Thread 17798120

>>17798120 (OP)
The only factor that matters is whether its institutions were initially conferred upon it legally. Everything else is cope or a meme.

>>17798128
Late Roman Institutions still worked in many kingdoms in West Europe trought all middle-ages.
The comites, the palatium, the palatine guard, the conciliums, etc., survived with Germanic regnums in Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, England, etc., during Middle-Ages.

So its not that unique of the Byzantines.

>>17798133
It’s not whether a new entity borrowed and implemented the institutions of the Romans. It’s whether the Romans legally conferred those institutions upon you and legally gave assent to that entity’s existence. Some barbarian tribe that conquers a bit of land and thinks the comites system is useful and worth using isn’t the same as the Roman Empire creating the legal entities of Eastern Rome and Western Rome.

>>17798120 (OP)
Roman Empire successor = Italy
Modern state comparable to what the Roman Empire was (in terms of power influence etc)= United States
HRE and Byzantine could be called medieval successors, but that was lost with time. Everyone else isn't really in the discussion.
Europe isn't that big of a player anymore so the last "romans" are americans.

>>17798141
Barbarians were foederati and received the regnum from Constantinople.

>>17798149
If you could actually break down that argument with sources, then that is the only argument that would matter. That’s probably a weak argument.

Freemasons/jews
>institutions: Runs US Congress, Uk House, France, Italy, NATO etc
>Catholic church aproval: Vatican is run by freemasons
>City of Rome: Vatican is run by freemasons
>Romance people: azhkenazi are decendants of Italian converts

>>17798120 (OP)
What's with turkroaches constantly butting themselves as Roman Empire? A backwards caliphate that conquered former Roman territory doesn't mean anything.

>>17798120 (OP)
Rome is Pagan, who claims otherwise is a liar and a thief.
Rome created the greatest empire on earth and nobody denies its status as Rome, non-Rome claims to be Roman but everyone except itself denies this claim.
Religion and culture created Rome, and it was another religion and culture that destroyed it.

>>17798178
>A backwards caliphate that conquered former Roman territory doesn't mean anything.
Neither a backwater empire that held the name of Rome, some of its institutions and part of the territory. Abrahamics will never be Roman, only materialists with no understanding of ideas and religion can claim otherwise.

>>17798120 (OP)
>Catholic Church approval
The Emperor controlled the Church, their approval was irrelevant.
>Spain and institutions
This is nonsensical. Roman state institutions were dismantled by the Visigoths. The earliest Franks only appropriated it for a short while because they more or less usurped an already existing one from the Northern Gauls and that too would be dismantled in favour of the system of Comes from the Royal court.
>>17798133
>The comites, the palatium, the palatine guard, the conciliums, etc., survived with Germanic regnums in Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, England, etc., during Middle-Ages.
They absolutely did not. Unless you mean in the broadest term possible that doesn't actually relate to a Roman institution. The Counts of Merovingian and Visigothic kingdoms did not actually have anything in common with the functions of the Comes' in the Roman state other than a high rank. England has no continuation with Roman state institutions at all, the Britons did not continue them, and the English took from the Britons .
>>17798149
>Barbarians were foederati and received the regnum from Constantinople.
Nearly all of them were not and did not. Roman authors in the 5-6th century often just refused to call them kings because in the Roman meaning they were not, so they called the Regelus instead and not Rex.

>>17798120 (OP)
There's a few flaws in this, but i think the most glaring one is that only speakers of the Romance language are Roman. A Greek speaking person who actually identifies as a Roman is more Roman than someone from France who sees themselves as separate from Rome.
Also the Orthodox Church is just as valid an indicator of Imperial legitimacy as the Catholic Church.
There is no institutional continuity for Spain or Russia because the Imperial title was not legally hereditary and was entirely dependent on the existence of the Roman polity. The extinction of the Roman polity means there can not be a Roman Emperor.

>>17798201
The Franks and the Goths ruled Regnums with the approval of Constantinople and the Church. You can read it in Gregory of Tours and Paulus Orosius. They sent tribute to Constantinople and ruled like a foederati military elite based on late Roman institutions.

The comes were the men of confidence of the emperor that ruled provinces in his name. This institution remained with Franks and Goths and evolved into hereditary forms of Middle-Ages.
As well the palatium, the Visigoths had their palatium in Toledo, the Franks in Aachen, the Ostrogoths in Ravena, etc.
And the Concilium, all the Germanic rex had their own advisory concilium.

Yes, the Germanic kingdoms in Western Europe were heirs of Roman institution. And given the authority of the emperor came from

And given Byzantines stopped using Latin and lost bounds with the Catholic Church, they lost the empire. Roman emperors were risen by army, commoners and the Church. Thus why the Rex of Gaul was made emperor.

>>17798260
>They sent tribute to Constantinople and ruled like a foederati military elite based on late Roman institutions.
Tribute ended in the late 500's, they did not rule like 'foederati', which was a defunct institution in the later 5th century. How exactly do they rule based on late Roman institutions when they no longer exist? What institutions are they? The Prefectures no longer existed, the administration no longer existed, the military no longer existed.
>The comes were the men of confidence of the emperor that ruled provinces in his name. This institution remained with Franks and Goths and evolved into hereditary forms of Middle-Ages.
The only thing shared is the name. The counts in post-Roman Gaul and Hispania did not share the same responsibilities, powers, positions or even status as Roman ones, or an easy comparison with the existing ones in the East. There is no continuation here.
>As well the palatium, the Visigoths had their palatium in Toledo, the Franks in Aachen, the Ostrogoths in Ravena, etc.
This is completely arbitrary as a signifier which wasn't even relevant in the Roman state by the 3rd century. You could apply the same thing for the Arabs, or even the Chinese. None of these people had a single capital city either, Roman palaces fell into disuse due to the lack of any central city or administration, only Theodoric was consistent about Rome and Ravenna as places of patronage. Frankish kings rarely spent even a month in a city at a time if they ever did. The same with the Visigoths.
>And the Concilium, all the Germanic rex had their own advisory concilium.
Which is a completely different tradition from the Roman one. There is no continuation of institutions here.
>Roman emperors were risen by army, commoners and the Church
The Church had never been relevant in deciding Roman Emperors. Let alone an independent Papacy, which did not exist until the 7th century. After the end of Roman and Byzantine power in the region.

>>17798318
Not to mention your strange insistence of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church as an institution independent from Imperial power or the wider Orthodox structure did not exist in Antiquity. If anything the Catholic approval is a detriment to a claim of being Roman, considering the Romans in Antiquity had a state controlled Church which was effectively the Orthodox Church.

>>17798159
That's not a state dummy

>>17798141
Many of them were. The foederati were formal vassals of Rome.

>>17798372
But were they given a legal right to revolt and break off bits of the empire to be their own fiefs? It’s like claiming that the Arminians were true inheritors of Rome because they were once vassals.

>>17798120 (OP)
Wrong, only pagans can be considered Roman. Christcucks have no right to be called Roman and the empire stopped being Roman when Julian failed to stop Christcucks
Ave Iuppiter!

>>17798260
>lost bounds with the Catholic Church
Kys. For an institution that you Cucktholics claim was supposedly “founded by Christ”, the Catholic Church did not exist for centuries. No one followed the Bishop of Rome's orders in the West at first (They deferred to Milan originally). No one followed the Pope's orders in the East at any time since the foundation of the church, The Bishop of Rome himself bowed to the Emperor in Milan, then Ravenna, and then later in Constantinople as his superior for hundreds of years, and was in fact appointed to his position by them, not the other way around. Am I really just supposed to believe some Medieval degenerate who wanted to use Charlemagne as a cudgel against the late Romans when he says "Actually I just remembered Rome’s local bishop was the supreme authority in Christianity this whole time."?

>>17798318
>Tribute ended in the late 500's, they did not rule like 'foederati', which was a defunct institution in the later 5th century. How exactly do they rule based on late Roman institutions when they no longer exist? What institutions are they? The Prefectures no longer existed, the administration no longer existed, the military no longer existed.
Because Justinian illegally declared war on them.

>The only thing shared is the name. The counts in post-Roman Gaul and Hispania did not share the same responsibilities, powers, positions or even status as Roman ones, or an easy comparison with the existing ones in the East. There is no continuation here.
It was a continuation and naturally evolved given the new political and cultural background in the West. Just as oriental institutions evolved. The political and administrative institutions of hispanoroman and galloroman patricians remained into modernity.

>This is completely arbitrary as a signifier which wasn't even relevant in the Roman state by the 3rd century.
nope, it was a military institution and germanics used it as the military elites of provintial regna.

>You could apply the same thing for the Arabs, or even the Chinese.
Nope, because none of them kept the Roman institutions, their institutions were unique of their own cultures.

>None of these people had a single capital city either
Visigothic capital was Toledo, Frankish capital was Aachen, actually all Spanish and Holy Roman Emperors were crowned in Aachen and Toledo.

>Which is a completely different tradition from the Roman one. There is no continuation of institutions here.
False, the Germanic Regnums had the political authority and they made use of local cinsiliums to lead theiir regna.

>The Church had never been relevant in deciding Roman Emperors. Let alone an independent Papacy
The Church was a legit institution since the times of Theodosius. As well a political after Western empire fall.

>>17798376
They did not revolt. Justinian declared war on them illegally, not even respecting Roman laws, without any reason since the Foederati reges in Spain, Italy and Carthage were recognized by treaties and supported by local patricians. He did not respect the treaties his predecessor made with the Vandals, Visigoths and Ostrogoths.

Since Justinian broke his treaties, he became an illegal tyrant and the reges from the West were fully authorized to rule until a legit emperor was restored. This happened at the winter of year 800 when Charlemagne, from the Regnum Francorum was declared emperor by the bishop of Rome, ie, the pope, head of the Christendom.

>>17798318
Actually Visigoths entered in Gallia and Spain as foederati fighting out Vandals, Alans and Seuvi.

>>17798120 (OP)
take your meds hivan

>>17798430
>Because Justinian illegally declared war on them.
The Franks invaded Italy for their own sake, by your logic it was 'illegal'. The Ostrogoths broke terms and murdered Roman aristocrats, if anything Justinian was acting in protection of the Romans.
>It was a continuation and naturally evolved given the new political and cultural background in the West.
They just aren't related. They aren't an evolution because they have no continuation with the old Roman administration and army which used them.
>The political and administrative institutions of hispanoroman and galloroman patricians remained into modernity.
Except they were dismantled in the West outside of Italy. Neither did Patricians exist in Late Antiquity, what the fuck are you talking about?
>Nope, because none of them kept the Roman institutions
Neither did the Franks, or Visigoths. Only the Ostrogoths did.
>Visigothic capital was Toledo, Frankish capital was Aachen
The Franks had no 'Capital' until the end of the Carolingian Empire. Even Charlemagne did not spend most of his time in Aachen, which was a city he founded, and unrelated completely to the previous 350 years of rulers. Frankish kings did not have a capital, nor did they rule from one.The same with the Visigoths. Both ruled from their courts which were always moving unlike the static Roman administrations of the past.
>the Germanic Regnums had the political authority and they made use of local cinsiliums to lead theiir regna.
Again, the councils held by Germanic rulers were a completely different tradition and did not act like a Roman one. They existed well before they invaded the Roman Empire.
>The Church was a legit institution since the times of Theodosius
The Orthodox Church maybe, not that Theodosius really has anything to do with that. There exists no Papacy in the Roman Empire. The Pope was no more powerful than any other bishop. All inferior to the Emperor.

>Catholic Church
>Classical empire
What the fuck am I reading?

>>17798430
>The Church was a legit institution since the times of Theodosius.
It was a state controlled institution and had no political authority at all. Most Roman emperors came into power before there was even a state church in Rome. The idea that an emperor is only legitimate if the catholic church "approves" is a-historical and nonsensical.

>>17798120 (OP)
This image is so full of blatantly wrong shit I don't even know where to start. The basic criteria I guess. So you have these 4 things you use to judge the "Romanness" of somebody claiming to be the new Roman empire, but you included one that is plain false (Catholic Church approval, which was never a classical roman institution nor was it ever part of imperial succession) but the others you don't even respect the actual classical roman interpretation of.

>Institutions
Aside from a few names and titles, medieval institutions had virtually nothing in common with Roman ones. The Franks in particular did not "maintain" any of the ancient Roman institutions, they dismantled them and replaced them with their own traditional forms of rule and stewardship. I have no idea how you can look at the Merovingian dynasty and go "yep that's totally a continuation of Roman rule".

>Catholic Church Approval
This is such a huge red flag that it basically disqualifies your entire post by itself. The Catholic Church is not a Classical institution. Even if you abandon "Catholic Church" and try to retreat to "Roman Church" this criterion still makes no sense as a metric for "Romanness" since Christianity only became a state-approved religion toward the end of the Classical period and even then it was wholly subservient to the emperor. The idea that the Bishop of Rome was also preeminent only came about long after the western empire fell. All in all, a truly non-historical criterion.

>City of Rome
This is where it gets silly. Conquering Rome, even if it's only for a few years, now gives you claim to being a Roman Emperor? Really? If that's the case the list of claimants is a tad short here.

>Romance People
So what you've done here is, you've taken a language family and conflated it with race and ethnicity, creating this absolute nonsense.

>>17799394
>The Franks invaded Italy for their own sake, by your logic it was 'illegal'. The Ostrogoths broke terms and murdered Roman aristocrats, if anything Justinian was acting in protection of the Romans.
They did because the Church was attacked by Lombards and pope asked them to do so. Totally justified.

>They just aren't related. They aren't an evolution because they have no continuation with the old Roman administration and army which used them.
Just because you say it, it is not true. There was a constinuation given these institutions were made uo initially by Patricians that administrated the regions when Foederati arrived.

>Except they were dismantled in the West outside of Italy. Neither did Patricians exist in Late Antiquity, what the fuck are you talking about?
E.A. Thompson and any serious Medievalist specialized on Early Middle Ages knows you are full of shit.

>The Franks had no 'Capital' until the end of the Carolingian Empire
The Franks stablished a capital in Paris and then moved it to Aachen, and it remained the capital of the empire until Napoleon dismantled the empire.

>Again, the councils held by Germanic rulers were a completely different tradition and did not act like a Roman one. They existed well before they invaded the Roman Empire.
Again, just because you try to push your own grecophile narrative, it does make it truth. There was a continuation since Germanic foederati were given regnum from the emperor and ruled alongside local Roman patricians. Go to E.A. Thompson at The Goths in Spain.

>The Orthodox Church maybe, not that Theodosius really has anything to do with that. There exists no Papacy in the Roman Empire. The Pope was no more powerful than any other bishop.
The Pope always had the supremacy on religious matter. For a reason he was the Pontifex Maximus and the Oriental bishops recognized his primacy. Even today they recognize it but say that the pope must rule with the supprtof their bishops.

>>17799394
>All inferior to the emperor.
Also fake since the emperor needed Catholic Church's support. For a reason Theodosius He had to do public penance after being excommunicated for the Thessaloniki massacre.

>>17799475
>City of Rome
Yes. If you control the very core of the empire, you are in way to be an emperor.

>So what you've done here is, you've taken a language family and conflated it with race and ethnicity, creating this absolute nonsense.
Yes. Keeping culture and language is important.
Chinese empire survived because Han ethnicity always remained no matter if they were invaded by mongols, manchu, etc.
The racial and cultural substract is always important.

>>17800288
>They did because the Church was attacked by Lombards and pope asked them to do so. Totally justified.
The Lombards were not in Italy in the 6th century.
>Just because you say it, it is not true.
You are saying the same exact thing? Can you actually prove this other than just saying it is?
>Patricians
Didn't exist in Late Antiquity. Stop using a term which doesn't have any meaning.
>The Franks stablished a capital in Paris and then moved it to Aachen
No they didn't. The Merovingian Kings had multiple cities which they moved between and gave patronage to. Mainz had major patronage by the royals for decades far greater than Paris had, but there were often multiple kings who all had different places and regions. There were no capitals, the kings just didn't stay in one spot for any length of time.
>E.A. Thompson and any serious Medievalist specialized on Early Middle Ages knows you are full of shit.
Ok. Provide evidence that the Praetorian Prefectures, Roman courts, Roman military and administration still survived in the West in the form they did in the Roman Empire.
>The Pope always had the supremacy on religious matter.
Where? Can you actually point to a place where the Pope had any greater religious authority than the Emperor, or any of the other major bishops like in Antioch or Alexandria? Constantius deposed the Pope because he could, and he wanted to enforce his religious authority
>For a reason he was the Pontifex Maximus
This wouldn't be the case until Phocas.
>and the Oriental bishops recognized his primacy
Such as?
>For a reason Theodosius He had to do public penance after being excommunicated for the Thessaloniki massacre.
Theodosius didn't have to do shit. He could have easily just deposed Ambrose but the point of the penance was political to shift blame from his lack of control of the soldiers to it being a vindictive choice. Theodosius had deposed dozens of bishops at his will, he didn't care about Church authority, he was the final authority

>>17798120 (OP)
>Not having the republic as the original
>Using constantines's bastard empire as the starting point

>>17800326
>There was a continuation since Germanic foederati were given regnum
The only group recognised as Foederati which created a major state of their own was the Visigoths. The Vandals were never accepted by any Roman government, neither were the Franks, Odoacer was rejected as an illegitimate ruler by Zeno even after the death of Julius Nepos. Nor does this argument make any sense as being a continuation of the Roman state, if anything it explicitly means that they are separate from it and not Roman.
>local Roman patricians
Yes the local Patricians who went extinct centuries ago and lived in Central Italy? Or the less than ten of them in title in the East? Stop using terms you don't understand. You're looking for 'aristocrats' or 'elites'. Patrician actually refers to something in particular.

>>17800326
>The Lombards were not in Italy in the 6th century.
Charlemagne invaded Italy to aid pope against the Franks.

>Didn't exist in Late Antiquity. Stop using a term which doesn't have any meaning.
They did. Constantine used the term as an honorific term for people that became the provincial elites.

>No they didn't
Yes, they did. The court moved on alongside the emperor, but the capital was Paris, and later on Aachen were the imperial palace was built.

>Praetorian Prefectures, Roman courts, Roman military and administration still survived in the West in the form they did in the Roman Empire
It's simple: 1) The Emperor grants the Germans the status of federated associates of the Empire. These Germans help expel other barbarians and are rewarded with their own regna to maintain order in the chaotic western dioceses. 2) The Germanic reges in collaboration with the local literate patricians and the Catholic Church, maintain late Roman institutions such as the palatium, aula regia, conciliums, etc. 3) These institutions are maintained throughout the Middle Ages and evolved just as oriental ones, as is typical given institutions evolve with time.

>Where? Can you actually point to a place where the Pope had any greater religious authority than the Emperor
Acacian schism from 484 to 519.

>This wouldn't be the case until Phocas.
The popes were already using it during IV century.

>Such as?
The pope was considered primus inter pares (first among equals) among oriental churches given the pope was the heir of St. Peter as head of the Church. The greek bishop John Zizioulas has a strong take on that.

>>17800336
> The Vandals were never accepted by any Roman government
Zeno recognized the Vandal king Hilderic as a client king in 484 AD, marking a turning point in the formal recognition of the Regnum Vandalorum.

>neither were the Franks
Clovis received the title of honorary consul from Emperor Anastasius I. Which was an even greater title than that of clientelisticam regem.

>Yes the local Patricians who went extinct centuries ago and lived in Central Italy?
They did not went extinct. Constantine promoted the status of Patrician as an honorary title for the Roman elite during the 4th century. Now, considering the weakness of your arguments, you will surely say that Constantine's policies are not valid either.

>>17800365
>Constantine used the term as an honorific term for people that became the provincial elites.
No he didn't. It referred to at most a dozen individuals at a given time. It was essentially an exclusive title for the highest ranked members and achievers in the state like the Magister Militum's and heads of Praetorian Prefectures.
>Yes, they did.
So, you're ascribing to them a capital which they did not use, did not even mainly use as a primary city and was acknowledged by nobody as being a capital?
>The Emperor grants the Germans the status of federated associates of the Empire. These Germans help expel other barbarians and are rewarded with their own regna to maintain order in the chaotic western dioceses.
That only applies to the Visigoths in Aquitaine. This line of reasoning already excludes the Burgundians, Suebi, Franks and Vandals from being able to continue anything.
>maintain late Roman institutions such as the palatium, aula regia, conciliums, etc.
You haven't proved anything, you just reiterated what you said before without actually proving they maintained any Roman administration or institutions. Where is the Praetorian Prefecture and the associated administrations? You're still going on about councils, while pretending like they aren't from a completely different tradition from Roman ones.
>Acacian schism
So you have no evidence as the religious authority of the Papacy over the Emperor? Because that just shows a post-Roman West ignoring the authority of the East and not that the Papacy was any greater as an authority.
>The popes were already using it during IV century.
No they didn't. I don't know where you could possibly be getting this from.
>The pope was considered primus inter pares (first among equals) among oriental churches given the pope was the heir of St. Peter as head of the Church
Nobody says this in Antiquity.
>The greek bishop John Zizioulas has a strong take on that.
Who cares what a modern man says? He isn't an authority on it.

>>17800365
>Charlemagne invaded Italy to aid pope against the Franks.
Why do you keep going on about this? I'm refering to the Frankish invasion of Italy in the 6th century if it wasn't obvious enough.
>>17800373
>Zeno recognized the Vandal king Hilderic as a client king in 484 AD, marking a turning point in the formal recognition of the Regnum Vandalorum.
So you're willing to acknowledge the Byzantines as the legitimate Roman authority but for some reason they aren't Roman. Even better the Vandals prove your nonsense about the continuation of institutions to be wrong as Justinian had to recreate Roman administration and its institutions in the region because they no longer existed under the Vandals.
>Clovis received the title of honorary consul from Emperor Anastasius I. Which was an even greater title than that of clientelisticam regem.
Consul and King are not comparable titles.
>They did not went extinct.
The Patrician clans did. The last mention of any member of their order was in the 3rd century.
>Constantine promoted the status of Patrician as an honorary title for the Roman elite during the 4th century
As a highly exclusive title. Still meaning your usage of the term is completely incorrect.

>>17800381
>No he didn't. It referred to at most a dozen individuals at a given time. It was essentially an exclusive title for the highest ranked members and achievers in the state like the Magister Militum's and heads of Praetorian Prefectures.
Constantine and his successors, who lasted in the West for about 130 more years, rewarded high-ranking officials with the title of patrician. So no, it wasn't given to a dozen individuals at any given time. It was an honorific title for Roman elites who collaborated and earned merit in the imperial administration.

When the Germanic foederati established their regna with the approval of the emperors, the Church, local elites and local institutions, there were many landlord patricians working in local institutions. As the patrician Sidonius Apollinaris in Gaul, granted the status of patrician and senator by Anthemius.

>You haven't proved anything,
I already did.
You can consult the Hispano-Roman historian Paulus Orosius, or the Gallo-Roman Gregory of Tours, or the minutes of the Councils of Toledo and Lyon. The Regna Germanos, recognized and ratified by the Emperor, the Church, the Patricians, and the population (Paulus Orosius is a good example of this), maintained the aforementioned institutions (palatium, concilia, the civil service of the comes in the Aula Palatina and the comitatus, etc.). Institutions abolished in most of West Europe by French and Liberal revolutions during late XVIII century and XIX century.

>>17800381
>So you have no evidence as the religious authority of the Papacy over the Emperor? Because that just shows a post-Roman West ignoring the authority of the East and not that the Papacy was any greater as an authority.

I put as example when emperor tried to force pope to adopt an heresy while the pope stayed confident, it was the emperor the one who stepped back.

Do you want another example? During IV Century the emperor Valent tried to force the pope to recognize Arian heresy but the pope Damasus I did not accepted the emperor vias. At this time, the oriental equivalent of St. Augustine, St. Basil the Great praised the pope's authority as head of Christendom and behaved as a true papist given Oriental patriarchs were all Arianist heretics.

I have already showed three times when the emperors failed and even surrended to Ecclesiastical institution. Acacian schism, Theodosius excomunication by St. Ambrose and Catholic tribulation under emperor Valent and Arian heresy rule.

>Who cares what a modern man says?
The opinion of a bigwig of the Orthodox Church specialized at Christianity's history counts. Although considering you're fallacious because the historical facts don't support your personal narrative, I suppose you'd ignore all the above facts as well.

>>17800396
>rewarded high-ranking officials with the title of patrician
Yes I said that. How strange you keep changing what you're saying every time to align with me and then disagreeing.
>As the patrician Sidonius Apollinaris in Gaul, granted the status of patrician and senator by Anthemius.
Sidonius was quite literally about as elite as you could get without being part of the Imperial family, which he was for a short time. He was the primary head of the Gallic party. He fills in every criteria of being awarded the title.
>maintained the aforementioned institutions
You keep saying this without proving it. I'm going to ask you for the third time. Where are they? Where is the Praetorian Prefecture, where is the Roman court system, where is the Roman administration? If you can't actually provide evidence for it don't talk about it.
>I put as example when emperor tried to force pope to adopt an heresy while the pope stayed confident, it was the emperor the one who stepped back.
Zeno never stepped back. He died supporting his conclusions, and when it was later rescinded it wasn't under any pressure from the West but internally in the East. Anyway the point being that this does not show any superiority of the Church over Emperors. Let alone earlier ones.
>During IV Century the emperor Valent tried to force the pope to recognize Arian heresy but the pope Damasus I did not accepted the emperor via
Valens wasn't Emperor in the West and couldn't make Damasus do anything. It's token resistance.
>St. Basil the Great praised the pope's authority as head of Christendom and behaved as a true papist
Basil also capitulated and made amends with Valens to avoid being deposed. Arianism was the most popular form of Christianity in the East even without Imperial support.
>The opinion of a bigwig of the Orthodox Church specialized at Christianity's history counts
An appeal to authority isn't evidence. You have to provide it.

>>17800288
>For a reason he was the Pontifex Maximus
He wasn't, ever, at least not antiquity. The first pope to use the title in reference to the Papacy did so in the Renaissance

>>17798120 (OP)
roll for your Roman empire

>>17800798
Skibidi

>>17800440
Both Merovech, Childeric I. and Clovis' tenures should be seen in the context of that of a Roman general.
Especially among the Gallo-Romans in Gaul, Roman law and courts were alive and well (Salic law existed alongside it), the conversion of Clovis to Catholicism (instead of Arianism) led to the possibility of a partnership of the Frankish Kings and Gallo-Roman clergy to create the most powerful state in Western Europe at the time.

>>17798120 (OP)
Napoleon's Empire had catholic church approval THOUGH

>>17802633
pic related

>>17802655
Nope, Napoleon crowned himself, he was not crowned by the pope as the ritual marked

>>17802655
There misconception Napoleon dissolved HRE, it was Francis II doing.