4 ms·

Interesting. Why those specific states and not say...Germany or Austria or Hungary?

stephc_int13 4y ago
I'd include France, Germany and most of Europe. But they have not been as historically dominant, even if it was a close call.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  In fact, both "kaiser" and "czar" came from "caesar". Imperial Russia and Imperial Germany both thought of themselves as descending from Rome.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Kaiser was also used by the Habsburgs as rulers of the Holy Roman Empire and later Imperial Austria.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  That’s a very English-speaking country point of view.
- mcv 4y ago
  A weird claim. Not only have France and Germany been incredibly dominant throughout history, the Holy Roman Empire was pretty explicitly claimed to be a successor. France is the successor to Charlemagne's empire, who was crowned Emperor of the Romans. I'm curious what claim you think Spain, Great Britain, not to mention Netherlands or the US have to be considered successors of Rome.
8note 4y ago
Or alternatively the ottomans, who considered themselves the continuation of Rome, and conquered the Roman capital and took it as their own to boot
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago
  I would say that it is hard to justify calling any nation where the majority religion is not Christianity (or Christianity that overtime has converted to Christian Atheism/Agnosticism) a descendant of Rome. As a predominantly Islamic country, I would argue this precludes the Ottomans from being considered a continuation of Rome.
  - skywal_l 4y ago
    Rome became a christian empire pretty late in its history. One might even think that this accelerated its downfall. Originally, Rome was a multi-theist "pagan" empire were the gods of conquered lands could be integrated into the Roman pantheon (most of the original roman gods were greek gods after all). So we could have seen an islamic roman empire in the late stage which, according to the parent is what the ottomans apparently considered themselves to be.
    - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
      I don't think this makes a lot of sense as a framing. Although the idea of being the "Continuation of Rome" is sometimes seen to be about dominance over the same areas as the Roman Empire more broadly it is meant as having ideological foundations that began in Rome. And I would argue it is near impossible for the Ottomans to fit this description especially as they were increasingly Islamic and presented themselves as leaders of the pan-islamic world which I think we would agree could not be genuinely thought of as a continuation of Rome. Wikipedia tends to support this interpretation (I know it's wikipedia but still it does back up what I have read in various books about Rome and its aftermath in hearts and mind). Islam is a totalising belief system that claims supremacy and a "blank slate" to the states that have it as a political ideology. This is in direct conflict with claiming to be a successor to the Roman Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_success... > Recognition of the Ottoman claim to be Roman emperors was variable, both outside and within the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were widely accepted as Romans in the Islamic world, with the sultans being recognized as Roman emperors. The majority of the Christian populace of the Ottoman Empire also recognized the sultans as their new emperors, but views differed among the cultural elite. Some saw the Ottomans as infidels, barbarians and illegitimate tyrants, others saw them as divinely ordained as punishment for the sins of the Byzantine people and others yet accepted them as the new emperors. From at least 1474 onwards, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople recognized the sultans by the title basileus. Whereas views were variable in regards to the legitimacy of the Ottomans as sovereigns, they were consistent in that the Ottoman Empire as a state was not seen as the seamless continuation of the Roman Empire, but rather its heir and successor, as the former empire had far too deep theological roots to be compatible with a foreign Muslim ruler. Thus, the former Byzantines saw the Ottoman Empire as inheriting the political legitimacy and right to universal rule of the preceding empire, but not its other theological implications. In Western Europe, where the Byzantine emperors had not been recognized as Roman either, the Ottomans were generally seen as emperors, but not Roman emperors. Views on whether the Ottoman sultans were the successors of the Byzantine emperors or a completely new set of rulers varied among westerners. The right of the Ottoman sultans to style themselves as Roman emperors and claim universal rule was challenged for centuries by the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire and the Russian Empire, both of whom claimed this dignity for themselves.
TapWaterBandit 4y ago
Realistically all European civilizations and their offshoots are descendants of Rome to one degree or another. This same area is also in certain circumstances known as "Christendom" and at least part of the reason Christianity was able to spread as wide as it did is that it was the official religion of the Roman Empire by the 3rd century AD. From here the entirety of Europe, the Americas, large swathes of Africa, and many nations in the South Pacific carry on traditions descended directly from this legacy. There is obviously a lot of variation within these societies but I would argue that the core beliefs of the people within them are noticeably and identifiably "Christian" even if these people no longer believe in God or engage with the bible in any significant way.

I'd include France, Germany and most of Europe. But they have not been as historically dominant, even if it was a close call.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
In fact, both "kaiser" and "czar" came from "caesar". Imperial Russia and Imperial Germany both thought of themselves as descending from Rome.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Kaiser was also used by the Habsburgs as rulers of the Holy Roman Empire and later Imperial Austria.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
That’s a very English-speaking country point of view.
mcv 4y ago
A weird claim. Not only have France and Germany been incredibly dominant throughout history, the Holy Roman Empire was pretty explicitly claimed to be a successor. France is the successor to Charlemagne's empire, who was crowned Emperor of the Romans. I'm curious what claim you think Spain, Great Britain, not to mention Netherlands or the US have to be considered successors of Rome.

8note 4y ago

Or alternatively the ottomans, who considered themselves the continuation of Rome, and conquered the Roman capital and took it as their own to boot

TapWaterBandit 4y ago
I would say that it is hard to justify calling any nation where the majority religion is not Christianity (or Christianity that overtime has converted to Christian Atheism/Agnosticism) a descendant of Rome. As a predominantly Islamic country, I would argue this precludes the Ottomans from being considered a continuation of Rome.
- skywal_l 4y ago
  Rome became a christian empire pretty late in its history. One might even think that this accelerated its downfall. Originally, Rome was a multi-theist "pagan" empire were the gods of conquered lands could be integrated into the Roman pantheon (most of the original roman gods were greek gods after all). So we could have seen an islamic roman empire in the late stage which, according to the parent is what the ottomans apparently considered themselves to be.
  - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
    I don't think this makes a lot of sense as a framing. Although the idea of being the "Continuation of Rome" is sometimes seen to be about dominance over the same areas as the Roman Empire more broadly it is meant as having ideological foundations that began in Rome. And I would argue it is near impossible for the Ottomans to fit this description especially as they were increasingly Islamic and presented themselves as leaders of the pan-islamic world which I think we would agree could not be genuinely thought of as a continuation of Rome. Wikipedia tends to support this interpretation (I know it's wikipedia but still it does back up what I have read in various books about Rome and its aftermath in hearts and mind). Islam is a totalising belief system that claims supremacy and a "blank slate" to the states that have it as a political ideology. This is in direct conflict with claiming to be a successor to the Roman Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_success... > Recognition of the Ottoman claim to be Roman emperors was variable, both outside and within the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were widely accepted as Romans in the Islamic world, with the sultans being recognized as Roman emperors. The majority of the Christian populace of the Ottoman Empire also recognized the sultans as their new emperors, but views differed among the cultural elite. Some saw the Ottomans as infidels, barbarians and illegitimate tyrants, others saw them as divinely ordained as punishment for the sins of the Byzantine people and others yet accepted them as the new emperors. From at least 1474 onwards, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople recognized the sultans by the title basileus. Whereas views were variable in regards to the legitimacy of the Ottomans as sovereigns, they were consistent in that the Ottoman Empire as a state was not seen as the seamless continuation of the Roman Empire, but rather its heir and successor, as the former empire had far too deep theological roots to be compatible with a foreign Muslim ruler. Thus, the former Byzantines saw the Ottoman Empire as inheriting the political legitimacy and right to universal rule of the preceding empire, but not its other theological implications. In Western Europe, where the Byzantine emperors had not been recognized as Roman either, the Ottomans were generally seen as emperors, but not Roman emperors. Views on whether the Ottoman sultans were the successors of the Byzantine emperors or a completely new set of rulers varied among westerners. The right of the Ottoman sultans to style themselves as Roman emperors and claim universal rule was challenged for centuries by the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire and the Russian Empire, both of whom claimed this dignity for themselves.

TapWaterBandit 4y ago

Realistically all European civilizations and their offshoots are descendants of Rome to one degree or another. This same area is also in certain circumstances known as "Christendom" and at least part of the reason Christianity was able to spread as wide as it did is that it was the official religion of the Roman Empire by the 3rd century AD. From here the entirety of Europe, the Americas, large swathes of Africa, and many nations in the South Pacific carry on traditions descended directly from this legacy. There is obviously a lot of variation within these societies but I would argue that the core beliefs of the people within them are noticeably and identifiably "Christian" even if these people no longer believe in God or engage with the bible in any significant way.