6 ms·

Holy Roman Empire is exactly what you're saying didn't happen - non-Romans declaring themselves the direct continuation of Roman Empire tradition.

shakow 5y ago
It's always possible to argue further, but it's not really what led to the foundation of the HRE. Rather, it was a creation of the pope Leo III which he offered to Charlemagne, as the conclusion of a long feud with the ERE and the wish of the pope to split from it.
zeteo 5y ago
Isn't it a bit presumptuous to declare that people who called themselves and were called by everyone else "Romans" for over a thousand years were not really Romans? By this definition 4th century emperors like Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great were not really Romans either, since they spoke Greek and ruled from Constantinople. Heck, even in the time of Caesar the Republican elite preferred speaking Greek instead of Latin - hopefully you don't think the Roman Empire fell before it even began...
- emteycz 5y ago
  Perhaps it is. This is how they taught me at school - and we were part of HRE too. It's definitely not about languages though. HRE switched from Latin to German like nothing happened. It is also important to note that the people called themselves Roman/HRE in addition to their national/tribal identity, not as a replacement.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Isn't it a bit presumptuous to declare that people who called themselves and were called by everyone else "Romans" for over a thousand years were not really Romans? Depends. Are we talking about ethnicity? (in which they weren't italic latin-speaking Romans - Greek ethnicity and culture, for example, didn't just vanish when the italic latin-speaking Romans conquered their lands). Or about "nationality" or statehood and claim to lands, and such? In that, they were romans, since their state was the successor to the roman state (aka the "roman empire"), and a legitimate one at that. Mind you, they also started calling themselves Greeks later on, and we have tons of references from them (including emperors etc) writing about themselves as that. >By this definition 4th century emperors like Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great were not really Romans either, since they spoke Greek and ruled from Constantinople. They were the Roman emperors during the transfer of power to the Eastern Empire - in the time of Theodosius Rome was still in place too, and East and West where ruled under the Tetrarchy. Plus, Constantine didn't speak Greek, he spoke Latin (he used an interpreter in some cases to translate to Greek, and he knew a handful as many romans did, but he personally spoke latin). I'm pretty sure that's true for Theodosius too. >Heck, even in the time of Caesar the Republican elite preferred speaking Greek instead of Latin - hopefully you don't think the Roman Empire fell before it even began... That's neither here, nor there. One is an example of some elites being pretentious, and the other is a state losing its capital (the one it even took its name from), its ruiling ethnicity, moving to another region with a different cultural background and dominant ethnicities, which eventually in a couple of centruries swallowed the previous dominant language and culture -- all while the original capital and land of origin of the culture and the empire suffered devastating fall under barbarian tribes.
pasabagi 5y ago
Sorry, that was bad writing on my part. I meant that this was the distinction. In Byzantine history, transitions between one sovereign to another always consisted of a new sovereign seizing the control of the Roman state. In the example of Charlemagne or the Turks or whatever, it's a non-roman state that replaces (or in their eyes, becomes) the roman one, rather than just a non-roman sovereign.

shakow 5y ago

It's always possible to argue further, but it's not really what led to the foundation of the HRE. Rather, it was a creation of the pope Leo III which he offered to Charlemagne, as the conclusion of a long feud with the ERE and the wish of the pope to split from it.

zeteo 5y ago

Isn't it a bit presumptuous to declare that people who called themselves and were called by everyone else "Romans" for over a thousand years were not really Romans? By this definition 4th century emperors like Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great were not really Romans either, since they spoke Greek and ruled from Constantinople. Heck, even in the time of Caesar the Republican elite preferred speaking Greek instead of Latin - hopefully you don't think the Roman Empire fell before it even began...

emteycz 5y ago
Perhaps it is. This is how they taught me at school - and we were part of HRE too. It's definitely not about languages though. HRE switched from Latin to German like nothing happened. It is also important to note that the people called themselves Roman/HRE in addition to their national/tribal identity, not as a replacement.
coldtea 5y ago
>Isn't it a bit presumptuous to declare that people who called themselves and were called by everyone else "Romans" for over a thousand years were not really Romans? Depends. Are we talking about ethnicity? (in which they weren't italic latin-speaking Romans - Greek ethnicity and culture, for example, didn't just vanish when the italic latin-speaking Romans conquered their lands). Or about "nationality" or statehood and claim to lands, and such? In that, they were romans, since their state was the successor to the roman state (aka the "roman empire"), and a legitimate one at that. Mind you, they also started calling themselves Greeks later on, and we have tons of references from them (including emperors etc) writing about themselves as that. >By this definition 4th century emperors like Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great were not really Romans either, since they spoke Greek and ruled from Constantinople. They were the Roman emperors during the transfer of power to the Eastern Empire - in the time of Theodosius Rome was still in place too, and East and West where ruled under the Tetrarchy. Plus, Constantine didn't speak Greek, he spoke Latin (he used an interpreter in some cases to translate to Greek, and he knew a handful as many romans did, but he personally spoke latin). I'm pretty sure that's true for Theodosius too. >Heck, even in the time of Caesar the Republican elite preferred speaking Greek instead of Latin - hopefully you don't think the Roman Empire fell before it even began... That's neither here, nor there. One is an example of some elites being pretentious, and the other is a state losing its capital (the one it even took its name from), its ruiling ethnicity, moving to another region with a different cultural background and dominant ethnicities, which eventually in a couple of centruries swallowed the previous dominant language and culture -- all while the original capital and land of origin of the culture and the empire suffered devastating fall under barbarian tribes.

pasabagi 5y ago

Sorry, that was bad writing on my part. I meant that this was the distinction. In Byzantine history, transitions between one sovereign to another always consisted of a new sovereign seizing the control of the Roman state. In the example of Charlemagne or the Turks or whatever, it's a non-roman state that replaces (or in their eyes, becomes) the roman one, rather than just a non-roman sovereign.