the Emperor of Rome, you need to receive the title from a previous emperor or be recognized by the Roman Senate, preferably both. Since the Ottomans abolished the Senate and the last emperor Constantine XI was never found again, the Ottomans have no right to the Title of Emperor of the Romans. Neither does France, the HRE, Italians or the Russians. The Spanish monarchs received the title from the last emperor, therefore giving them the strongest claim to the Throne of Rome."
@@alithos5478 Did you not read a single thing I said? The Spanish monarchs did not receieve the title from the last emperor, they were willed the claim from his impoverished nephew, he himself sold it to the French beforehand, it was completely illegitimate.
@@monetizedyay6827 I copied and pasted another comment which essentially is the same thing as the last emperor's rights were hereditary and technically his nephew had it. Additional no the sale to the French was void.
"ANDREAS PALAIOLOGOS the claimant of the Byzantine throne and nephew of Constantine XI, in his will, written on 7 April 1502, he once more gave away his claim to the imperial title, this time to Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, designating them and their successors as his universal heirs. The choice to grant the title to the Spaniards was probably made due to the recent Spanish successes in conquering Granada in 1492 and Cephalonia in 1500.
Negotiating with French Cardinal Raymond Peraudi inthe sale of the crown, Peraudi secured that, in return for Andreas abdicating his titles to the imperial thrones of Constantinople and Trebizond, and the Despotate of Serbia, Andreas would receive 4300 ducats annually (almost 360 ducats a month), out of which 2000 ducats would be paid immediately when the abdication was ratified. Additionally, Andreas was promised a personal guard of a hundred cavalrymen, maintained at Charles's expense, and was promised lands either in Italy or in some other place, which in addition to his pension would generate an annual income of 5000 ducats. Furthermore, Charles was to use his military and naval forces to recover the Despotate of the Morea for Andreas. In return for being granted his ancestral lands (once he had been restored in the Morea), Andreas's feudal tax to Charles would consist of one white saddle horse every year. Charles was also to use his influence with the pope to raise Andreas's papal pension to its original sum of 1800 ducats annually (150 monthly). The transfer of Andreas's titles was to be considered legal unless Charles rejected it before All Saints' Day the following year (1 November 1495)."
" In its final centuries , the Byzantine Empire was also called " Romania . " Remnants of this Roman heritage are still evident in such terms as " Rum " and " Rumeli .
Georgius, Philippides, M. and Macarius, 1980. The fall of the Byzantine empire. Amherst, MA: Univ. of Massachusetts Pr., p.2.
But the turks still have no legitimacy to claim the title
Well the Ottomans did. Kind of. Mehmed II based his claim on the throne to his great grandmother being an heir to the Komnenos dynasty.
when Greece fought for its independence from the Ottomans in the early 1800's, they still called themselves Romei or something similar to that in some remote parts of the country
@@hakkihakkinen3331 Mehmed II was also one of the few who cared about Rome (or antiquity, like Alexander). Many of his successors were Persianized, he was really a man in the middle of east and west.
Greeks and Turks: We're Roman!
ROMANiANS: NU!
very good, you may have pointed out that the Russian Emperor married the daughter of the last byzantine emperor, this is very important in their claim to roman successor
There is also one interesting detail in the Russian claim as the successor of the Byzantine (thus Roman) Empire because Ivan III, who was a Russian Tsar, married Sophia Palaeologue, which was the niece of the last Emperor of Byzantium. This way the following Russian Tsars had the Byzantine Emperor's blood in them, although after the ending of the Rurikovich (The dinasty which Ivan III and his successors were part) Dynasty this blood connection ends, but still strengthens the claim of Russia a bit. Also, Ivan III was the one who named himself Tsar (Simplification of Caesar, so the successor of Caesar) and started using the Byzantine Eagle as symbol of Russia, which remains to this day.
Also, I would consider putting Vatican City as the successor of the Roman Empire as the religious power of the Roman Empire, because they still managed to survive and continue their heritage to this day in an independent state (through the Papal States, established already during the times of the Frankish Empire)
At the very least, the Russian claim is as legitimate as Charlemagne's, if not more so. It's weird how quickly people dismiss it without even considering it
IIRC, there is one source that says the leadership of Soissons did send an envoy to Zeno following Romulus Augustulus's abdication, but these claims to being the rightful Western Roman Emperor were ignored. I also recall reading that the Soissons leadership made multiple threats to invade Italy and take the emperorship by force, but doing this would have left the rest of whatever lands they held completely undefended and make the hypothetical campaign a win-or-die situation
I mean Rome never has to fall. If you are of Western or Southern European heritage their is a huge chance that you are somehow related at least a few of its past emperors
I mean half of them liked boys and the other half got killed by other Romans.
genetics and intermixing work in such a way that it becomes irrelevant to even say that you're related to an emperor when 2000 years have passed
nah its long dead
Western Rome survived in the form of Catholic Europe and Eastern Rome survived in the form of Orthodox Europe.
@@lynxcato3327 no bro they are dead
If I recall correctly, while Napoleon didn't directly claim the title of Emperror of Roman's, he did claim the Emperror-ship by way of conquest over HRE. So... a dotted red-line from HRE to Napoleonic France, besides the blue heritage line?
Also... went through the Serbian imperial family line and if you go back through 2 or 3 parent-houses/branches to the first Serbian Royal dynasty, there seems to have been a large number of inter-marriages between it and various Byzantine empirial houses.
So the Serbian claimant might have tried to pull an inheritance claim?
It's a bit fuzzy, but I'll try;
Basically Stefan Dušan, Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks came from the House of Nemanjić, which is a cadet branch of Vukanović dynasty, which in itself is cadet branch of Vojislavljević dynasty, founded by Stefan Vojislav, who seems to have been a cousin of Jovan Vladimir, who was a Prince of Duklja, the most powerful region among serbian principalities of the time, whom himself was a decendant of Peter of Diokleia, that in turn was a decendant of Trebinje Prince Hvalimir, who was a decendant of Beloje, whom was (and here it gets really fuzzy) "of Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII" either as a governor and noble-man or perhaps a bastard? He was elevated by the ruling prince, when he became a son-in-law to said ruler.
It's bonkers, I know, but it's a fun thought experiment of how the Serbian Emperror could have made said claim.
iirc Napoleon tried to take the imperial regalia but it was taken to safety in Vienna by Francis II.
Anyway, he couldn't possibly have become HR emperor because it wasn't an office you could conquer. You would be elected by the electoral princes in a highly formalized procedure. And that wouldn't have happened since half the princes whose vote he'd needed were in open war with him.
Great attention to detail
Sad that Venice wasn't mentioned here, since it was set up by Roman survivors from Aquileia.
I would actually consider the Papacy to be a succesor to Rome : teritorry wise i think it's self-explanatory, they are also the only state that didn't stop recognising latin as it's official language and the Pope is actually entitled as Pontifex Maximus, which was a title held by every roman emperor
I think language argument is pretty weak considering that Latin was so common it was even official language of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth till 1795 😅
who ever restores it is the rightful roman emperor if that makes sense.
When he broke off from the Roman empire to join the Frankish barbarians he lost the claim.
Not really. Pontifex Maximus was more like an "extra" title associated to the roman imperial title. Augustus took the title not when he became emperor but rather when Lepidus (which was nominated PM during the republic) died in 13 b.C..
Pontifex Maximus kinda meant "religious head of the roman religion" so if the Emperor wanted someone else to be the leader of the religion of state it seems like he could without the PM having a Claim to his throne.
When the Pope claimed to be the successor of Rome it wasn't because of this reason but because of some (most probably fabricated) document one Emperor made the Pope his heir or gave the Pope the abiblity to govern the WRE if there was no emperor
@@IamSome1 When did that ever happen???
if we don't count abdications as the end of a line of succession, it still lives on today. Tsar Nicholas I's great-great-great grandson is alive today. He only turned 60 this year. Plus, it's worth mentioning that the last Byzantine princess (Sophia Palaiologina) married Ivan III, fusing the Byzantine and Russian royal families. Russia therefore had genetic ties to Byzantine too.
Russian numbers would be wrong, as in 1453 they were not claiming to be successors of Byzantium, first claim was done only in 1589 year, and it is also when they were recognized as Orthodoxy and not as a heresy anymore - thought it meant they needed to change their rules and beliefs (they were very different to Kyivan and Constantinople Orthodoxy). Plus, even in 1453 they weren't recognized as Orthodox Church (and they had a lot of different beliefs - like 2-rulers rule), as they just claimed "we are now new Orthodox Church" on their own, without any legitimacy. Thought 1589 gave them legitimacy finally. However, Constantinople still saw Kyivan Orthodoxy as successor of Kyivan Rus Orthodox Church, and only change was in 1686 year, when after big bribe, Constantinople Patriarch recognized Moscow Orthodox Church as main and said that it must consume Kyivan Orthodox Church and become one Church. This is when technically their countdown should start - year 1686. However, just few decades later, in 1700 and later in 1717 - Emperor of Russia banned Moscow Orthodox Church from chosing Patriarch or controlling church, he made Emperor (aka himself) the only real ruler of Russian Orthodox Church (he also renamed Moscowian Tsardom to Russian Empier in 1721, before that Russian Orthodox Church was Moscowian Orthodox Church and there were no such thing as Russia, and when was said "Rus" or "Ruthenia" - it meant Kyiv, not Moscow). Also, ruling system changed to Synod being instead of Patriarch. Orthodox Church basically merged with the State/Empire and a lot of rules and beliefs were changed, this means that technically Russian Orthodox Church no longer was Orthodox anymore, as they changed a lot of beliefs from Orthodox Christianity and were very different up until late 1900s, when they were re-created again (thought they were again controled by USSR and many priests were KGB agents).
So technically their claim should be either 1589 -> 1700 (1717) or 1686 -> 1700 (1717). Which makes them last really little as successor.
Some Brazillian conspiracy theorists also say Brazil is the long lost son of Rome, (yeah that is ridiculous) but some of them say it is because the portuguese language and culture is very similar to the roman culture
@@secco1908 Really, all of Western civilization is. The languages we speak, the laws we write, religion, culture, media influence... "Roman-ness" is far more universal now than it ever was when Rome, as a world power, existed
Grandson by Portugal. Like it's cousins in Latam by Spain.
Latin America is an heir of Rome's legacy, culture, language, politics and law.
Parameters of Roman succession should be ;
- Amount of ruled Mediterranean territory
- Control over a former Roman capital
- Longevity & centuries of superpower status
Ottomans
@@user-zp9nf5qo8j 2nd would we byzantine I think
@@fildafernandes4366 Byzantine's already the Roman empire lol
-Share of Roman culture and language
All hail the Roman Umayyad Empire!
The Empire of Brazil is the true successor to Rome
Rome fell in 1889 but it'll come back again in back in Brazil
Based take!