Isn't it time we had Romans in Charlemagne?

[SigurdStormhand]

No, that's a false equivalence.

I'm not even going to list the number of things transferred from Rome to Constantinople, in things like customs, traditions, institutions. As an example, though, the Roman Senate continued to sit in Constantinople until the 4th Crusade.

It's also not true that we generally call them the "Byzantines", the term is in use but it's out of habit - a habit which came about because 17th Century German Historians wanted to lay claim to the legacy of Rome exclusively for the HRE.

The only major shift that wasn't a natural evolution or a direct response to the Arab invasions was the adoption of Greek as the official language. The reason for this was that outside Africa, Italia and Illyria most people spoke Greek. The Roman upper class had been bi-lingual for centuries and with most of Italia, all of Gaul, Britannia and most of Hispania lost the demographic pressures of administration resulted in the debasement of Latin and the Elevation of Greek, but this was probably more a semantic shift than a catastrophic one.

 

[Legionary Guard]

It grinds my gears how people call those Gyro-eating, Ouzo-drinking, Greeks as "Eastern Roman Empire". Bah, they are as much Romans as the "Sultanate of Rûm". Just because the Empire was partitioned waaaaaaaay back during Augustus rule, it doesn't mean that they were Romans way that late! From the moment Western Rome fell, Eastern Rome lost its privileges to be called Rome! There is nothing Roman about them, not their tongues, not their clothes, not their culture, their poltiics, or even their military tactics!

Remember the rule, in general, when historians convene and decide that they should be called BYZANTINES, it is probably better to agree on it, they know their trade.

And before anyone comes with the "hurr durr they were officially called Roman Empire", let me tell you that the Austrian Emperor was officially King of Jerusalem, yet I don't see a bunch of internet dwellers thinking themselves fancy to call the Austrian Emperor "King of Jerusalem". A claim is a claim, and what the Greeks had, was nothing but a claim.

It really gets me how people completely ignore the fact that Byzantium was the Roman Empire, like they physically can't stand the idea that Greeks might've legitimately waved about an eagle flag. And this tool has the temerity to suggest that the Empire was partitioned 'back during Augustus['s] rule.' Lol.

'From the moment Western Rome fell, Eastern Rome lost its privileges to be called Rome.' - Kaiserlicher Ritter.
'...the majesty of a sole monarch is sufficient to both pervade and protect, at the same time, both the East and the West. In their own name, and in the name of the people, they consent that the seat of universal empire shall be transferred from Rome to Constantinople.' - A delegation of the Roman Senate to Emperor Zeno, as quoted in Gibbon's Decline and Fall.

'There is nothing Roman about them...' And I'm perfectly sure that the Romans of 300 B.C. and the (Western) Romans of 300 C.E. were exactly the same, with no cultural drift, evolution of military tactics, changing politics, evolving language, or anything else like that at all. Completely ignoring the fact that the entire East - and certainly at least Anatolia and Greece - had been Greek ever since the conquests of Alexander the Great, and that Greek had already been the language of the elite even in Caesar's time. To use an analogy, the Americans of today and the Americans of 1776 were two very different Americans, and yet we still call it the same America.

Even the Russians and Ottomans based their pretensions of Empire not off the land they controlled, or the wealth they mastered, or the military might they marshalled; but to their link to the old Roman (Byzantine) Empire. Charlemagne based his claim to Roman Emperor, not from Romulus Augustulus or Julius Nepos, but from Constantine VI.

So you know what really grinds my gears? When mouthbreathing morons who have no idea what they're talking about burst into calm, reasoned debates and spew out 'facts' garnered with no research, reason, or rationality.

/angryrantover

 

[Soladept]

It grinds my gears how people call those Gyro-eating, Ouzo-drinking, Greeks as "Eastern Roman Empire". Bah, they are as much Romans as the "Sultanate of Rûm". Just because the Empire was partitioned waaaaaaaay back during Augustus rule, it doesn't mean that they were Romans way that late! From the moment Western Rome fell, Eastern Rome lost its privileges to be called Rome! There is nothing Roman about them, not their tongues, not their clothes, not their culture, their poltiics, or even their military tactics!

Remember the rule, in general, when historians convene and decide that they should be called BYZANTINES, it is probably better to agree on it, they know their trade.

And before anyone comes with the "hurr durr they were officially called Roman Empire", let me tell you that the Austrian Emperor was officially King of Jerusalem, yet I don't see a bunch of internet dwellers thinking themselves fancy to call the Austrian Emperor "King of Jerusalem". A claim is a claim, and what the Greeks had, was nothing but a claim.

One thing the ERE had was continuity, and in the early years after the fall of the WRE much of the Roman apparatus in Constantinople still operated in Latin, and the Greeks and other peoples living in the EREs territorys had been Roman for centurys, and then you say they are not Roman anymore because the WRE fell? The ERE did shift to be more Hellenised, but the Original Romans had hellenic influences and interactions from the start, and the Greek cultures were likewised influenced by their time under Roman rule, you cannot talk about culture as a static and unchanging thing, and since the ERE contained Roman peoples that had lived under the Empire and Legitimacy and Continuty in the passage of the Imperal throne and the state apparatus, one could say they were Roman up until Constaninople fell at minimum. Many of you get too fixated on the city of Rome and considor it to be essential to everything, when its not and Rome was just a city, and by the period of time we are discussing it wasnt even relavent aside from historical and religous purposes.

your example about the Austrians and the King of Jerusalem dont quite apply, for starters, the ERE was created with Roman territory when the Empire partioned itself, and up until the Fourth Crusade/Ottoman conquest, it held territory that had belonged to it since its beggining, and the ERE mantained itself as a entity until its conquest, while the Kingdoms of Jerusalem had been constantly gained and lost through the Crusades period, and a period much shorter than the lifetime of the ERE, and it ended up as a titular title that was passed around or inherited for prestige, along with its claims

if the USA had lost WW2 and lost DC and much of its eastern territory and relocated its administration to, say California, and helf onto its western states, would you say its no longer the legitimate USA? because American culture is probably one of the the closest modern parellels to Roman culture, where people, either immigirants or native born, adopt the superfical customs and habit and language and become citizens while retaning their native faiths and culture underneth it all, theres culture enclaves all over the country and the average population of one state tends to differ from the other states in many local habits and culture, i can cite the differences in habits regarding Iced Teas, many of us in the midwest and other northern states like unsweetened iced tea while a lot of people in southern states love it sweet and full of sugur, and thats one among hundreds of regional cultural differences in the nation.


so, to say my opinion, the people in the ERE were Roman citizens, they legitimatly inherited their throne and government from the unified Roman Empire when it was parititioned, and they mantained their Empire and state until they were conquered. They were Roman.

being Roman was more than speaking one language or wearing one set of clothes, it was an Idea, and a powerful one, especialy since everyone who ever heard of Romans (aside from entitys like the Sassanids and the Chinese empires that already were on that level) aspired to their level of power, prestige and civilisation. tons of modern nations and states to this day had done things to borrow from the Romans or evoke their prestige and power.

 

[Kaiserlicher Ritter]

One thing the ERE had was continuity

Yes, and Austria had continuinty to Jerusalem, because errr, uh, Duke Leopold V took part in the Third Crusade, and uh, eh, René II of Lorraine had direct ancestry to the Kings of Jerusalem, and uh, when they merged with the Habsburgs it transferred to the Imperial Kaiser, all the way to Karl von Habsburg today, our rightful king of Jerusalem...

Yet I don't see anyone calling him King of Jerusalem. Stop being fanboys, you lot.

 

[Alcadizzar19]

It grinds my gears how people call those Gyro-eating, Ouzo-drinking, Greeks as "Eastern Roman Empire". Bah, they are as much Romans as the "Sultanate of Rûm". Just because the Empire was partitioned waaaaaaaay back during Augustus rule, it doesn't mean that they were Romans way that late! From the moment Western Rome fell, Eastern Rome lost its privileges to be called Rome! There is nothing Roman about them, not their tongues, not their clothes, not their culture, their poltiics, or even their military tactics!

Remember the rule, in general, when historians convene and decide that they should be called BYZANTINES, it is probably better to agree on it, they know their trade.

And before anyone comes with the "hurr durr they were officially called Roman Empire", let me tell you that the Austrian Emperor was officially King of Jerusalem, yet I don't see a bunch of internet dwellers thinking themselves fancy to call the Austrian Emperor "King of Jerusalem". A claim is a claim, and what the Greeks had, was nothing but a claim.

Augustus referred to Greek as "one of Our languages", Greek culture was Roman culture since Syracuse and Brundisium and Tarentum and Massilla and every Magna Graecic colony and city state became part of the empire, there was no interruption between United Roman and Eastern Empire rule. From the Edict of Caracalla every freeborn male in the Empire was a Roman citizen no matter what he spoke anyway.

This is just ridiculous; there are about a half dozen unique cultures within the United States and saying the Eastern Empire was not Roman because of culture is akin to saying that the South or the New English or the Midwestern or the Cascadian or the anchor baby are not United States culture because they do not share 100% similarity with whoever administrates from Washington. The Eastern Empire did not have a "claim" to be Roman, they were Roman.

For that matter Karl von Habsburg is the rightful sovereign of half of Europe anyway by my lights so I don't know why you're picking on the people who reclaimed Hungary from the Turk.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

Yes, and Austria had continuinty to Jerusalem, because errr, uh, Duke Leopold V took part in the Third Crusade, and uh, eh, René II of Lorraine had direct ancestry to the Kings of Jerusalem, and uh, when they merged with the Habsburgs it transferred to the Imperial Kaiser, all the way to Karl von Habsburg today, our rightful king of Jerusalem...

Yet I don't see anyone calling him King of Jerusalem. Stop being fanboys, you lot.

Emperor Zeno ruled the Eastern Empire before, during and after the fall of the Western Empire. Did he magically stop being Roman Emperor when Augustulus got kicked out?

The Eastern Empire retained all the old Roman cultural and military trappings until the Muslim assault in the 600s forced a reorganization. Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus Augustus would've surely been surprised to find out he wasn't Roman as he commanded his Legions (in Latin) to recover the western provinces.

 

[War_lord]

Say whatever you want, you could compare it to the modern state of Hong Kong, which claims to be the original and rightful government of China, but no China clay = no China state.

Anyone else smell an internet troll?

 

[Helios Panoptes]

Justinian did control Rome tho.

 

[n00bypl4y3r]

The official capital of the Roman Empire before the fall of the Western Roman Empire was Constantinople. The city of Rome had lost its place many years ago, with even Mediolanum being the regional capital of the Western Empire when it fell, not Rome.

Additionally, the last Western Roman province to fall was Dalmatia, not Italia. The Western Emperor Julius Nepos briefly ruled from Dalmatia before he was murdered in 480.

Say whatever you want, you could compare it to the modern state of Hong Kong, which claims to be the original and rightful government of China, but no China clay = no China state. Same for Byzantium, no Rome = no Roman. Cry me a river.

Taiwain, not Hong Kong. Taiwan is an island whose government is called the Republic of China. Hong Kong is a semi-autonomous region of the People's Republic of China formerly owned by Great Britain.

 

[omega20056]

It really gets me how people completely ignore the fact that Byzantium was the Roman Empire, like they physically can't stand the idea that Greeks might've legitimately waved about an eagle flag. And this tool has the temerity to suggest that the Empire was partitioned 'back during Augustus['s] rule.' Lol.

'From the moment Western Rome fell, Eastern Rome lost its privileges to be called Rome.' - Kaiserlicher Ritter.
'...the majesty of a sole monarch is sufficient to both pervade and protect, at the same time, both the East and the West. In their own name, and in the name of the people, they consent that the seat of universal empire shall be transferred from Rome to Constantinople.' - A delegation of the Roman Senate to Emperor Zeno, as quoted in Gibbon's Decline and Fall.

'There is nothing Roman about them...' And I'm perfectly sure that the Romans of 300 B.C. and the (Western) Romans of 300 C.E. were exactly the same, with no cultural drift, evolution of military tactics, changing politics, evolving language, or anything else like that at all. Completely ignoring the fact that the entire East - and certainly at least Anatolia and Greece - had been Greek ever since the conquests of Alexander the Great, and that Greek had already been the language of the elite even in Caesar's time. To use an analogy, the Americans of today and the Americans of 1776 were two very different Americans, and yet we still call it the same America.

Even the Russians and Ottomans based their pretensions of Empire not off the land they controlled, or the wealth they mastered, or the military might they marshalled; but to their link to the old Roman (Byzantine) Empire. Charlemagne based his claim to Roman Emperor, not from Romulus Augustulus or Julius Nepos, but from Constantine VI.

So you know what really grinds my gears? When mouthbreathing morons who have no idea what they're talking about burst into calm, reasoned debates and spew out 'facts' garnered with no research, reason, or rationality.

/angryrantover

He has to have been sarcastic with that post, don't fall for the bait.

 

[naisel]

The official capital of the Roman Empire before the fall of the Western Roman Empire was Constantinople. The city of Rome had lost its place many years ago, with even Mediolanum being the regional capital of the Western Empire when it fell, not Rome.

Minor correction: the last capital of the WRE was Ravenna, it was moved there from Milan in 402, during Alaric's invasion of Italy.

It was a significant decision, Milan was chosen for its strategical position, with the legions and the cavalry based there often crucial in the defense of the Empire; Ravenna instead was simply chosen because it was highly defendable, being surrounded by the sea, rivers and swamps, another sign of the weakening of the empire.

 

[Kaiserlicher Ritter]

Taiwain, not Hong Kong. Taiwan is an island whose government is called the Republic of China. Hong Kong is a semi-autonomous region of the People's Republic of China formerly owned by Great Britain.

Oh yes, sorry, you are correct, I always mix up the two, I'm not very interested in oriental politics and history.

 

[Soladept]

I'm not picking on him, in fact, I greatly admire the man and his dynasty, I wish he was the rightful, de facto, ruler of all the old territories of which belonged to them, INCLUDING Jerusalem. But I'm merely using as an example, because let's be honest, the claim to Jerusalem is... weak, to say the least. Not that he doesn't deserve, between the oy vey state there and Karl, I'm all the way with Karl.



Say whatever you want, you could compare it to the modern state of Hong Kong, which claims to be the original and rightful government of China, but no China clay = no China state. Same for Byzantium, no Rome = no Roman. Cry me a river.

Considoring the ERE held fully Roman territory minus the city of rome, would you say the USA stops being American if someone took Washington DC away and forced the government to relocate?

your defining an entire empire as not roman because they didnt keep control over one washed up ruin, which the city of Rome was for the most part in this time period.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

OK - he's just being a troll, lets ignore him.

And get back to the nitty gritty of arguing which part of the Empire was Roman the Latest after the Emperor lost direct control of it.

Sardinia, Corsica and Dalmatia are actually owned by the ERE in the CM start - surely they deserve to be Roman, and perhaps Latium? After all, the Pope in the CM start is a Roman in every sense, it's not until Leo III that we have a Pope (possibly) not born a Roman Citizen.

 

[ejnomad07]

I made a very strong case for Sardinia and Corsica a couple of pages back. At CM start they definitely have more in common with Roman culture rather than Mainland Italian Culture.

I would also point out they were using names like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianus_I_of_Arborea and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_II_of_Cagliari well into 1163

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condaghe is pretty damning evidence in my opinion as well. Produced no earlier than the 11th century and it being the first evidence of a development towards the Sardinian language which as I already pointed out previously has the direct ancestor of Old Latin then deductive reasoning seems to suggest the must be speaking Old Latin and have more in common with old roman culture at this time.

Example, Latin "Pone mihi tres panes in bertula" (put three loaves of bread [from home] in the bag for me) would be the very similar "Ponemi tres panes in bertula" in Modern Sardinian

 

[Tizazef]

It grinds my gears how people call those Gyro-eating, Ouzo-drinking, Greeks as "Eastern Roman Empire". Bah, they are as much Romans as the "Sultanate of Rûm". Just because the Empire was partitioned waaaaaaaay back during Augustus rule, it doesn't mean that they were Romans way that late! From the moment Western Rome fell, Eastern Rome lost its privileges to be called Rome! There is nothing Roman about them, not their tongues, not their clothes, not their culture, their poltiics, or even their military tactics!

Remember the rule, in general, when historians convene and decide that they should be called BYZANTINES, it is probably better to agree on it, they know their trade.

And before anyone comes with the "hurr durr they were officially called Roman Empire", let me tell you that the Austrian Emperor was officially King of Jerusalem, yet I don't see a bunch of internet dwellers thinking themselves fancy to call the Austrian Emperor "King of Jerusalem". A claim is a claim, and what the Greeks had, was nothing but a claim.

(you)

 

[Kaiserlicher Ritter]

OK - he's just being a troll, lets ignore him.

So I'm supposed to be a fanboy who call Greeks Romans and agree with YOUR OPINION, otherwise I'm a troll? Oh, sacrilege! I think differently from you! I must be executed by the internet police! I must be condemned in the same level as 10 year old kids who go around provoking for no reason, because surely, I have my opinion that is different from this uppity internet-historian class that insists on going "muh Eastern Rome, remove Kaiser, remove Pope. Neither Holy nor Roman, glory to Basileos". No, I don't think so. Rome is Rome and the Roman Empire fell. What remained was Byzantine Empire and Holy Roman Empire, and even the latter is more entitled to be called Rome than any of those Greeks.

 

[Dakilla TM]

A Roman melting pot event would be a nice touch. Maybe Lombard and/or Frank + Roman in Italy = Italian?

 

[Legionary Guard]

So I'm supposed to be a fanboy who call Greeks Romans and agree with YOUR OPINION, otherwise I'm a troll? Oh, sacrilege! I think differently from you! I must be executed by the internet police! I must be condemned in the same level as 10 year old kids who go around provoking for no reason, because surely, I have my opinion that is different from this uppity internet-historian class that insists on going "muh Eastern Rome, remove Kaiser, remove Pope. Neither Holy nor Roman, glory to Basileos". No, I don't think so. Rome is Rome and the Roman Empire fell. What remained was Byzantine Empire and Holy Roman Empire, and even the latter is more entitled to be called Rome than any of those Greeks.

For what it's worth, I actually think you're being completely serious and not trolling at all. Paradoxically, I actually think less of you then I would if you were a troll, but there it is. Now, let me start this off by saying that I was perhaps a bit too harsh in my last post's condemnation and condescension. I don't regret it, and I don't take it back, but I could've been more tactful.

Now, you argue that you're being labelled a troll based solely on the fact that you disagree with the majority opinion. Thing is, you haven't exactly given much evidence to support the idea that you're not a troll. You come in swinging with bad spelling, worse grammar, and you insult and belittle everyone who defends the idea that Byzantium is Rome - and you can't even do that very well; you bring no sources, no reasoned arguments or debates, no particularly compelling evidence (or, indeed, any evidence at all); simply poorly-crafted analogies. I don't think you're a troll - but it's pretty damn easy to see why other people do.

The Roman Empire, meanwhile, was not merely 'the land controlled by the city of Rome.' That way lies the feudal kings and dukes of the medieval era, and Rome was more than that. Rome was an idea, not merely a city. It had grown beyond a city. The capitol of the Western Empire, in its final years, was not even Rome - first it had been Mediolanum, and then Ravenna, and Dalmatia after Italy fell and Julius Nepos ruled from exile. The entity popularly known as 'Byzantium' had captured or recaptured Rome itself several times. Charlemagne, traditionally held to be the founder of the Holy Roman Empire, claimed to be the legitimate successor of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VI, not Romulus Augustulus or Julius Nepos. Byzantium still held Roman traditions, culture, and military organization until the reign of Heraclius in the 7th century, The exarchate of Carthage was held until 697, half a century after the death of Heraclius; Rome itself only fell from the Imperial grasp in either 727 or 774 (my sources are not clear, perhaps 727 represented a de facto loss of control while 774 was a de jure loss? Regardless, it was still several centuries after the fall of the Western Empire); and the last Byzantine holdings in Italy only fell in 1071, during the reign of Romanos IV.

As for the Holy Roman Empire? That entity collapsed in on itself within a century (Carolingian power collapsed in 887, 86 years after Charlemagne was crowned Roman Emperor. In terms of empire, that's not even long enough for the paint to dry), muddled through for a few centuries after that, and then continued on as a legal fiction the von Habsburgs used to justify their imperial pretensions until Napoleon (Who, I believe, was one of the first European-style emperors to not derive legitimacy from the old Roman Empire, though I could be mistaken and I digress at any rate) dissolved the whole thing and put it out of its misery. So if anything, the Frankish/German state has even less of a claim to being the Roman Empire than Byzantium does - and this even if we accept the idea that Byzantium and Rome were two different empires.

And get back to the nitty gritty of arguing which part of the Empire was Roman the Latest after the Emperor lost direct control of it.

Honestly, I don't think Paradox will ever go for this, ever. It will, however, make for a great mod. If youse decide to do that, shoot me a PM; I'm apparently a halfway-decent writer, so I can do localization text. For what it's worth, though, I hold with 'Rome, Ravenna, Dalmatia, southern Italy, Aquitaine, and perhaps Iberia,' assuming a Charlemagne start date.

 

[Kaiserlicher Ritter]

For what it's worth, I actually think you're being completely serious and not trolling at all. Paradoxically, I actually think less of you then I would if you were a troll, but there it is. Now, let me start this off by saying that I was perhaps a bit too harsh in my last post's condemnation and condescension. I don't regret it, and I don't take it back, but I could've been more tactful.

I don't care if you were harsh or condescent in your last post, I didn't read it, you don't write posts, you write novels. I suggest you find an editor to publish your memoirs.

You come in swinging with bad spelling, worse grammar,

Find any bad spelling or grammar in my posts. I dare you. You can even see I'm NOT going to edit any post past the time of posting this, or have done so in the last 24 hours even for that matter. And I may have commited a typo or two yes, but considering the level of my English I'd say damn, it is superbly well, especially considering that I speak four languages fluently including my native language German, how about you? Do you, like the rest of your countrymen, speak only your "Murican" English or would you care to give us the grace of your grande connaissance?

and you can't even do that very well; you bring no sources, no reasoned arguments or debates, no particularly compelling evidence (or, indeed, any evidence at all); simply poorly-crafted analogies. I don't think you're a troll - but it's pretty damn easy to see why other people do.

I may not be a troll, but that doesn't mean I'm eager to waste my time. Call me lazy, I'll admit it, I'm lazy. But I'm not going to go digging sources and invest time to make this an internet-disputatio. My point is simple and clear, I'm not talking about historicity or legitimacy or legality at all, it is my view, solely and purely my own view: To be Roman, you must be Roman. Even modern Italians are, according to my opinion, more Romans than the Greeks. But that is not the point here, my initial rant is how it does annoy me how it is mainstream to call it Byzantine Empire, but never the "ooh so cool" people in forums. In CKII, EUIV and Medieval II the name of the factions are Byzantine Empire, never Roman Empire, but you come to Paradox Forums or Total War Center and you will a bunch of fanboys thinking themselves enlightened and superior like Oh look at me, I'm calling it Eastern Roman Empire, out of spite for it being called Byzantium in game! (to the point where there are threads initiated talking about the in-game faction Byzantine Empire, but the guy simply refuses to ever acknowledge that word, like HotSeats with listings "choose a faction: Venice, Byzantine Empire, France, HRE, England, etc" I'm so cool! I'm so smart! Ha, bet those casuls can't even know they were the eastern part of the original Roman Empire! Oh my God you are a genius! How could I not have thought about this, I must praise you eternally for this! From now on, I shall be edgy as well, let's call Holy Roman Empire Sacrum Romanum Imperium or Heiliges Römisches Reich! And that for each 10 people I find in forums "oh muh Eastern Rome hurr durr" there are, sometimes, less than one doing as much to Germans, and it is pathetic considering how weak and ridiculous those Byzantines were in comparison to the Germans, that lot couldn't even defend against a rabble of turkish peasants! Even Vlad Tepes was more of a Caesar than those greek drunkard "Emperors".

Charlemagne, traditionally held to be the founder of the Holy Roman Empire, claimed to be the legitimate successor of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VI, not Romulus Augustulus or Julius Nepos.

False, Charlemagne himself didn't even want to be Emperor, let alone "claim" any succession.

Einhard says that Charlemagne was ignorant of the Pope's intent and did not want any such coronation:


[H]e at first had such an aversion that he declared that he would not have set foot in the Church the day that they [the imperial titles] were conferred, although it was a great feast-day, if he could have foreseen the design of the Pope.[56]

As for the Holy Roman Empire? That entity collapsed in on itself within a century (Carolingian power collapsed in 887, 86 years after Charlemagne was crowned Roman Emperor. In terms of empire, that's not even long enough for the paint to dry), muddled through for a few centuries after that, and then continued on as a legal fiction the von Habsburgs used to justify their imperial pretensions until Napoleon (Who, I believe, was one of the first European-style emperors to not derive legitimacy from the old Roman Empire, though I could be mistaken and I digress at any rate) dissolved the whole thing and put it out of its misery. So if anything, the Frankish/German state has even less of a claim to being the Roman Empire than Byzantium does - and this even if we accept the idea that Byzantium and Rome were two different empires.

Do you know what you prove to be, when you cite so deeply sources, years, dates, names, events for the Byzantine Empire, and act like a complete ignorant buffoon on the west? A mere fanboy, that is all. Not a history enthusiast, merely a Byzantium fanboy. Your ignorance of the Holy Roman Empire is astonishing, it is worthy of pity.

Charlemagne disbanded the Empire after his death for he considered the title of Emperor as something to be earned, not inherited. It was later, Otto the Great who refounded the Holy Roman Empire for the second time, and it would go on to last for a thousand years. Clearly you are ignorant of whom were the Salian, or the Hohenstaufen. Jumping to your claim of "Habsburgs started to justify", they got the throne in the 15th century, that's HALF MILLENIA after Otto refounded the Empire.

I don't even think you are an honest well meant ignorant anymore, just as I remember your false accusation of bad grammar, I read your quote again, I'm sure you are a deliberate liar, but you mister, aren't fooling nobody here with your codswallop.

And what legal fiction would that be? Clearly Pope, Sucessor of Saint Peter, God's chosen vicar on Earth wields far more authority and power than those pathetic greeks. And he chose Charles the Great, he passed the scepter to the West, all those schismatics can do now is sit and cry. God has voiced His will.

And by God man! To call the then richest city on earth, the most cultured place on earth, and still is, one place that has the best grand opera on earth, the best museums, the best food (I suggest you try the Sachertorte next time you are there), the place where Beethoven went to, the seat of the Emperor, the true and only Emperor and the place that certainly is not Istanbul, oops, sorry, I mean "Constantinople", a place so rich and cultured that by the 15th century we had Golden Roofs, Pestsäule, to call that place, Wien, Österreich, or Austria as your people call it, to be something that was "put out of its misery"? That's what I call intellectual dishonesty!