No its theoretical because of autocephaly and constraints of the state there was no way the Byzantine Emperor was interfering in asturias or brittany eh
Where did you get that from. Constantinople is the last of the pentarchs to be established due to how late Constantinople was established. Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Rome.
Due to being the older capital, the site of st paul's death, and the dissemination of imperial power, the Pope held the titles Pontifex Maximus and first amongst equals. With the chalcedon rite the patriarch of Rome held more religious power than the patriarch of Constantinople, even if by proximity to the Imperial seat the patriarch of Constantinople held more political influence
This skips over the lombard conquest of the pentapolis and the donation of pipin helping change the Papacy to a more Frankish than Byzantine angle
Charlemagne was also crowned in contention to Irene of Athens who was a woman and had blinded her own son that she herself had borne
Depends if you see iconoclasts as breaking the chain of succession or not
3 of those 4 groups will balk at the idea of romans being pagan considering rumi came to mean Christian, so they might not be the best to ask opinions of
What do you mean by fabricated?
The extent to which there's a diarchy fluctuates throughout the mediveal era
So lost you can watch numerous YouTube videos about it and every paradox game had threads on why it should be called roman empire not Byzantine emoire
I'll post another reply, shortly answering your points.
Autocephaly was the goal of the bishop of Rome, he had a unique position and history which at times, for much longer than the eastern part of the empire, was not part of the empire. In periods they were alone, in periods they were under Byzantine control or influence, which interfered in their wanted autocephaly. The Byzantine Empire did not want Rome to have that status, but eventually they would permanently for the foreseeing future.
Asturias and Brittany are realms far outside the Byzantine sphere of influence and I don't see your point here.
Eh, the point that the Bishop of Rome was older and traditionally superior (albeit in a "First among Equals" way vs. a "I am the overall head of the whole church" way) is pretty indisputable. If your sources tell you otherwise, then you either misunderstood them or need to find better sources.
But more broadly, given that the traditional method of becoming Roman Emperor was just "declare yourself emperor and if necessary win the ensuing battle to make it stick," Charlemagne certainly fulfilled that condition. So did the Latin Empire, for that matter, and they were hardly the only ones who did it by capturing Constantinople by force.
Roman imperial succession was messy by design, and the empire itself changed in form drastically during the period (compare the Empire of Augustus with that of Diocletian, with that of Constantine, with that of Theodosius, with that of Heraclius, with that of Alexios Komnenos, with that of the later Paleologoi...).
So arguing about the "true" Roman Empire is largely pointless. All that can be said is that both the HRE and the Byzantines (and the Latin Empire, during its brief existence) all laid claim to the imperial title, and leave it at that. Power is ultimately what people recognize (and a Roman emperor would certainly have understood that).
No its not pointless, you have fabricated claims, wannabes, and then you have the state, the continuation of that state, which is in Constantinople.
It's just a fact, Germans and French can't simply call themselves Roman and be Roman.
We can't just create the Roman Empire today and say that it is just as Roman as the classical Roman Empire.
The Roman Empire, thr state, It's laws, its function, it's identity continued uninterrupted in the east, until the fourth Crusade or 1453 which is the more final date.
The Germans just made up a pretend to be Empire, long long after tmit was dead in the east, and also the idea that there was two empires, one of the west and one of the east is wrong.
The Roman's never saw their empires as two, or four. It was more an administrative touch than seperate states.
So with two Emperors dividing the burden, one failed the other survived.
The ideas people seem to have here about the HRE and how belittled the Byzantines have become is a product of propeganda, made by the Catholic church, thr Germans, the Frank's and by more modern historians of the 1800s when Romantisation and Nationalism prospered along with outdated and biased history.
STOP! COOKIE TIME