Go yankees

This account is actually named after an astronaut from Lawrence County near where I live.. Bowersox. I hate the Red Sox to no end.

Sbyvl36: That is just plain wrong. The last Western Roman emperor was dethroned in either 476 or 480. Charlemagne was crowned in the year 800 by the Pope, who took it upon himself to claim the authority to choose who the emperor was. Of course that is a preposterous claim, especially as imperial authority was still strong in Constantinople. The Pope effectively bestowed a title on somebody so that he would feel important and honored enough to defend the papacy in times of need and not interfere in papal affairs. It came to be (at least in theory), that the Pope was supposed to be the head of the religious world and the Holy Roman Emperor the head of the political world. Of course, this backfired over the centuries, and the Pope bestowed titles in a similar fashion to the "Most Christian" French king and the Spanish "Catholic Monarchs" so that the Pope could play the great powers of Europe off each other. And the Austrian emperor's authority was not "extended to include Hungary in 1867". The Austrian Empire (which included Hungary) was just transformed into a dual monarchy due to Magyar pressure.

You are correct, however, in saying that the Austrian/Austro-Hungarian emperors were direct descendants of the Holy Roman Emperors.

Is that not what he said, Jece?

"Austria-Hungary" didn't exist until 1867. The real succession is something like this, though it's a really really complicated thing. I had an Austrian history course in German in Vienna when I studied abroad so I probably know as much about this as a non-academic can. Believe me, you're saving yourself the flower of your youth by not looking too deeply into this.

The Holy Roman Empire was thought of as the continuation of the Roman Empire, but this was mostly a legal fiction since the empire was resurrected by and for Charlemagne hundreds of years after the end of the Western Empire, and even then the nature of this "empire" changed radically over the never thousand years. It basically was medieval Germany, with neighboring lands attached and sometimes parts of Italy. After 1648 the title of Holy roman Emperor was little more than another title that the powerful Habsburg dynasty had, worth more in prestige than power (which they had in spades). When Napoleon made himself Emperor in Rome, Francis II took the initiative to dissolve the Holy Roman Empire for reasons of politics and intrigue that I refuse to relearn.

After that, he was just the Emperor of Austria, which was pretty much all of central Europe. He and his successors were also the presidents of the German Confederation, which was in many ways a replacement for the HRE, but now honest about being German rather than Roman. In 1867, after the empire's defeat in the Austro-Prussian War ended any pretenses of Austria to someday uniting all of "Germany" under its rule, and the Hungarians demanded what can best be called a personal union between Hungary and "Austria," but there's really never been anything else quite like it. That lasted till the end of the First World War. I've left a lot out (like 1848) but this is enough.


The longest you could stretch out the life of the Roman Empire is 1806, and even that is built on sand. After that, the Habsburgs didn't claim imperial power in the tradition of Rome, but rather as a new, equally phony tradition of Austria. Calling the rulers of Austria-Hungary a direct continuation of the Roman Emperors is like calling Odoacer one.

I'm sure that's more than anyone would ever care to know.

Differentiating between the Holy Roman Empire and the actual Roman Empire is a good point. That changes my response a bit.

Interesting theory. Many persons have disputed the succession for various reasons.

A couple of lesser known claims to the Roman Empire -
--Ottoman Empire, after they conquered Byzantium
--Russian Empire, (after a Roman princess married the Russian King), hence Czar meaning Cesar

Invictus: Hey! I'm a history major. And the emperor was actually just "Archduke of Austria". The imperial title was created (I don't know under what pretence) so that the Habsburgs would still be emperors.

Habsburg HR emperors were not "just" Archdukes of Austria. They were HR emperors in large part because they were Kings of Bohemia, one of the Electors. And they were able to make sure they were always elected since they were also Kings of Hungary and the dynasty had possessions all over Europe and, through Spain, all over the world. While the new Austrian Empire was created during the Napoleonic Wars, it wasn't some silly thing that a petty princling did out of whole cloth. The Habsburgs were always a powerful family in search of positions and titles which merited their might. Saying the ruler was only the Archduke of Austria is both literally wrong and makes them and the system of government that surrounded them far less consequential than they actually were.

Anybody seriously arguing that the HRE = the Roman Empire needs to be slapped with a high school history textbook or a chair.

"This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." -Voltaire

The Roman Empire barely if at all extended into modern-day Germany. The heart of the Holy Roman Empire was Germany. They are not geographically equivalent. The Holy Roman Empire was a confederation of German, northern Italian, a couple of Slavic and a few French states; all of those nationalities descend ultimately from the waves of invaders that sacked and destroyed the Western Roman Empire and supplanted it with their own kingdoms. They are not culturally similar. The fall of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of the Holy Roman Empire are nearly 500 years apart.

Honestly, this is like saying the United States of America is a direct continuation of the Iroquois League just because the USA claims to be "America" and the Iroquois League inhabited part of America before the Europeans showed up.

0/10 pls never post again

The only legitimate successor state to the Western Roman Empire is the Byzantine Empire, and even then it's a pointless claim to make, because the Byzantine Empire was culturally its own entity and not just Rome shifted into Greece and Anatolia.

States claiming to be the successor to Rome is pretty much like Republicans claiming to be the successor to Reagan: They're all riding the coattails of a largely romanticized historical period for the cheap pretense of political legitimacy. It's a giant farce.

And does anyone of you even know the main reason why the name "roman empire" was carried through the ages? Even if, as you already said, those successors usually had nothing to do with the real roman empire?

Translatio imperii romanum. The teaching of the four ancient empires where, when the fourth one fell, the world would end in the apocalypse. Since they believed that the roman empire was the said fourth empire they could not just let it end... so they carried its name through the ages. Stupid christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Med
http://www.suppliers.clubmed.com/achats/img/rub3_map.gif

@Partysane:

I think it's more likely kings adopted the title of Roman Emperor because there was a cultural memory of the greatness of Rome (in terms of longevity, stability, peace, etc.) that was attractive to themselves and their people. Being recognized as the heir to the Empire also had significant foreign relations benefits in terms of being perceived as an hegemony, as opposed to an upstart whose power and influence would diminish upon the king's death. Lastly, it indicated something of the self-perception of the king who took upon himself the title. He was the great establisher of a unified and stable Europe.

I _don't_ think it had anything particularly to do with an effort to ensure prophesy wasn't undermined. That's not really how politics tends to work. Also, remember that throughout the first few centuries after the practical fall of the Roman Empire, many of the gothic tribal leaders who claimed the title were not Christian -- or they adopted Christianity at the same time as they took on the title. Even then, they were not necessarily Catholic.

There's a book I'd recommend, called, Byzantium, by J.J. Norwich. Obviously, it deals more with the Eastern Empire than the Western, but the importance of the Western events is chronicled.

"the Byzantine Empire was culturally its own entity and not just Rome shifted into Greece and Anatolia."

I agree with everything you said but that, Eden. While the Byzantines were significantly different than the Romans, much of these differences mentioned became relavant during the later parts of the Empire. If you look at the years 300-700 or so (basically up to the time when they lost the Levant) they were very much Roman. They stylized themselves as Roman, continued Roman practices, structured Constantinople like Rome, etc.

That's a third of their history. Enough to crown them the "legitimate" successor to Rome, if we're going to crown one, but I wouldn't consider the Byzantine Empire simply a continuation of Rome (where the OP rather clearly seems to imply that Rome -> ??? -> HRE -> Austria -> Austria-Hungary is a straight up continuation of the City That Romulus Built).

@Wiltor

You're making far too much sense for this thread! Instead, try pushing your own pet revision analysis or promote wild conspiracy theories. It's much more fun, and it remove the requirement that you actually make sense.

@Wiltor
I don't deny that there was, of course, a good bit of realpolitik in the adaption of rome / roman to titles. But the translatio imperii thing is a fact you should have a look at. It can also be found under the name renovatio imperii romanorum.
And that the prophecy was a real concern even when the holy roman empire of german nations finally ended can even be found in the letters Goethes mother wrote him.

"I wouldn't consider the Byzantine Empire simply a continuation of Rome "

Then you should be able to point to a particular event or year where the Eastern Empire clearly stopped being Roman and started being something else. I can't, and the people of the time couldn't either (Muslim chroniclers were still calling it the Roman Empire in the 13th century).

Invictus: You misunderstood me. I'm saying that there had been no "Emperor of Austria" title. The title was invented so that the dynasty could retain the imperial title after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire.

Actually, even the title "archduke" was invented to make themselves better than than other dukes. They could not elevate Austria to a 'kingdom' within the Holy Roman Empire (the only exception I know of is Bohemia, though I don't know the story behind that).

I just love that smart people are arguing about this on the Internet. It gives me hope for humanity. And it shows the caliber of the geeks who play Diplomacy. :-D

President Eden: We're talking about 1,000+ years of Eastern Roman history here. Cultures change. Even the West, with their Holy Roman Germans, painted romantic paintings of the final Fall of Constantinople with the Byzantines dressed in ancient Roman garb.

"Then you should be able to point to a particular event or year where the Eastern Empire clearly stopped being Roman and started being something else. I can't, and the people of the time couldn't either (Muslim chroniclers were still calling it the Roman Empire in the 13th century)."

Not in the least. Can you point to one event that decisively turned America from being a small-government liberty experiment to a big-government corporate sham? Whether political, cultural, or even linguistic, states' identities change through time. It doesn't take some climactic event to force a change.

Though if you want specific reference points that one could reasonably argue highlight major disruptions in Byzantium:

* The Arab invasions of the early 600s. Byzantium lost everything south of Turkey. This focused the Byzantines toward Greece and Anatolia. Certainly there was still longing for the days of Rome after this point, but the shift toward Greece and Anatolia clearly had an effect on the Byzantine identity
* The Catholic-Orthodox Schism: This actually came up in a discussion with a friend of mine on the subject earlier today. The Holy Roman Empire's claim to be Rome's successor comes from the anointment of Otto I by the Pope. Catholics derive the notion that their denomination is supreme from the line of bishops of Rome, so the Catholic faith has a valid cultural tie to Rome. In fact, it was the bishop of Rome who negotiated with Attila the Hun and spared Rome from a Hunnic sack. But Byzantium was Orthodox. Irrespective of whether or not one accepts Catholicism or Orthodoxy as "the" founding Christian denomination, I think there's still a valid point to be made in saying that this difference highlights a Byzantine divergence from Roman tradition.

bo_sox48: No, that is not what Sbyvl36 said at all. There is no direct connection between the Western Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, and hence Austria-Hungary is not a direct continuation of the Roman Empire. And unlike Sbyvl36 suggests, the Austrian emperors ruled Hungary centuries before the 1867.

"President Eden: We're talking about 1,000+ years of Eastern Roman history here. Cultures change. Even the West, with their Holy Roman Germans, painted romantic paintings of the final Fall of Constantinople with the Byzantines dressed in ancient Roman garb."

Well, certainly. It was still essentially Rome, as a polity, since it was the surviving half of the Roman Empire. I'm not saying it isn't a successor state. What I am saying is that it being a successor state doesn't really mean all that much. Byzantium obviously had several significant similarities to Rome, but it wasn't just Rome.

And the important takeaway relevant to this thread is that when Byzantium did finally fall, all candidate successor states to Byzantium were so far removed from the Roman Empire of the classical era that the discussion about which state is the last vestige of Rome is a pretty pointless one to have. Rome went Rome -> Byzantium -> dead. Not Rome -> other random obviously not Roman "Rome successors" -> Austria-Hungary

President Eden: I would say the schism is Rome diverging from the Roman tradition, not Constantinople diverging from it.

But the point people are making is that countries change their culture over time. The 'cultural entity' (as you would put it) that was the Roman Empire should be allowed to change over its history.

Well, I would consider Trebizond a legitimate successor.

"Can you point to one event that decisively turned America from being a small-government liberty experiment to a big-government corporate sham?"

Yes - I would point to the election of the Corporate Lawyer-Lobbyist Abraham Lincoln.

"Certainly there was still longing for the days of Rome after this point, but the shift toward Greece and Anatolia clearly had an effect on the Byzantine identity"

All nations evolve. I would argue that the difference between Rome of 300BC and Rome of 200AD was far greater than the difference between Rome in 300AD and Constantinople in 800AD. But this does not mean that Rome stopped being Rome. Likewise, America bears little resemblance to what it was at the time of the Revolution, but it never stopped being America.

"* The Catholic-Orthodox Schism:"

The problem with pointing to the Pontifex Maximus as the embodiment of Rome and therefore the west was the true (or perhaps 'a truer') successor of the Roman Empire is that Papal authority was non-existent in much of the West until the resurgence of the Papacy in the 11th century. This is also the only important Roman institution to survive the fall of the Western Empire, where in the East, there are only gradual evolutions of the political, social, religious, cultural systems of the Roman Empire. There are no 'hard breaks' there like in the West (with the Germanic invasions) until the 13th century.