Now you're recognizing an important principle of translatio imperii.
Popular acceptance? The Romans had a very lax understanding of law after all. You're trying to project strictly modern legalist understanding of law on a society where the prohibition of holding multiple offices was often circumvented by exemptions.
That doesn't illegitimize the Senate of Rome which continued to exist as an accepted institution until the seventh century.
I'm not recognizing translatio imperii. There's a clear difference here. The East Roman Senate was created and confirmed by a legitimate emperor.Charlemagne on the other hand was neither made emperor by a legitimate senate nor was he descended or appointed heir by a genuine Roman Emperor.The Romans may have a lax understanding of the law, but no law gave the pope that right. Besides that, what popular acceptance? It was mostly the west who accepted this, and even then, most of the west was under the control of Charlemagne. Anyone who refuses to accept Charlemagne as Emperor in the west would have likely been excommunicated,executed or both.
No one's arguing about that. The problem is that this body dissolved by the seventh century. Charlemagne would have been a legitimate emperor if only it was this body appointing him to the throne, not the pope.
But who continued the senatorial powers in the West? Who appointed senators and consuls in Rome after that? The pope. And vice versa: Who continued the senatorial powers in the East? The Byzantine Emperor.
Remember this was dark age.., era of viking and power of the stronger.., if Byz dont agreed and dont accept the new reborn Roman Empire on east, they should do something about it.., something like Justinian..
So you are saying that if Putin declares himself the President of the United States and he is accepted by the Russians, then he is a legitimate President of the United States?
WHAT?All nations (greeks,slavs,armenians) living in borders East Roman Empire; with speech greek are romans by Justinian law from 6.c (like U.S. citizenship), who fink about other nations outside empire like barbarians (like orginal romans). Im not lawer.., but i fink the Byzantine (15/16 .c term.) is true Roman Empire state at least to 4.crusade..,
Francia - first reborn East Roman Empire, HRE - secend reborn Roman Empire, Sejluk Sultanate, Ottoman Empire and Russian Tsardom are all usupers of Roman title. some by religious reasons, some by land, some by political, some by family conections.
Charmagne is great person.., after 200 years of chaos he claim title Emperor. All this discusion about claims is discusion about who have greater peni..
No. I would accept Putin as President of the United States if the United States collapsed on the East Coast, Putin went in, established order and was recognized as President of the United States by the populace there.
Then is the President of the United States on the west coast the President of the United States?So Putin is the President of the United States even if he is recognized by the populace there by coercion?
What if Putin conquered London?
)
That's fallacious, because London was the capital of the Thirteen Colonies, because they were part of the United Kingdom back then.What if Putin conquered London?
(London was the capital of Thirteen Colonies until it was moved to Washington
The warlord, but he wouldn't be the President of the United States. He would be President of the East Coast.The east coast ceased to be part of the US the moment the US lost control of it, plain and simple.The legitimate president of the United States would still be the one in the west coast.That's fallacious, because London was the capital of the Thirteen Colonies, because they were part of the United Kingdom back then.
Okay, let's abstract this. The United States collapses on the East Coast but retains the West Coast. After a three hundred years a descendant of Canadian warlords reunites the East Coast and is proclaimed the new President of the United States. Meanwhile the President of the Western United States (who started to speak Spanish) doesn't recognize him and still lays claim to that territory but is unable to put any force behind his words. Who is the legitimate President of the East Coast?
Yes, it was a jokeThat's fallacious, because London was the capital of the Thirteen Colonies, because they were part of the United Kingdom back then.
But not quite!My point exactly. Also, being the President of East Coast wouldn't mean "President of Thirteen Colonies" - it would be entirely new country.
Yes, it was a joke
If Irene was the "problem", then Charlemagne was claiming the imperial title of ERE, not WRE. Why does holding former capital of ERE (like London for the USA) would have anything to do with it?
If holding Rome was enough to restore the WRE, then why do people keep bringing Irene up?
But what do the citizens of the East Coast think of him? Do they see him as President of the United States?
Their opinions doesn't matter.They can move to the west coast if they want to remain citizens of the U.S. If they still consider themselves U.S. citizens yet remained and recognized a foreign conqueror as President, then they are no better than collaborators.When did the opinion of collaborators matter?At any rate, they would have probably lost their citizenship by law if they did so.
So, when the two Roman Empires existed, how do they tell them apart?
I don't know, but I don't think the two empires were ever legally split. Officially, the two emperors were just colleagues.So, when the two Roman Empires existed, how to they tell them apart?
