Can someone explain to me the whole Third Rome meme? Did Russia's claim have legitimacy? if so, did they lose it with the Russian Revolution?
Their only claim was being the most powerful Orthodox nation after Byzantium fell, so in a sense they 'inherited' their legacy
>>397236
That pretty much covers it. Outside of that it's mental gymnastics.
Ivan III also married Sophia Palaiologina who was not porphyrogennetos, meaning she had zero rights to the throne, and Rurik dynasty got changed to Romanovs then to Holstein-Gottorp-Romanovs anyway.
>>397392
So the Roman Empire ended when the first dynasty did? Wasn't that a long time before the Byzantines?
>>397168
Well you can't be Rome without having Rome as your functioning capital and having Roman culture as your main culture so no.
>>397710
This isn't Europa Universalis.
Today, the U.S. is the new Rome. The changeover took place in 1945.
>>397716
>This isn't Europa Universalis.
You can't be Rome without being Roman.
Just like how I can't claim to be an ooga booga spearchucker from Zulu if I'm not actually fucking Zulu
>>397710
The thing is Byzantines were Romans, because they were regarded as Roman citizens from the beginning, plus Constantinople was called New Rome, so technically both your points are incorrect
>>397727
By your logic the modern day English are still French.
And the black sub-Saharan Africans are still technically British.
>>397716
>Today, the U.S. is the new Rome
>byzzies
>being roman after the 7th century
top meme
>>397729
The difference is, they seperated themselves from their mother nations, anglos are still Normans, and since when were subhumans regarded as anything other than slaves in the British Colonial Empire?
>>397729
Did the British empire move their imperial capital to fucking Kampala or have I missed something?
>>397732
Just like Rome it will fall
>>397738
>, and since when were subhumans regarded as anything other than slaves in the British Colonial Empire?
Since when did Romans consider Slavs Roman?
>>397739
The Queen of Britain is the Queen of Australia, Canada, Scotland, England, Wales, South Africa, etc.
And that includes all nations in the Commonwealth. So technically Johannesburg is the capital of Britain as well.
>>397744
They didn't. Greeks are not slavs.
>>397710
Well, the thing is, the term "Roman" expanded to mean a lot besides someone who was from the City of Rome. There were plenty of Roman citizens, for instance, who had never set foot in Rome. So in actuality, the capital was important, but only in the same sense as Washington D.C. is for the U.S. If the East half fell, the West would still be the U.S.
>>397751
Byzantine wasn't only Greeks, pal
>>397742
Of course, but when?
>>397756
Yes, but Greeks had been regarded as Roman citizens, and the Byz Empire had been dominated by the Greeks, so in actuality, they were still Roman.
>>397747
Have you read Peshawar Lancers? It's about a hypothetical scenario where the northern hemisphere gets wrecked by meteorites and the Brits are forced to relocate the population of Britain to India. It clearly still continued being Britain in that novel and I guess it's a good analogy to what happened with Rome.
>>397744
They didn't, because they weren't citizens of the empire. But in a way they became part of it after they went Christian, because the Church was the major hub of what it meant to be a Roman to the Byzantines.
>>397756
Roman citizenship wasn't based on race.
>>397760
>Anglo-Americans had been regarded as British citizens, and the United States had been dominated by Anglo-Americans, so in actuality, they were still British
>le Great Schism
>>397751
>Greeks are not slavs
sensible chuckle.gif
If you take a kylix of wine and add a gallon of vodka, is it still wine?
>>397766
No, Roman citizenship was based on language and culture.
Byzantine was more Greek than Roman although Roman culture heavily influenced it.
And they spoke fucking Greek.
>>397767
Until they fought for independence, and seperated themselves from the Brits, and became Americans. Just like the Greeks were regarded as Ottoman citizens even though they weren't turkroaches, arabshits or mudslimes.
>>397774
Roman citizenship was based on wether or not you deserved to be called Roman, well the Romans were heavily influenced by Greeks and they were greekaboos most of them, so they regarded them as Romans.
>>397777
How about the East West split?
>>397786
It was a split organised by Theodosius, not a war of seperation. The Romans were overextended, so they split the empire into 2, Western Roman Empire, and Eastern ROMAN Empire (also called Byzantine Empire).
>>397168
It wasn't legitamite at all.
The eastern empire had the capital, the bureaucracy, the legal system, army, navy, and holy city. Medieval peopl;e literally called it romanland.
Russia.... was orthodox. That's it.
Russia has always sought to be something other than russia.
>>397767
There's a continuity between Rome and Byzantium. There's no continuity between the UK and the US, the US is a breakaway state.
If something like this happened:
>British capital is moved from London to Washington DC
>the empire splits into two entities, European Britain and American Britain
>European Britain gets conquered by hordes of muslims and folds, American Britain is the one continuing the legacy, completely with having British kings and queens n shiet
>400 years from that, some retard warlord in bumfuck Italy will crown himself the British emperor out of fucking nowhere and say that Americans aren't real Brits
Then it would be comparable.
>>397796
Thank
That's exactly it.
Filthy Franks calling themselves Holy (Catholicvcks, filthy fucking heretics) Roman (German, Frankish, Goths, lol), Empire (Confederation of multiple states, not so much as an empire).
>>397796
>>400 years from that, some retard warlord in bumfuck Italy will crown himself the British emperor out of fucking nowhere and say that Americans aren't real Brits
Holy shit my sides have launched into space
>>397796
>There's a continuity between Rome and Byzantium.
There's ties, but nothing more. Anything else is a vodka and greek expat arsekissing induced delusions of grandeur.
>>397774
Attention retard:
They were roman under ROMAN FUCKING LAW. Passed while the west still stood.
Roman citizenship had nothing to do with language.
>>397786
The split was administrative. The western legions fucking marched east to shit on the goths when they invaded the east, and had the persians calmed down, (they lierally never did) you'd have seen eastern legions killing invaders in the west.
>>397774
You didn't have to speak Latin to be a Roman citizen.
>>397819
He's trying to project nationalism onto ancient empires.
>>397819
>They were roman under ROMAN FUCKING LAW. Passed while the west still stood.
Uh yeah and anyone born on American soil is American under American law. Yet heaps of people who were born in America move back to their native countries and never get an American nationality.
>Roman citizenship had nothing to do with language.
Try not speaking Latin to any officials in a Roman town and watch the shit being beaten out of you with your own two eyes.
>>397830
It's like saying Lithuanians weren't commonwealthians, because the commonwealth king was Polish...
>>397796
If they followed the Church of England, there's some room to do that.
>>397816
Try reading a fucking book.
An army issuing orders in Latin calling itself a legion, an administration using latin administering roman laws (written in Latin) over people who are all roman citizens per roman law, that goes around invading former roman land and NOT sacking towns on the basis of the people being roman citizens they're liberating from barbarian occupation, operating from the capital of the roman empire, with all government apparatus directly descended from rome, is as roman as it fucking gets.
Romans themselves were strict culturalists, if you acted roman and were legally roman, you were roman.
vodka and wine jokes didn't factor in. They didn't fucking care.
Yes, the language changed.
Big fucking shock, latin from the early republic and late empire are not the same thing either.
>>397832
Unless you spoke Greek, of which you are highly respected and they ask stories about where you come from and be regarded as a Roman.
>>397839
Yeah well the Italian could've been crowned by the Imam of Canterbury for all I care.
>>397832
Roman patricians looked at Latin as the commoner's language, they generally spoke Greek.
The idea that you needed to speak Latin to Roman officials is fucking retarded. You just used a translator, you wouldn't have "the shit beaten out of you."
>>397832
Plus, they made Greek the official major language after Heraclius in 610, so they spoke Latin officially when the West existed.
>>397849
>Roman patricians looked at Latin as the commoner's language, they generally spoke Greek.
YouTube historian memes
>>397832
>Try not speaking Latin to any officials in a Roman town and watch the shit being beaten out of you with your own two eyes.
Post one fucking source for that.
Right now.
Or get out.
>Yet heaps of people who were born in America move back to their native countries and never get an American nationality.
What the fuck are you talking about?
No, they still have american citizenship, unless they actively renounce it.
>>397839
Not if said church is actually followed largely by poles who invaded England and totally destroyed all things British aside form some architecture.
Then the church of America would be a lot more legitimate, and it thinks the HUGE HAT of England is sad and lonesome, with no empire to guard him, and WILL mock him in diplomatic letters. Constantly.*
*They actually did this.
>>397849
>The idea that you needed to speak Latin to Roman officials is fucking retarded. You just used a translator, you wouldn't have "the shit beaten out of you."
If you were a foreigner. Yeah. If you were a so called Roman citizen who did not speak Latin to officials. That's a paddlin'
>>397855
They had MAJOR respect for the Greeks, except from some cvcks who thought that they were Trojans. They also regarded Greek as the language of philosophy, science and smartshit.
>>397847
If the Italian King were consecrated by the CoE, it's pretty feasible. But it would be even more so when we remember that the Roman Empire was not based on identity. In fact, at its high point, only one in seven people living in Rome were of Latin heritage.
The Roman Empire was a Europe-wide institution that eventually identified itself as the secular counterpart to the Church. The Church massively influenced Byzantine culture (much more than Byzantine culture influenced the Church), it became the focal point of everything, which the state's designated role being the protector of the Church, and its legitimacy deriving from the Church.
>>397866
*not based on Latin identity
>>397841
I should start by reading posts more thoroughly. I now noticed that you mentioned byzantium not moscow.
so wew me, lad.
On the topic tho, I'd say that the changes of 7-8th centuries weren't insignificant and calling them byzzies instead of romans is justified.
>>397855
Listen, fuckhead.
The fact that you don't know about the damned antiquitarians shows you don't know much about late roman culture.
Stop commenting.
There was a HUGE movement-by patricians-to not use ANY WORD that didn't exist in classical, persian war era FUCKING ATHENS.
It makes understanding a number of military texts from the era extremely fucking difficult.
They also used it as a form of military code, because nobody outside the empire was going to understand refences to classical greek culture and war.
>>397859
Nonsense, Latin wasn't even the administrative language in the East.
>>397874
This, thank based /his/ anon
>>397874
>There was a HUGE movement-by patricians-to not use ANY WORD that didn't exist in classical, persian war era FUCKING ATHENS.
"Le wrong generation" is truly a timeless mental illness.
*tips laurel crown*
>>397873
>jsutified
It isn't.
Ever.
The term was literally INVENTED by victorian era historians who hated the eastern empire.
Full stop.
Their word for themselves?
Romans.
The word used for their land by anyone else?
Romanland.
The title taken by their conqueror? Emperor of the Romans.
Fuck, the sultante of rum was so named because the turks thought they'd taken rome.
Yes, shit changed, but this is a natural result of times changine for everyone.
The western empire also massively changed in its history, socially, politically, and militarily.
>>397832
>Try not speaking Latin to any officials in a Roman town and watch the shit being beaten out of you with your own two eyes.
The eastern part of the empire always used Greek. Even before the split, Greek was the lingua franca in the Eastern provinces.
And beating someone for not speaking Latin, well that's something you literally just pulled out of your ass right now.
>>397774
The Roman identity changed with time. Found an interesting article: https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Names_of_the_Greeks#Romans_.28.E1.BF.AC.CF.89.CE.BC.CE.B1.E1.BF.96.CE.BF.CE.B9.29
>Romans or Rhomaioi (Ῥωμαῖοι; sg. Ῥωμαῖoς Rhomaios) and Romioi (Ρωμιοί; sg. Ρωμιός Romios), is the name by which the Greeks were known in the Middle Ages and during Ottoman rule. The name in antiquity originally signified the inhabitants of the city of Rome in Italy, but with the increasing grants of Roman citizenship to the Greeks and other nations of the Roman Empire, it soon lost its connection with the Latins. This process culminated in 212 AD, when Emperor Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniniana granted the citizenship to all free-born men of the Empire.
Basically, after citizenship was granted to every free man it became a civic identity which was not based on ethnicity. The Greeks, when they became Roman citizens, began to consider themselves Romans and their own name for themselves (Hellenes) fell out of use until the Enlightenment. The Latin language clearly didn`t mean much, because by the second century educated Romans were bilingual and could speak Greek anyway. For example, emperor Julian the Apostates's Greek was much better than his Latin.
>>397710
Rome stopped being a capital in 330, long before the downfall of the Western Roman Empire.
>>397884
>Be me
>Be Roman patrician in late Impervm Romanvm
>"This generation is shit, I listen to ancient rhapsodies about the Greco-Persian wars, not these bullshit arena songs"
>Let's go back to good times of Greeks fucking Persianfags
>Fvck latin, ancient Greek now military language
>???
>Profitvm
>>397884
The worst part is, they picked a language that already had a damn word shortage.
I have no idea what a peltast is in a hellenic army, beyond being on foot.
Not becuase i'm not read on the subject, but because it was used for
>men with peltes
>men with javelins and larger shields
>men who had armor and swords who could fight up close
>men who never foguht up close
>medium/heavy infantry
>men with pikes
>men with a medium sized shield
In the same. FUCKING. Sources.
The only constant is infantry, and 99% chance of a shield, shield is not an aspis, probably medium to small size.
The man may be skilled in skirmishing, but sometimes he's actually a phalagnnite.
You can infer from context, but the word is nearly meaningless.
Now imagine every type of late imperial cavalry being "hipieis."
FUCK YOU ASSHAT, IS IT A FUCKING SCOUT WITH A BOW, HIS KNIFE, AND A LIMP DICK, OR A CATAPHRACT REGIMENT?
DO YOU EVEN KNOW ANYMORE YOU DELUSIONAL FUCK?
>>397858
Maybe because of the Donation of Constantine.
>>397912
Does it ever cease to amaze you that catholics don't think they're heretics?
>>397911
Neither, the peltes was a small hide shield used to block projectiles, they used to throw javelins, up close with a small shield like that would be suicide and the Greeks knew that, plus anyone close range would have a Hoplon shield
>>397922
It never does, Protestants too...
>>397922
Catholicism is literally Judaism's JV team now.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11101
>>397937
Catholicvcks never cease to amaze me in how shitty they are to keeping their beliefs intact.
>>397922
The West also gave birth to Protestantism, so not really. Catholicism today is basically just High Church Protestantism.
>>397926
No. Peltast.
Pelte is clearly defined.
PELTASTS is used to describe ALL of the things I just mentioned in hellenic writings.
Sometimes at the same time.
Peltast could be a pikeman, heavy infantry in looser formation, a skirmisher, a man who did have a pelte, a man with a circular shield, medium, dual purpose infantry, elite infantry personally raied by the ruler with a commader answerable only to him, and more.
Becuase fuck you, hellenes don't need strict definitions of words.
Ancients didn't cleanly divide up troops into types the way we do, and they often didn't have as many words to describe something. They usually had no need of it, and this becomes a SERIOUS problem when using classical greek to opine on later imperial miliary doctrine and armament.
>>397954
Usually it was for smallshield skirmishers, since they seperated troops by shield, but since they commanded thousands of troops, it was easier to put them in formation without a name, rather than have tens of thousands of troops and seperating them by weapon.
>>397954
I'm starting to understand why the Romans kicked their asses now.
>>397926
What about iphicrateans?
I might be wrong, but I'm sure that there have been depictions of the same infantry of Phillip II and Alexander in both more of a peltasts' gear and in heavier hoplite-ish gear. The conclusion drawn being that arming and training troops was costly and which meant lighter and cheaper equipment was used at times. When funds weren't a problem, troops would be equipped more appropriately in heavier armour.
>>397961
It might also be because Phillip and Alexander usually went long-distance, so having lighter equipment was better...
>>397816
How uninformed on Roman history do you have to be do actually think this?
>>397973
Guy's a retard, don't give a shit about him. He's a filthy, jealous gothcvck.
>>397986
USA will get greedy and try to overextend by annexing le mexicvck and canacvck, then collapse like Rome did...
>>397887
>They called themselves Roman so they are Roman
We Romans now?
>>397989
No, they'll just fade into obscurity like the UK did after 1945.
>>397992
Romanians are latinized Dacians, not Romans. I like Romanians, but that's the truth...
>>397998
Truth hurts, truth is pain...
>>397997
Exactly this.
The only countries that have a legitimate claim to being successors of Rome are Turkey and France.
>>398004
kek gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8
>>397168
>text doesn't bend with the paper
Seems legit.
>>397742
I don't think so. The next step from the US is a unified planetary civilization, which will likely consider the US its ancestor state.
>>397999
And what does that make Greeks, who weren't even Latinized.
>>398011
Delusional Americans in this thread.
>>398020
Bankrupt.
>>398020
Greeks granted Roman citizenship from Romans being huge greekaboos.
>>398007
Turkey is the only country that can claim to be a successor to Eastern Rome, and France the only that can to Western Rome.
>>398011
Yeah it might have looked that way about 15 years ago.
Then you flushed your country down the toilet.
>>398034
Conquering a state doesn't give you the right to become that state...
>>398039
It does though as history shows for example the mongols became the yuan dynasty of china .
>>398039
If it doesn't, I don't know what does.
Anyway the patriarch of Constantinople recognised the Ottoman Sultan as Roman Emperor. Same for the Pope and Charlemagne.
>>397697
and that is why byzantine empire isn't roman, it was a bunch of greeks that inherited roman land and infrastructure after the fall in the west
>>397168
when the Byzantine Empire collapsed the last princess of Byzantium married the Grand Prince of Moscow so the Muscovy bloodline is mixed with that of the Roman Emperors
beyond that a lot of clergy fled there and with the collapse of Constantinople the Russians felt that Russian Orthodoxy was now the center of the faith.
there had been similar royal marriages between Constantinople and Russian states prior to that as well.
>>397168
the rulers of Russia had through marriage become part of the byzantine linage
>>397168
> if so, did they lose it with the Russian Revolution?
Absolutely. Considering that, it's pretty obvious what country among those still existing that can claim themselves to be true Romans..
>>398083
The patriarch cannot grant sovereignty of a nation, since the Byzantine Emperor was head of the Church, not the patriarch head of the state. They did it so that they had a head between their shoulders.
>>399198
EBIN
>America is the new Rome
>Britain was the previous Rome
Super kex.
>>399500
>Protestants
Wouldn't Austria be the successor of Western Rome and Turkey the successor of Eastern Rome?
>>397803
In the beginning, the HRE was an Empire. I think that was only after the Hohestauffen that it fragmented.
>>399146
It wasn't culturally or language wise Greek until after the end of the 7th century when it was made official that Greek was primary language of the Eastern Empire.
But at their heart the Byzantines were always Roman regardless of their base in Greece and Anatolia, or speaking the Greek tongue.
anyone who says that the United States of America is not the current Rome is a europoor or a vatnik prove me wrong
>>399543
rome didn't have a nigger president or daily school shootings.
>>399548
Maybe not, but it had a fag emperor and daily Senate stabbings
>>399558
>why won't the emperor ban assault swords?
>only the legions need them!
>>399569
100% OF IMPERIAL ASSASSINATIONS ARE CONDUCTED BY PRAETORIAN GUARDS WITH SO CALLED "ASSAULT SWORDS." COINCIDENCE? OR THE TRUTH THE SENATE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR?
Man, the Byzaboo internet defense force is really on board today.
Which number Rome is America? The fifth Rome? Does the Holy Roman Empire count as a Rome because that would make 6, including Britain, Russia, WRE, and ERE. Are there any others I may have missed?
>>399585
There are 2 Romes, Rome and Byzantium.
Anywhere else claiming to be Rome is just dick-swinging.
>>399592
If Cvckstantine can make a new Rome named after himself, Washington, D.C. counts as a Rome.
>>399580
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ye0a_F9Zj8
>>397782
>most of Romans were greekabos
Just stop, it's embarassing
>>397739
No, but His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE (Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular), Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas, conquered the Empire and located his capital in Kampala.
>>399598
If a Roman Emperor said so it would be.
Alas that is not the case.
>>399620
I love that title.
Could Italy call itself Roman Republic? I mean, they do have Rome Milan and Ravenna in their territories
>>399517
Neither inherited any of the military, cultural, or administrative legacies, so no.
>>399744
No.
>>399744
It's happened before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic_(18th_century)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic_(19th_century)
What I wanna know is, when did the Empire start being referred to as 'Romania'? I know it was called that by Justinian's time, but did it start during his reign or was it already going on by then?
>>397168
>Can someone explain to me the whole Third Rome meme
Everyone with on a little bit of power claimed to be legitimate successor to the Roman Empire
>Did Russia's claim have legitimacy
No, not at all
>if so, did they lose it with the Russian Revolution?
Of course, they stopped existing after all
Reminder that Rio de Janeiro is the Third Rome
>>397742
Well you see, America is still ostensibly a Republic and yet some say that we are seeing the last days of the Republic.
That means Empire is coming, not just economic but actual.
>>397911
>peltast
Skirmishers who pelted the other guys with thrown objects.
>>399538
Well they called themselves Romans anyway.
>>400563
Romania just means "Land of the Romans".
>>397168
It was about taking the torch of Orthodoxy and Byzantine value once Constantinople fell and the Empire was no more, so that the legacy and what it represents just doesn't fade away.
So in a symbolic way, the idea of Russia being the Third Rome, the inheritor of the Byzantine civilization made sense.
In a realistic, literal sense, not at all. Russians were not byzantines in any way, culturally, ethnically, linguistically, etc and politically the claims of legitimate succession are null.
