Thread 18121811

I like when people try to legitimately call the HRE "Roman". Lets you know theyre completely historically illiterate and probably some retarded tradcath, so you immediately know they have nothing of value to say

>>18121811 (OP)
The Byzantranny empire doesn't have the right to call itself Roman either.

>>18121890
>The Roman empire doesn't have the right to call itself Roman either
Can't even refute the OP btw

>>18121811 (OP)
>The Roman empire doesn't have the right to call itself Roman

>>18121811 (OP)
>>18121890
Neither the HRE nor the Byzantrannies were Roman because they were Christian. Only pagans have a right to call themselves Roman, Rome died when emperor Julian failed to stop the spread of the disease that is Christianity.

Hail Jupiter.

>>18122025
They had no political continuation from the actual Roman Empire, they were centered in Germany instead of Italy, and they followed Christianity instead of Rome paganism.

>>18122025
Convince me that the HRE is the Roman empire, instead of the Roman empire which existed to the east

>>18122312
>They had no political continuation from the actual Roman Empire
Charlemagne was reviving thew western Roman Empire. Frankish kings were regularly given titles by the Emperor in Constantinople.
>>18122324
Both the HRE and Byzantine Empire were continuations of the old Roman empire.

If the Byzantines were "eastern Rome" then so were the Ottomans who were just the Byzantines but moslem which in turn would make pic related the living legacy of Rome.
This is your mind on anti German sentiments.

>>18121893
If one day pajeets replaced the whole population of England, would it still be England just because the kingdom was formally not abolished, and there is a King (Raja) in Buckingham Palace?

>>18122312
It was sanctioned by the Papacy (a Roman magistrature older than Costantinople)

>>18122654
The Byzantines and ottomans were completely separate states, the Byzantine empire was Roman because it was literally the Roman empire, not because of magic balkan soil or anything.
>>18122656
So you're saying that the Byzantines can't be Roman because they didn't share the same genetics as people in the city of Rome, but the HRE is somehow still Roman, because the pope said so?
The Roman empire wasn't a nation-state for a racial ethnicity like England. It was a state founded in 753 BC that fell in 1453 AD. The Byzantine empire was the same state that Augustus ruled. Saying the Romans weren't Roman because the pope said some state not even as old as Constantinople is just shows you're trying to find any reason at all to call them Roman

>>18121811 (OP)
Neither the HRE or ERE were Roman /thread

>>18122693
>The Byzantine empire was the same state that Augustus ruled.
lmao

>>18122716
Not an argument btw

>>18122719
Only tards try to argue byzaboos.

since greek was a faundamental part of the roman empire, I'll say the byzantine empire was a continuation of the roman state, not of the roman people, but "roman people" were barely even a thing when the western roman empire was still running

>>18122728
Not just a historically illiterate retard but an ESL too
At least you understand that you can't argue against a basic historical fact

>>18122719
The Byzantine empire was a feudal kingdom and had absolutely nothing to do with the Roman Empire.
No consuls, no senate, no censors, no praetors, no legions, no plebeians, no patricians.
>b-but the senate in Constant...
Some titles survived but had a completely different function and after 1000 they started disappearing for good.

>>18122310
You're a tranny too

>>18122656
>the Papacy
>older than Costantinople
Looks like OP was spot on

>>18122738
>No consuls, no senate, no censors, no praetors, no legions, no plebeians, no patricians
anon, most of those things were already gone long before the middle ages, patrician became a title rather than a class, same as consul, the legion can't be considered part of the roman identity, it's just an army organization, it existed in between a period of roman history

>>18122738
>The Byzantine empire was a feudal
Made the bait too obvious and too early

>>18122735
There was never an "eastern Roman empire" in the first place. The eastern "Emperor" was a junior partner of the Dominus in Italy and only existed for practical reasons.
Rome was fundamentally centered around Italy for its entire existence, everything outside of Italy was just a colony.
Calling the "eastern empire" Roman is like saying the east India company was the eastern English kingdom.
Nonsense.

>>18122751
Yeah so it had fuck all to do with the Rome Octavian lived in.

>>18122754
Welcome to reality.

>>18122755
>Rome was fundamentally centered around Italy for its entire existence, everything outside of Italy was just a colony
I disagree, the system evolved because of constant reformations, the spread of citizenship, the reorganization of the provinces into dioecesis, the shift of imperial power towards the frontiers in Milan, Ravena, Constantinople, etc. The "colony" that you may be refering to was a proto feudal system during the late roman empire, designed to keep peasants in their lands

>>18122755
>The eastern "Emperor" was a junior partner of the Dominus in Italy and only existed for practical reasons
wasn't Arcadius the eldest son of Teodosio, he received the throne in the east, while his younger brother received the western throne, how does that compare to your weird comparison to the India Company?

>>18122775
It doesn't because he's just making shit up

The Holy Roman Reich was German and that's way better than being some swarthy Roman

>>18122788
WE

>>18122788
It all comes down when you cut off the "Roman empire". The Rome Augustus, Caesar and Sulla lived in was long gone by the time of Diocletian and Constantine, they lived in completely different worlds. Implying some continuity between Rome and Byzantium is absolutely ridiculous. Byzaboos are deluded.
Would Roma have lost against a bunch of Arab and Turkic warbands?

>>18122312
>he thinks late roman popular religion was the same shit as greco-roman paganism centuries earlier
rome changed its religion many times retard

Rome ended in 717 bc when Romulus died. every single state and person claiming to be roman afterward was larping

>>18122804
Rome died in Troy, Hector was the last Roman and everything after him was just LARPing.

>>18121811 (OP)
It did emerge from Charlemagne who was the heir of the Frankish Kingdom which was the poster-child of post-Roman successor states.
It IS Roman but in a very roundabout way in the same way Americans are British.

>>18122811
This logic implies that the Philippines are Roman

>>18122656
The Papacy did not exist in the Roman Empire and is a 7th century institution

>>18122738
It had literally all of those besides Censors and Praetors, which were defunct by the Late Empire and replaced by Diocletian. A consul under Tiberius was not significantly different from one under Basil II, a completely ceremonial role with no power that rewarded men for service. Patrician clans were all extinct by the 3rd century but they were used as a title in the later Roman Empire. The legions still existed until the 1070’s where they were dissolved. Plebians always existed. The Senate was still the legitimising authority of the state and constituted the most powerful members of the state and followed late Roman tradition in appointment

>>18121811 (OP)
>holy
Yes, crowned by the pope and Christian.
>roman
It was lead by the Emperor of the Romans and included many romans, so yes
>empire
It was an empire, so yes.

The HRE may not have been "roman" in its entirety but it was led by the Emperor of the Romans and included romans and much of the roman heartlands in it.

>>18122312
>Rome under Constantine was not roman

>>18123565
>Yes, crowned by the pope and Christian.
Nope. Only pagans can be Roman, Christcucks have no claim to Rome. Rome died when Emperor Julian failed to stop the spread of the disease known as Christianity.
>It was lead by the Emperor of the Romans and included many romans, so yes
Nope. It was centered in Germany.
>It was an empire, so yes.
If all local authority isn't fully subservient to the emperor, then it is not an empire. The feudalism that developed from the Frankish system is incompatible with the old Roman imperial system.

>>18123574
>only pagans can be roman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_as_the_Roman_state_religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire
>it was centered in Germany
So? That has nothing to with what I said. Even the most rabid byzaboo doesn't think that the capital has to be rome, since no roman successor state had rome as its capital besides the kingdom of Italy.
>it wasn't an empire, empires can't be feudal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires

Your whole argument is you just redefining all words until reality is warped into some kind of schizo fantasy land. Yes, if we redefine "roman," "pagan," "christian," "emperor," "empire," "feudal," and "imperial" we may construct a reality from scratch in which rome did not survive Julian and had no successors, but this creation had no relation to reality.

>>18123583
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_as_the_Roman_state_religion
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire
That's when Rome died fag. You conveniently ignored that Rome died when Emperor Julian failed to stop the spread of the disease known as Christianity.
>So? That has nothing to with what I said. Even the most rabid byzaboo doesn't think that the capital has to be rome, since no roman successor state had rome as its capital besides the kingdom of Italy.
Neither the Byzantrannies were Roman because they were also Christian.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires
Nearly all actual empires didn't have the same decentralization as the HRE

Cope and seethe Pablo.

>>18123592
>that's when rome died fag
I provided evidence to the contrary: the existence of roman Christians.
>talking about byzantines
Nothing to do with what I said. I was addressing your implication that the location of the capital matters. It doesn't. That implication also had nothing to do with my first response, so you're 2-for-2 going off topic.
>nearly all actual empires didn't have the same decentralization as the hre
Not only is this wrong (almost all feudal and ancient empires had similar or worse decentralization) it is also a goalpost shift. Your argument was that empires could not be feudal, and I provided a list of many widely accepted empires that include many feudal examples.

>>18123608
>the existence of roman Christians
They weren't Roman, only pagans can be called Roman. By converting to Christianity they forfeited their right to be called Roman. Unless you worship gods like Jupiter and Mars you are not Roman.
>Nothing to do with what I said
It was centered in Germany, not Italy. That's exactly why it wasn't Roman.
>almost all feudal and ancient empires had similar or worse decentralization
Nope, read how the Roman Empire, Achaemenid Empire, or any ancient empire actually functioned. Medieval feudalism is incompatible with those systems

>>18123565
>It was lead by the Emperor of the Romans and included many romans, so yes
Literally not how it works retard. This is like saying the Roman empire was the Macedonian empire because it ruled over Macedonian

>>18121811 (OP)
have you always been a sodomite or is it a recent thing?
>it was Holy
>it was Roman
>it was the Empire
I rest my case

>>18124027
Spoken like a true Latinx who doesn't know any history before the medieval age

History according to HRE niggers
>Some time before Christ: Romulus (pope) founded epic Catholic empire directed by God
>Jesus comes to say Catholicism is true and to worship him and his mom
>Whenever Rome falls or something: Greek people declare independence from Roman empire and proclaim the Greek empire
>Charlemagne comes and conquers Germany and France, God himself comes from the heavens to say that he is literally Romulus
>Satan is annoyed by the epic Catholic Roman empire so he sends Luther to destroy it
>300000 years of wars of protestant aggression (ongoing)

>>18124050
>t. kvetchoid freak
No need to get upset hermano
The HRE's influence is still visible everywhere it held sway
Maybe you should go and visit those places instead of embarrassing yourself by making inane anti-historical statements

>>18124027
Did OP’s forget something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Roman_War_of_486

>>18122790
BROWN.

>>18124411
You're literally brown LMAO

>>18124578
>Israel out of nowhere
Every day I thank God I'm not some brown tradcuck mutt who's obsessed with kikes and people who despise me

>>18124587
I mean, you used a kike line
That's why I responded with a kike meme

>>18124482
They will cope and say but le Carolingians conveniently forgetting the 300 years before Charles

>>18121811 (OP)
The Holy Roman Emperor ruled Italy and was crowned by the Bishop of Rome.
The Emperor of the Greeks didn't rule Italy and was not crowned by the Bishop of Rome.

>>18124204
>>Some time before Christ: Romulus (pope) founded epic Catholic empire directed by God
>>Jesus comes to say Catholicism is true and to worship him and his mom
>>Whenever Rome falls or something: Greek people declare independence from Roman empire and proclaim the Greek empire
>>Charlemagne comes and conquers Germany and France, God himself comes from the heavens to say that he is literally Romulus
>>Satan is annoyed by the epic Catholic Roman empire so he sends Luther to destroy it
>>300000 years of wars of protestant aggression (ongoing)
Charlemagne conquered Italy too, otherwise, yeah, that's not wrong.

HRE was roman, because the franks were roman, and for the same reason all barbarian kingdoms were roman, they were part of "Romania" and fuctioned like it, there's no rupture between Roman past and the middle ages. So the germans were Roman. The austrians too. The Byzantines suffered a much bigger rupture with Islam than the west part ever had. The arabs still called all europeans "Franks", because that ethinicity at the time was connected with a way of life, ideology and religion which was only different from the Roman one if you consider everything post-Augustus to be unroman. Meanwhile, the Byzantines after the islamic trauma were unrecognizable, so much so we call it Byzantium, not Rome, even in modern debates.

This is the type of arguments only undergrads have. Trite and beaten to death, and overall, ultimately irrelevant.

>>18124619
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and argue that the germanic roman kingdoms post WRE collapse can be considered latins but not roman, it relates with the latin speaking chuch of the west and even the Byzantines called them like that, while the byzantine empire can be called romans as natural successors of the Roman State and Greek because of his relation with the greek speaking church of the east, also because the latins actually used to name them as Kingdom of the Greeks. The term Byzantines was coined by historians to signal a rupture between the classic era and the medieval era, but the roman empire experienced lots of raptures and reorganizations before so today we call them Byzantines because of simple convenience

>>18124604
The HRE ruled parts of Italy, so did the Byzantines, but ruling Italy doesn't mean much, especially if that's not even where your empire is centered
Being crowned by the pope doesn't mean anything, that's not what defines an empire as Roman.
>>18124619
>HRE was Roman because Franks were under Roman rule at one point but the still-around Roman empire wasn't because they lost land
Not how it works
We also call it Byzantium to distinguish between ancient and medieval Rome. You really have no idea what you're saying

>>18124578
IDF in fear

>>18124619
>HRE was roman, because the franks were roman,
Nobody thought that
>they were part of "Romania"
Nobody thought that
>The arabs still called all europeans "Franks"
They used to call them all Romans before the 11th century and the Byzantines always called them Franks, as explicitly not Roman, which is also how the Arabs used the term Frank, to differentiate them from the Romans.
>with a way of life, ideology and religion which was only different from the Roman one if you consider everything post-Augustus to be unroman
So you're disqualifying Byzantium for a lesser change but by the same measure the Franks are fine?
>Meanwhile, the Byzantines after the islamic trauma were unrecognizable
Not even true
>so much so we call it Byzantium, not Rome, even in modern debates.
You've never read anything academic to do with either.

>>18121811 (OP)
Because at the end of the day, I don't care about literacy. I care about feels.

>>18125998
they're too easy to spot