Ultiumus Romanorum

[bz249]

I think Mussolini was the last person with a somewhat serious 'Roman Empire' obsession that actually held any power (and you're not very Roman if you hold no power).

Strange that none mentioned Nicolae Ceacucescu
- Ruling a country called Romania with iron grip... check
- Building huge palaces... check
- Nepotism driven to maximum... check
- Have his own praetorian guard... check
- Get killed by his own praetorian guard... check

How can someone be more Roman than that?

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Strange that none mentioned Nicolae Ceacucescu
- Ruling a country called Romania with iron grip... check
- Building huge palaces... check
- Nepotism driven to maximum... check
- Have his own praetorian guard... check
- Get killed by his own praetorian guard... check

How can someone be more Roman than that?

Hmmmmmm you have a point.

 

[thedarkendstar]

Strange that none mentioned Nicolae Ceacucescu
- Ruling a country called Romania with iron grip... check
- Building huge palaces... check
- Nepotism driven to maximum... check
- Have his own praetorian guard... check
- Get killed by his own praetorian guard... check

How can someone be more Roman than that?

By someone making a quote for you in a play you never said but everyone knows....

 

[DukeDayve]

In the western half of the empire it was Anthemius.

In the eastern half of the empire it was Justinian.

HRE/Tsars/Ottomans were pretenders and don't count.

 

[Tufto]

Look, there was no "last Roman" because Rome is nothing more than an idea. Saying "X" or "Y" was the last Roman just demonstrates something about your own preconcieved biases.

Which is why I say Mehmed VI. He was the last one to claim to be acting in a Roman Imperial continuity, in some way or form. IIRC, there aren't any states which claim to be a continuation of Rome/Rum/whatever thereafter. With him, the idea died in any meaningful way.

Does this also demonstrate my own biases? Absolutely. You can't escape from that.

 

[Avernite]

Look, there was no "last Roman" because Rome is nothing more than an idea. Saying "X" or "Y" was the last Roman just demonstrates something about your own preconcieved biases.

Which is why I say Mehmed VI. He was the last one to claim to be acting in a Roman Imperial continuity, in some way or form. IIRC, there aren't any states which claim to be a continuation of Rome/Rum/whatever thereafter. With him, the idea died in any meaningful way.

Does this also demonstrate my own biases? Absolutely. You can't escape from that.

There's a Pontifex Maximus, though.

 

[DukeDayve]

Look, there was no "last Roman" because Rome is nothing more than an idea. Saying "X" or "Y" was the last Roman just demonstrates something about your own preconcieved biases.

Which is why I say Mehmed VI. He was the last one to claim to be acting in a Roman Imperial continuity, in some way or form. IIRC, there aren't any states which claim to be a continuation of Rome/Rum/whatever thereafter. With him, the idea died in any meaningful way.

Does this also demonstrate my own biases? Absolutely. You can't escape from that.

Nah, anybody can claim to be acting in a continuity of whatever... there has to be some link to it, and the link can't be "destroy the last bits of it with a big cannon and then claim I'm somehow its continuation".

If that were the case I could go to where the Aztecs lived, hold a still-beating heart in my hand and proclaim myself a successor.

 

[keynes2.0]

Which is why I say Mehmed VI. He was the last one to claim to be acting in a Roman Imperial continuity, in some way or form.

If you are going to allow tenuous claims like that, why not Imperial Russia? Why not the Republic of France, with a lineage going through West Francia?

 

[thedarkendstar]

Nah, anybody can claim to be acting in a continuity of whatever... there has to be some link to it, and the link can't be "destroy the last bits of it with a big cannon and then claim I'm somehow its continuation".

If that were the case I could go to where the Aztecs lived, hold a still-beating heart in my hand and proclaim myself a successor.

Praise DukeDyve leader of the Aztecs dont declare war on me turn 20 pls.

 

[IsadorBG]

If you are going to allow tenuous claims like that, why not Imperial Russia? Why not the Republic of France, with a lineage going through West Francia?

Because Imperial Russia collapsed before the Ottoman Empire.
Thus Mehmed VI by being the last of the "Kayser of Rum" (Caesar/Tsar of Rome) since he was the last Sultan of the Empire make him "the last Roman".
Also Mehmed died before Nicholas so that also worked for the literal part.
That's Tufto logic anyway.

And Francia/France means the land of the Franks so the connection between West Francia and Rome is not really evident to me.

 

[DukeDayve]

Because Imperial Russia collapsed before the Ottoman Empire.
Thus Mehmed VI by being the last of the "Kayser of Rum" (Caesar/Tsar of Rome) since he was the last Sultan of the Empire make him "the last Roman".
Also Mehmed died before Nicholas so that also worked for the literal part.
That's Tufto logic anyway.

And Francia/France means the land of the Franks so the connection between West Francia and Rome is not really evident to me.

Neither the connection between West Francia and the Ottomans and Rome is evident to me... but West Francia would have more of a claim than any Ottoman sultan.

I mean... the Ottomans destroyed the last vestige of the actual Roman Empire (it had a direct link to all the Roman emperors through history, it was the part of the empire that never fell, it did have that link) and then proclaimed themselves to be its continuation. They weren't, they came from thousands of miles to the east and took the land. Like I said earlier, this is the same as me moving to where the Aztecs lived, setting myself up with a little palace and declaring myself the last Aztec.

Francia however had a link. A weaker link than the Byzantine emperors, but a link nonetheless. Charlemagne was recognized by the Pope (who himself had a link) as the protector of the lands of the empire. The empire no longer existed in the lands Charlemagne held of course, but the Pope proclaimed him the protector nonetheless.

 

[IsadorBG]

Neither the connection between West Francia and the Ottomans and Rome is evident to me... but West Francia would have more of a claim than any Ottoman sultan.

I mean... the Ottomans destroyed the last vestige of the actual Roman Empire (it had a direct link to all the Roman emperors through history, it was the part of the empire that never fell, it did have that link) and then proclaimed themselves to be its continuation. They weren't, they came from thousands of miles to the east and took the land. Like I said earlier, this is the same as me moving to where the Aztecs lived, setting myself up with a little palace and declaring myself the last Aztec.

Francia however had a link. A weaker link than the Byzantine emperors, but a link nonetheless. Charlemagne was recognized by the Pope (who himself had a link) as the protector of the lands of the empire. The empire no longer existed in the lands Charlemagne held of course, but the Pope proclaimed him the protector nonetheless.

Not at all. Altough I don't consider that the Ottoman Empire is a continuation of the Roman Empire (for the simple fact that They did not consider themselves as Roman)
They certainly had a better claim that Frankish Kings.

First what you said about the Turks also work for the Franks. They too came from outside the Empire and settled there later. They too were foreigner that never were Roman citizens.
Sure Scandinavia may have been closer than Mongolia but infine neither were Romans.

As for your second claim, the Ottomans have better than this.
First Mehmet II was crowned by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Isn't that the same as being recognised by the Pope ?
No it is even better in fact because the Patriarch of Constantinople was the man who actually crowned the Roman Emperors for the last millenium not the Pope.
Plus the Pope crowned Charlemagne while there was still an emperor (empress) in power which makes Charlemagne a mere usurper according to Roman traditions, he could have been crown by the bishop of laliland that it would have been the same, the senior emperor of Rome is the ultimate authority to recognise who can become Emperor and Irene denied Charlie.

In the case of Mehmet II, there was no Emperor to recognise or deny him so the power to choose the next Emperor layed on the Senate and people of Rome which the man conviently conquered so arguably they did have much a choice just like the patriarch but to be fair he was not the first to access power that way.

So you see funnily enough Mehmet II and his descendent have the best claim to the Roman Empire of all the Barbarians that invaded the Empire. At least according to Roman traditions.

Did i also mention the fact that Mehmet II was also a direct descendent of plenty of Roman emperors and that in Europe only the Rurikids had comparable "roman lineage" as the Ottoman ?

Not bad for people that came so far from Constantinople.

 

[Tufto]

If you are going to allow tenuous claims like that, why not Imperial Russia? Why not the Republic of France, with a lineage going through West Francia?

Sure, why not, except that imperial France and Russia fell before the Ottomans. These things are all subjective.

Also what IsadorBG said .

Nah, anybody can claim to be acting in a continuity of whatever... there has to be some link to it, and the link can't be "destroy the last bits of it with a big cannon and then claim I'm somehow its continuation".

If that were the case I could go to where the Aztecs lived, hold a still-beating heart in my hand and proclaim myself a successor.

What link? How is it defined? Why are certain links prioritised over others? These things are all subjective and entirely down to the beholder. If some mad North Korean proclaimed his state the continuation of Rome then he would be "the last Roman", because the term has no meaning. Since Mehmed was the last statesman who legitimised his state on those lines, the last ruler for whom the idea of the Roman state held some truth, the last ruler (as far as I know, anyway) who claimed to be a continuation of the Empire, I think he's the best person to call the "last Roman", although I don't really see the point in the first place.

 

[Tufto]

There's a Pontifex Maximus, though.

Mm, you can make an argument for the Pope, I suppose. Of course, that then leads into what you mean by "last Roman" again; the last Emperor, last person holding a Roman title, position, etc...

 

[IsadorBG]

The Nicene Churches could certainly be considered to be the last vestiges of Rome.

I don't see why the Pope or the Catholic Church would only get the mention when it is but a fragment (a big one i can admit) of the old Imperial Church.

 

[DukeDayve]

What link? How is it defined? Why are certain links prioritised over others? These things are all subjective and entirely down to the beholder. If some mad North Korean proclaimed his state the continuation of Rome then he would be "the last Roman", because the term has no meaning. Since Mehmed was the last statesman who legitimised his state on those lines, the last ruler for whom the idea of the Roman state held some truth, the last ruler (as far as I know, anyway) who claimed to be a continuation of the Empire, I think he's the best person to call the "last Roman", although I don't really see the point in the first place.

Well, the Roman Empire was... the Roman Empire. It was big, it was pretty great (in the way that empires can be great, which means strong and whatnot) and in 476 AD the western half of it collapsed... but the eastern half didn't. The Roman Empire didn't cease to exist in 476, just half of it collapsed and was never recovered (not that Justinian didn't give it a damn good try).

So this is how the eastern half had the link, the claim. It WAS the Roman Empire. An unbroken chain of emperors, ruling the same empire, until 1453. This was the empire and nobody outside of this has any kind of a claim beyond being a pretender... the same way I can't build myself a palace where the Aztecs lived, hold a still-beating heart in my hand and proclaim that I am the continuation of the Aztec empire.

 

[Eusebio]

I would say Boethius, by the way, as an exemplar of the classical learning and tradition which was extinguished with his death.

 

[keynes2.0]

setting myself up with a little palace and declaring myself the last Aztec.

 

[keynes2.0]

Sure, why not, except that imperial France and Russia fell before the Ottomans.

France is still with us. Unless you want to say the last Roman was Brutus or Cicero, Rome went from oligarchy to autocracy while still being rome, so going from autocracy to democracy shouldn't stop the continuity of French rule. Each government claimed descent from the one before, going all the way back the Charlemagne who had a heck of a lot of a more legitimate claim to being roman then the Ottomans.

But personally, I prefer the statement in the original meaning, the last one to show Roman virtue and might before the fall of Rome in the west. In this sense it's foolish to talk about anyone after Majorian/Nepos/Sygerius.

 

[IsadorBG]

If we are to take the constantine's donation seriously and the fact that women cannot into imperator because the pope said so (otherwise Charlemagne's legitimacy is null) then at least take the actual heir of the imperium: Germany.

It's East France/Germany that inherited the imperial (and roman) mantle not best France.
Best France broke off from the not always Sanctified dubiously Roman Empire.

But if we have to take the Merkel's reich seriously that mean that we have to consider Erdogan as actual successor of Rome.