Thread 18136444

Who was the real Rome?

>>18136444 (OP)
both.

>>18136444 (OP)
Neither, they were Christian. Only pagans have a right to call themselves Roman.

If you don’t sacrifice goats to Jupiter, you ain’t Roman.

>>18136444 (OP)
They were both religiously and culturally antithetical to the real Rome. So it is more accurate to call them Anti-Roman Empires.
Byzantrannies and HREtards are christcucks, therefore YWNBAR. Seethe.

>>18136444 (OP)
The eastern roman empire

>>18136470
Nah this is rome come on, the real legacy of Rome was left in the east.

>>18136470
Genetics is the most important. Romans were more similar to Gauls and Germans than to Greeks and Anatolians. Therefore, if one must pick one, it's the HRE.

>>18136444 (OP)
>My cock.

the great Otto III should have lived long enough to reunite the the east and west.

Neither, the correct answer is the kingdom of Gwynedd

>>18136444 (OP)
The one that had the city of Rome, spoke Latin as the official language and whose Emperor was crowned by the Roman Pontifix.

The Greek Empire was not the Roman Empire. It didn't even follow the Bishop of Rome

>>18136477
Nope, Rome would have kept conquering this world and others. Not degrade into mediocrity.

>>18136444 (OP)
Legally, only the Eastern Roman Empire had a claim.

>>18136531
>It didn't even follow the Bishop of Rome
Did Tarquinius Superbus?

>>18136470
>>18136459
Kys neo-wicca troon

>>18136476
>>18136642
Legally successor to Alexander’s empire

>>18136448
That's an interesting answer.

>>18136755
The legal successors to Alexander's emprie were the Diadochi
You're fat and you don't have a firm grasp of what centuries are or what happens in them

>>18136444 (OP)
obviously the EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE, which had been Roman for over a thousand years

>>18136797
Rome conquered last Diadochi kingdoms and inheritance their cultural custom. Checkmate.

>>18136444 (OP)
Neither. Even the late Roman empire was a far cry from the young Roman empire.

I asked chagpt the other day who in the middle ages was following Roman law/Codex Justinianus. It tried to dance around saying that the Italians kinda taught it in universities first being Bologna but then they also had canon at the same time, on top of that add feudal and clerical administration and it had to go up to Aquinas in 13th century to acknowledge "Natural Law" while at the same time stressing Canon law is superior to civil law. By the way there weren't any courts or anything like that either in the West, you were basically taking your case to your higher feudal appointee or magnate.

So that's the only answer you need, the Eastern Roman empire was the last standing Roman successor state that for all of its history had civil law and was the closest to republican civil administration with no feudal succession rights, while westerners worshiped and obeyed a man in funny hat who crowned an illiterate barbarian warlord.

>>18136966
Historical fact: Edward I Longshanks adopted Justinian law code after returning back crusader expedition.

>>18136444 (OP)
East. No contest there. They maintained Roman habits, law and culture in an unbroken line. The HRE is a buncha petty, barbarian kings who eventually saw that the adoption of Roman law would enhance their power.

>>18136498
>Genetics is the most important
No it's not
>Romans were more similar to Gauls and Germans than to Greeks
No they weren't

>>18137080
>No it's not
yes it is
>No they weren't
Yes they were

>>18136444 (OP)
The Eastern Roman Empire WAS THE Roman Empire. Even just calling it the Eastern Roman Empire isn't accurate, there was no split of the Roman Empire into a western and eastern empire, control over the halves was just given to different emperors. We call it the western and eastern empire for convenience, because the two regions were very different and under different rules. The western emperors were just retarded and already in a very unfortunate circumstance so that half happened to fall first. There was only ever a single Roman empire, which fell in 1453
>>18136531
Controlling Rome at one point doesn't make you Roman, it just means you held the city of Rome. The Roman Republic holding Carthage didn't make them the Carthaginian Republic
The pope means nothing, easy to tell you're a retarded tradcath because you think Rome is the Pope. You're clearly just trying to find any reason to call the HRE Roman

>>18137091
>Haploautist
Thanks for clarifying you're completely retarded and have no basis or knowledge of history beyond haplogroup images you find on /his/

>>18137122
That's not Y-Haplogroups retard.

>>18136459
>If you don’t sacrifice goats to Jupiter, you ain’t Roman.
low iq larper, where's Sol Invictus, Isis and Mithras?

since there wasn't a rupture between the classical roman empire and the medieval roman empire, I'll say the byzantine empire was a continuation of the roman state, while the Holy Roman Empire was an attempt in restoration of the roman state

>>18137112
Why do Byzaboos claim the Byzantine empire was the real Rome even though it was one thousand miles from the city of Rome itself? I don’t see them as one.

>>18136950
Conquest and inheritance of customs =! legal succession. Otherwise, every single country in Europe is a legitimate Roman state.

>>18137181
Because you don't know Roman history

>>18136448
Agreed. Only modern day ortho/cath larpers care about which is the "real" rome. Both are continuations of Roman culture

>>18136448
Wrong

>>18136459
/thread

>>18137186
>Reddit

>>18136444 (OP)
Honestly, neither the Holy Roman Empire or the Greek Empire were the real Rome.
The Papacy was the real Rome.

>>18136444 (OP)
Who was the real England? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? or the "New England" states?

>>18137267
The Real rome was the friends we made along the way.

>>18137444
Real England locate between Saxony and Holland

>>18136751
YWNBAR, you will always be a jew slave and a liar.

>>18136444 (OP)
The one with the City of Rome inside it.

>>18136444 (OP)
Neither, Rome died the moment christcuckery became the religion.

>>18137475
Having Rome in your empire doesn't make it Roman, that's not how it works. The fact that Rome had Egypt didn't make it the Egyptian empire

>>18137181
>Why do Byzaboos claim the Byzantine empire was the real Rome

If you take a piece of bread and split it into two, how does that change the fact that it's still bread?

>>18136444 (OP)
The Germans.

>>18136444 (OP)
This one

>>18136530
Closest answer so far. Anglo-Roman society was the last group with a direct and non-controversial claim to being Roman, and they were a hell of a lot closer to Gwynedd than any other claimant.

>>18137954
>Anglo-Roman society was the last group with a direct and non-controversial claim to being Roman
>non-controversial claim

>>18137952
that's a fair point

>>18137962
Go home, you Greek loving faggot

>>18137977
A place named "Gwynedd" does not strike one as very Roman. Surely they have a full repository of Latin literature available, like both of the chief competitors? No? Didn't think so.

>>18137982
>Greek loving faggot confirms his love for getting pounded in the ass by older Athenians
Yup, that tracks

>>18137759
>start your bread with rye
>call your bread The Flour and Yeast of Rye
>eventually start adding other kinds of grain into the bread with the clear understanding that they're just there to enhance the rye flavor
>eventually all the rye is eaten from the bread and the only grain left is barley
>"how could the bread be anything other than rye"
People call it Byzantium/The Greek Empire not because it was ever a brand new entity separate from Rome, but because there was no longer anything even slightly Roman (the city and the people) about it by like the 8th century

>>18136448
Corny and gay

If "romanness" could apply equally to some naked celtoid on misery island and an iraqi camel jockey, that label has no value at all.

>>18138144
>Can't discern between the physical city of Rome and the Roman state
Retard

>>18138186
>If "Germanic" could apply equally to some Catholic Bavarian and a Protestant Anglo Saxon in England, that label has no value at all

>>18138227
We Germanics are a monolith.

>>18138213
What exactly do you think "the Roman state" was, if not the Senate, the Tribunes, the bureaucracies etc. that all were created in the city of Rome and withered away in the city of Rome.

>>18137759
Is India England?

>>18138186
It couldn't and didn't, everybody knew that Romans were the guys who came from one particular city in central Italy and everybody else had to play second fiddle to them

>>18138381
If that's your criteria then Constantinople was more Roman than Rome lol

>>18138403
>>18138381
Later peroid, Rome wasn’t important capital once was.

>>18136444 (OP)
Kingdom of Great Britain

>>18138384
I don't think you can find two empires that were more different. Colonial territory of the British empire is not at all analogous to Roman provinces.

>>18137132
Sol invictus was definitely Roman. Well Mithra came from Iranian religions so that diety wasnt originally roman either. and wasnt Isis from Egypt?

>>18138473
Popular with eastern Romans citizen like christianity? Eh coincidence?

>>18138227
that analogy is shit because "roman" isn't even a linguistic family if everyone from southern scotland to sudan claims it, at least those germans share a language and a substantial part of their ancestry.

>>18138622
>because "roman" isn't even a linguistic family
So? The original poster is trying to say a label means nothing because different people can fall under it. Being Roman wasn't an ancestry thing retard, stop treating it like a race

Did the HRE citizenry and nobles actually think themselves the successors of Rome? It seems pretty superficially obvious in retrospect it was a formality for sake of affiliation with the church (hence "holy"), so I doubt the Germans at the time saw it differently given they were of the same blood as the people that toppled rome.

HREniggers are literally the trannies of history
>I'm a woman because the doctor says so!
>I'm a Roman because the pope says so!

>>18138645
>So?
then the idea of "romanness" is even more absurd than "germanness" because it covers one criteria less
>Being Roman wasn't an ancestry thing
it's also not an institutional thing, or a religious thing, or a geographic thing apparently. wow what a precious and exclusive identity

>>18138685
>then the idea of "romanness" is even more absurd than "germanness" because it covers one criteria less
Neither of them are absurd, they're different labels for different contexts. The fact that "Norman" is an identity doesn't make the idea of a Frenchman absurd
>wow what a precious and exclusive identity
Why does an identity need to be super exclusive to some tribe that can trace their direct lineage on both sides to it? Being Roman was a legal thing tied to the Roman Republic and empire. It just so happened that Rome was a large state, so while it had many subjects, there were also many Romans in the Roman empire

>>18138627
fact
>>18138668
false

>>18136444 (OP)
>>18136804
Arnor