not a shitpost, generally want to see your arguments. Which one was the true continuation
>>10516757The original Romans were white Nordics, so obviously the HRE
>>10516757byzantinesholy roman empire was a loose confederation of princes operating in an elective monarchy. they were closer to how the Roman Kingdom operated than the Roman Empire, and even then the Roman Kingdom's elections were actually decided by the Senate, not some random hereditary/officious electorshipsByzantines were closer to the Roman Empire's government form and institutions
Liutprand of Cremona gives a western description of Byzantine Empire's views of the Holy Roman Empire in the 10th century. In a nutshell, the Byzantines called themselves Romans and derided the HRE as an empire of "franks" or the other ethnic germanic components of the empire, lombards, saxons, etc. Now I must confess, for the period between Charlemagne in the 800s and Holy Roman Emperor Henry III in the 1000s, I don't know if the germanic denizens of the HRE actually referred to themselves as "Romans", but I believe most likely the answer would be that they didn't. I know for a fact that the "Romans" of Italy excluding the city of Rome itself had completely stopped referring to themselves as Romans by the time of Charlemagne, as they had been subsumed by Lombard identity after hundreds of years of their rule, with former Byzantine Romans making a break from Roman identity after iconoclasm. I think being a roman of the HRE was more of a leadership identity, as the Holy Roman Emperors were Germanic in descent and knew their lineages, but viewed themselves as caretakers of the Roman Empire. This is evident in Charlemagne's pre-imperial titles, as he was referred to as King of the Franks and the Lombards, and Patrician of Rome. Roman was not an "ethnic" identity to him but a sort of state one, if one could call what was left of Romanity a "state". But what is clear is by the mid 1000s with Henry IV, people in the empire were referred to by their component geographic or political localities, e.g. Italians, Germans, even though I'm well aware these "ethnicities" were very fluid, overlapping, and by no means a clear cut thing.Whereas the Greeks were referring to themselves as Romans well into the 19th century, even while under Ottoman rule. They only stopped calling themselves Romans during their independence war, as Roman had a connotation of being under Turkish subjugation, whereas Hellenes could be seen as a prouder ancient identity free of such baggage.
>>10516774the only based thing the Turks ever did, shit on the HRE and treat the byzantines with a modicum of respect.
The Welsh
The HRE due to the decision of the Pontifex Maximus
>>10516764Bait but ill bite. For anyone that belives this varg shit remember that the Romans considered Germans as barbarians and fought them consistently for 800 years
The only people who Insist in 2021 that the bzyantines were not Romans are cathtrad deus vult larpers. No major historian since the 1700s says otherwise. At point do the bzyantines not become romans? Do these delusional spastics consider Justianian the great who spoke Latin to also be non Roman? >bbbut they were Greeks ! Yea so what, there were literally 3 Syrian emperors and an Arab. Using that logic Constantine the great is not a Roman because his mother was Greek and his father illyrian
>>10516823thisit's like claiming Trajan's period of reign wasn't the Roman Empire since he was born in modern Andalusia
>>10516829Exactly. Justinian for example was ten fold more Roman then a bunch of larping Gothic invaders.
When this faggot changed the official language to Greek
>>10516757Byzantine empire of course. The capital was founded by a Roman emperor and originally called 'nova Roma' (new Rome) which later became the Capitol of the whole empire anyway. Greek was already a common language in the early empire. And the Byzantines just called themselves "Romans". Term Byzantine came later.Contrast this to the HRE which the only thing Roman going on with them was the Roman catholic religion. They were Germans, saw themselves that and didn't speak Latin (common folk)
>>10516757The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman or an empire.
>>10516829Well desu he was born to Italic colonizers. Hadrian, who has half "Spanish"/Native Iberian, would be a better example
>>10516867When did the differences between Orthodox in the east and the Catholics start anway? were they not the same religion, why did Rome become so different from Orthodoxy if the early church before 400 AD was always the pentarchy no papal supremacy existed back then.
The Romans officially moved the capital to Constantinople, so holding Rome is meaningless.The Franks were foederati of the Roman Empire, they were officially part of it, however the HRE split from Frankish dynasties.This debate is meaningless, polities change over time. I expect an Orthodox Greek from the year 1200 would be shocked visiting a Roman pagan from the year 200.
>>10516757Well the Byzantines, they had a Roman identity, an Imperial Roman state, a Roman senate, a Roman standing army and military tradition.>>10516852He never did that. There is no source's which say he did and Latin was still used in much of the military and legal practices.>>10516889Foederati were not a part of the Empire, they were allies under treaty to fight for Rome. There weren't an actual part of the military structure or government.
>>10516886I don't think you can pinpoint it to an exact moment of time, but the biggest event that could've accelerated it would be the iconoclast controversy in my opinion. Also they colluded with the germs to gain military and diplomatic power.
>>10516971Wow so they catholics only exist because germs wanted the bishop of Rome to give them prestige and legitimacy over the eastern Roman Empire. Imagine following this religion.T. Muslim
>>10516773There's islanders that think they're roman even after ww1 dude, hellenic identity was because they were based out of Athens and sparta
>>10516774>beat dude who's busy on 4 fronts >haha we really showed them
>>10516823Justinian was one of the last Eastern emperors, byzantine begins with the isaurians because byz is just another barbarian successor state
>>10517010Someone should post that image
>>10516757The Byzantines were more Roman but they still were LARPers who hated Latins
>>10516757HRE, because they were Roman Catholics, whilst the Byz were Greek Orthodox
>>10516948Franks would become deeply involved in Roman affairs and rise to positions such as magister militum, they were very much a part of the military structure and government unless you want to quibble.
>>10516757Byzantines never stopped being a part of the Roman state. Retards don't understand that WRE and ERE weren't two separate states.
>>10517039Do you even know what orthodoxia really means? If we really look at it without the power influence, orthodox Christianity is the "correct" Christianity whilst Catholicism could be a bunch of heretics if they didn't have military and political power.
>>10516757>Who was more Roman, the Germans or the Romans?Gee I don't know. What do you say OP?
>>10517001Catholics exist because the Pope had more power than the secular rulers around him. The Patriarchs in Constantinople were often at odds with the Emperors who would exile them to monasteries and get their buddies to be new Patriarch.Also, the language barrier contributed, different religious traditions formed, Byzzies could't project their power West, even onto territories they officially held, but not in reality. The other patriarchates lost relevance with the Islamic conquest. The big problems started when the Popes demanded recognition of their supreme authority over all bishops. Plus, the Popes hated how secular rulers influence religious matters in Constantinople.
>>10517097Yep, pretty much this sums it up pretty nicely. Thanks for your post, I like how you write btw, no homo.
>>10517078Yes it means the truth, whilst Catholic means universal. If orthodoxy broke from Catholicism then orthodoxy has to be heresy whilst Catholicism is the continuation of Constantine's faith, and so the HRE was the true roman
>>10517097Pope's got deposed, but after the investiture controversy it got more stable until the western schism with a roman and an avignon papacy
>>10516823Cathtrad deus vult larper here, Byzantines were definitely a continuation of the Roman state. I'm ashamed of what Venitian crypto-Jews tricked us into doing.
>>10517109Yeah, and you forgot about the part in established and approved. And since Constantine whom build up Constantinople from byzantium, considered the founding father of Christianity as a religion. I ask you now, are you just playing with words or really trying to make an argument?
>>10516798What the Romans thought doesn't mean anything. If everyone in America was wiped out except the African Americans and they maintained the culture for centuries they would still be a legitimate successor state if not a continuation despite descending from the most spited of the population.
>>10516874I hope you're memeing
>>10517087Rome was an open culture. They weren't a race of people in any real sense. Both were successors. If you called yourself Roman and grew up in their culture you were Roman. This was the main source of their power since they would combine the best things of those they conquered into themselves and have such people fight for them. They weren't even white but dark tan. This would be more common knowledge if the Brits didn't wash paint off the statues. (I'm not saying they were black, but tan from Med, N African, Gaul, Italian mix)
>>10516757Neither of them were Roman, but the byzzies help a governmental structure with similarities to the Roman empire till the 13th century and at least were meds, so I'd say that the byzantines are closer
Wow so they Shia only exist because Ali wanted Ghadir Khumm to give them prestige and legitimacy over the Caliphate. Imagine following this religionT. Christian
>>10516757The HRE because they were supported by the Holy Father in Rome. You can't call yourself "Roman" if the ruler of the actual city of Rome doesn't even support you.
>>10517010Really ? surely not
The West was the true continuation of the WESTERN (and original) Roman Empire. Not just the HRE, but France, Italy, etc."Eastern Rome" was nothing more than a neo Greek Empire. It had little to do with Rome, and even at the time of the Western Roman Empire, it was at odds with them.It helps to understand that Greece was subjugated by Rome and was never a fully integrated part of the Roman Empire, unlike Gaul for instance.
>>10516757i'm amazed how is this even an issue. One is the literal roman emperors whose succession line remained unbroken from Augustus to Constantine XI. The other is a bunch of loud germans whose elected emperors were annointed by a schismatic bishop
>>10517534The Byzantines always called themselves 'Roman' and had no real reason not to see themselves as a continuation of the earlier Empire. Constantine wasn't the first to shift the centre of government away from Rome itself, military and legal continuity was maintained, and it was a couple of centuries after him that Byzantium really took on any 'Greek' character. The dispute of which emperor is 'Roman' has its roots in a very poorly-timed difference of succession laws. In 797, Irene deposed her son, who died in the process. She then reigned as Empress-basilissa, not basileus There's already been strife over iconoclasm, brutally murdering your son is rarely a good look, and the empire was still withering under the assaults from the east--during her time as regent Irene was forced to pay large sums to Harun al-Rashid to obtain peace, since she couldn't win on the field, and had commanders repeatedly defect. So, its maybe not so good to be king, its already an unstable time, and Irene being a woman isn't going to win her many extra friends. At the same time, Charlemagne was making waves, having taken the Lombard lands in Italy nearly a decade prior, and having just gone east and crushed Saxony and Pannonia. He was now preeminent in the west, from north-eastern Spain to Denmark to Hungary to central Italy. Now, Frankish Salic law is pretty explicit in only allowing males to inherit, thus disallowing female rulership. So, from the point of view of the Franks, there is no Roman Emperor. Whatever they may have thought about the 'geopolitical' ramifications, there should be no doubt that they thought they were legally in the right. So, in 800 the pope crowns Charlemagne as 'Emperor of the Romans'
>>10517559"Unbroken succession line".Does this really mean something in an Empire where a successful general, a scheming politician, or even an invader, can effectively replace and become the Emperor?If you want to be pedantic about it, Augustus' bloodline ended with the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
>>10517559>unbroken1204
Byzantine and HRE history isn't my specialty, but if I had to rate them on "Romanness", I think I would give a slight edge to the HRE, mainly because it was founded in Rome, and the Pope always played an essential part in it's history. The HRE was located in the Latin west, and carried on Latin culture, wear as the Byzantines became less Latin over time.
>>10517783Bro the HRE were literally germans while the bzyantines were just the eastern half that survived. There was literally no political difference between the east and western empire before the west fell. There is nothing Roman about charlamnge
>>10517889>Bro the HRE were literally germansAnd the Byzantine were literal Greeks. Is this an argument for anything?>There is nothing Roman about charlamngeAside from being Roman Emperor?
>>10516757>Which one was the true continuationThey're both Christian, so neither.
>>10517924>And the Byzantine were literal GreeksWait till you learn what language the Roman elites spoke amongst themselves during the Republic
>>10518020Do you have an actual point, or are you just gonna rattle non-sequiturs?
>>10518020Yeah, he seems to be someone who just started reading (I hope) about the subject, because greek culture is so embedded with roman culture that they're almost indistinguishable in some points and especially during specific times.
>>10517924Do you have any idea how much the romans aped off of greeks
Every time some disgusting christian gayreek utters the words "Roman", the chance of seismic activity in central Italy is increased 100x due to actual Latins rolling in their graves. A fate worse than destruction.>>10518020Elites in medieval Europe spoke French and Latin, doesn't mean they were all Frankish/Gallo-Roman and Italic. Lingua franca != identity.
>>10518063Yes, but what does that have to do with the thread topic?
>>10516757Yep, by the recent posts it seems that the schizos have woken up. If you want any kind of quality post after this you'll have to dig really deep in the thread.Bye guys, it was a nice talk.
>>10517165This idea that Romans were oblivious to Race and ethnicity is just ludicrous. The Romans, like the Greeks (e.g. Aristotle), based Race on the basis of environment.You see this with Vitruvius in his writings, where he talked about the "superiority of the peoples of Italy"By the time of the late roman republic, the core Roman group was broadly "Italic", you see this in the fact that some Romans initially despised Greek influence, the fact that Caesar passed the border with Italy history teaches us that theres always a stronger group that subjugates another, and if the two groups are similar, the stronger group will enact naturalization laws to homogenize the population and avoid rebellions.An Etruscan is more similar to a Latin than a Latin to an Illyrian. And likewise and Illyrian or "HispanoRoman" or Greek is more similar to an Italic than an Italic to Germanic. The cultural/genetic/geographical ties make it so. If you want to talk about E.g. Syrian emperor Elagabalus, he was mocked and there are rumors of him being a homosexual. Historians linked this idea to the fact that Syrians had a customs (like wearing make up, for example) which were very effeminate to the Romans. He only ruled for 4 years.I could go on but you get the point
>>10516757Venetians, not the Kr*ut or Gr**k larpers.
>>10517924>muh you have to be 100% Italic to be romanSeptimius Severus - Carthaginian and CelticMarcus Aurelius - Gaulish and SpanishCaracalla - Carthaginian, Celtic, and SyrianElagabalus - SyrianSeverus Alexander - SyrianMaximinus Thrax - Thracian and SarmatianPhilip the Arab - Syrian ArabDecius - IllyrianAemilian - MauretanianClaudius Gothicus - IllyrianAurelian - MoesianConstantine I and his sons - Illyrian and GreekMaxentius - Danubian and SyrianSeverus II - DanubianGalerius - DacianCarausius - Menapian GaulDiocletian - Dalmatian IllyrianProbus - Illyrian or Pannonian (born at Sirmium)Carus - probably Gaulish and Greek (born at Narbo)Carinus and Numerian - probably Gaulish and Greek
>>10518076Go lose to Ethopians and Greeks again you swarthy mutt
>>10517165they were such an "open culture" that they literally went on a war with closely related Italic tribes because after multiple centuries they still did not want to consider them Roman, even going as far as promulgating laws to catch those that were pretending to be Romanthe "openness" of Rome is part of its stagnating and declining phase, hardly of the forming and growing phase of the Roman civilization, for the longest time it was de facto a Latin ethno-state with many non-Roman socii, ruled by an extremely close knitted group of patrician families that until the fifth century considered mixing with plebs borderline bestiality
>>10518120Also, in relation to OP's topic, the Greeks and the "Romans" (or Italics) arent that dissimilar. Sure, some Romans during the republic were against effeminate greek customs, they were still were fascinated by the Greek myths, philosophy and culture, so much so that they adopted them and Romanized them.But in general, even if they had different alphabet and language, Italians and Greeks still today consider themselves glbrother nations and are genetically similar
>>10518150I'm not even Italian, I just get serious second hand cringe for Romans every time I see that garbage moribond christian kingdom of gayreeks(that used "Hellene" as an insult) use the word "Roman" and liken themselves as Latins.
>>10518144>muh you have to be 100% Italic to be romanWhen did I make this argument? I'm arguing against that line of thinking
>>10518178Wait until you find out about Philip the Arab lol, Modern italians are not latins in any capacity
>>10517165This is a later development, roman citizenship isn't universal until mid empire because it was the only way to keep it going
>>10518194>Modern italians are not latins in any capacitymodern Italians are indeed hardly pure "Latin", so you can imagine how little Latin some bunch of albano-slavic-sryan christians squatting in Hellas are
>>10518194>We wuz romanz n shietevery time theres a discussion about Rome, some rootless mutt from America has to utter words
>>10516757Yellow owns Rome so them
>>10518207Most Roman emperors were not Latin either, and for the record ancient italaics like Ceaser considered Germanics to be subhuman. >>10518144
>>10518224Seethe Byzantines were Romans. And i am Turkish
>>10516766Imagine thinking the HRE of 1630-1805 is the same as before. It was a proper state once.
>>10518230From 753BC to about the second century Rome was founded, established, brought to imperial relevance by ~100% patrician/Italic ruling people. The quick succession of foreign emperors(quick because they barely every lasted at all, constantly dying/getting murdered) marks the beginning of the decline.>Ceaser considered Germanics to be subhumanyou never read Caesar or have the remotest clue about what he thought of Germanicsfind me a single passage in de bello Gallico with harsh words about them, or read Tacitus' Germania
>>10518239>RoachNo wonder you're so salty about Italians. The italo Turkish war and Eugene of Savoy still doesnt sit well with you eh? In any case, you are still a mutt
>>10518257go back to your mudhut German nigger
>>10518265>the state of romefag arguments
>>10518265crawl back to ancient Syria you slavish helot farming equipment
>>10518257>>Ceaser considered Germanics to be subhumanHe literally considered them brutish primitive barbarians.
>>10518281>>10518279https://youtu.be/wyLCd6_r0yU
>>10518288>more meme statementsonce again, find me a quote with Caesar actually looking down on themif anything, he very clearly highlights how their spartan/harsh way of life is the reason why they constantly dabbed over the more domesticated Gauls
>>10516773>and Patrician of RomeDuring Charlemange's time the Roman Catholic Church emancipated itself from byzantine rule. The Pope's address to the byzantine emperor changed from the greeting of a subservient subordiante to a proper independent sovereign.The de facto ruler of Rome has been the Pope after Gregorius the Great at around 600AD. De jure-wise, the Pope still accepted the Emperor of Byzantine as the head of Rome. Around 770-80AD we see the tone of the Pope towards the Emperor change and the absolute split was seen during the Council of Nikaia 787AD due to the iconoclast dispute.Why did I start telling you about this? Well, the title Patrician of Rome, that Charlemange held was given to his father, as well as his brothers, too. It was a title of honour, not one of rule. The ruler of Rome was the Pope.
>>10518325>the Germans were like Spartans HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA How about you reread it again. He describes them as not advanced peoples and primitive, bro
>>10518385His one of those nordists types. Shit like this makes me think dresden was justified
>>10518385>dysgenically bred descendant of slaves can't even comprehend basic english sentencescolor me surprised>Spartan adjective>Definition of Spartan (Entry 2 of 2)>of or relating to Sparta in ancient Greece>often not capitalized : marked by strict self-discipline or self-denial>often not capitalized : marked by simplicity, frugality, or avoidance of luxury and comfort>marked by simplicity, frugality, or avoidance of luxury and comfortthat is the description often found in Caesar, and it doesn't have any negative connotation, rather the opposite at times
>>10518413funny coming from the laughing stock of board, drunk on petty nationalistic chauvinism and completely laughable 19th century mediterranist narratives
>>10516757The Papal States were more Roman than either. That was the true continuation. The unbroken lineage goes Western Rome > Odoacer's Kingdom > Ostrogothic Kingdom > Exarchate of Ravenna > Papal States. Odoacer and the Ostrogoths were Byzantine viceroys and preserved the functions of the Roman Senate. Their kingdoms were practically Western Roman both legally and in structure. That was followed by direct Byzantine viceroyalty with the exarchate. And then when the Lombards fucked shit up, the Latium region declared independence from the Byzantines and aligned with the Franks. They were Romans by heritage (geographically and culturally, they even still spoke Latin), but they also had been ruled by an uninterrupted legal continuation of Western Rome from Odoacer down to the time of Charlemagne. Then they decided to declare independence, and existed til the late 19th century. By all means, the Papal States were the most Roman during this time period. The HRE was a larper regime, though with a Papal pat on the head, while the Byzantines were at least legally a dynastic continuation, but lacked the geography or culture of Western Rome, which Rome (the city) itself preserved.
>>10518434I am Turkish, you can keep seething but Byzantines were Roman. And Meds are more based then Germans you are the ones pumping the arabs in, ohwell more room for us :)))
>>10518417>le epic troll Yeah I know what it means. The Term "spartan" as an adjective comes from the Spartans anyway, so to say they were spartan in ways, e.g. they were self restrictive and rigidly disciplined, is saying just like the Spartans, which wasnt the case.As Caesar said, they simply weren't advanced enough. They were primitive. He wrote they would only eat meat and dairy. Worship the sun, and the moon. Would wear animal skin and so own. If you cant see that this depiction is to denigrate them to cave man hominids, then Idk what to tell you.>Germanic stonk
>>10518522Cope Rome was a shithole, which is why the emperors moved the capital away from it, It was in a completely deliquated state in 400 AD.YWNBAR
>>10518523>I am Turkishbrowncel sewage opinion discarded, thanks for letting me know
>>10518541Northern Europeans should be exterminated, you are leftist cucks, A Greek and an Italian is 10 times better then a snownigger who lets in Nigerians and arabs
>>10518530>If you cant see that this depiction is to denigrate them to cave man hominids, then Idk what to tell you.it's not, because there is no denigration in the actual words of Caesar, and I've read de bello Gallico multiple times and in Latinthere is no denigration when he mentions of Suebi refuse the importation of wine, for it effeminizes menthere is no denigration when he mentions how they don't allow to build fancy homes in order to keep people conditioned to the harsh wintersthere is no denigration when he mentions how Gauls don't even compare themselves in virtue to Germanics anymore, after they got accustomed to a more civilized lifestylethe lifestyle of Germanics would've made a Catonian era Roman more proud than the lavish and extravagant lifestyle you hold so high and project on Romans of all eras
>>10518558success breeds browncel jealousy and ressentiment, we knowpic relate never ceases to be spot on
>>10518144Most provincial emperors were the descendants of Latin Roman settlers who colonized conquered areas
>>10517150He was voltaire pilled, anon>>10517534HRE was literally doing a WE WUZ ROMANS ND SHEET yet you are too blind to see it
>>10517640I believe he refered to unbroken political entity>>10517743The byzantine empire continued in nicea and trebizond, and they eventually took constantinople, the greeks of the time called this period the "francokratia" (Rule of franks) If rome was able to continue existing without rome, byzantium was able to survive without constantinople
>>10517924Cool, ill call myself a table and you'll have to accept me as suchFuck off your argument is literallt tranny tier
>>10518144They all spoke Latin, participated in italic culture, and prayed to Roman gods. A nations identity lies in its language, when the romans dropped Latin in favor of Greek they ceased to be Roman. >but muh nobles!! >koine Greek was like literally the lingua franca!! Yes. In the eastern med, and while many nobles spook Greek, the empire still operated with Latin as its bedrock for politics, military, and economic matters. And we don’t call the Russians a French based civilization because that’s what their elites spoke.
Rome died with Constantine.Post Constantine Rome is just the Christian Empire and it's various guises.It's like calling the USA the British Empire, which would be retarded.
>>10518611Brown hair brown eye. I’m more white then that faggot. And you post on a tranny anime forum. Shut up incel
>>10516757HRE were racially closer to the original Romans. Byzantines were a bunch of smelly hairy wogs LARPing as Roman.
one was the literal roman state unbroken from the founding of romethe other was an actual LARP b/c the pope was buttmad about imperial controlgee i wonder. i fucking hate catholics and snownigs
>>10519531Romans were not white
>>10519531Germans were considered to be subhuman and barbarians, even primitive by Romans. Ceaser saw them as cavemen while Greeks were respected as equals in terms of civilisation
HRE was a new thing, a new jobAnybody could be chosen HRE (before the Habsburgs it was an elective monarchy, Alfonso X of Castille almost gets elected but the other guy had more money) as long as he was recognized as so by the Pope, a European emperor who was a defender of the Christian Social Order, and a defender of Christiandom against muslims and pagans, and a defender of the Papal States from anyone who decided to attack the Pope in Rome. That is where the legitimacy was derived fromPeople didn't call themselves Roman and they didn't pretend to be the Roman EmpireThey did have all over Europe a lot of people who spoke Latin, especially from the 1000's on, all priests and monks and educated nobilityThe Byzantine Empire was an ethnic Greek State after Islam
>>10516879>Hadrian, who has half "Spanish"/Native Iberian, would be a better exampleProof?
>>10517059Titles such as Migister Militum were given away as bribes and awards. Even Attila became Magiser Militum at one point and he was not part of the Roman army or it's government.
>>10519930>The Byzantine Empire was an ethnic Greek State after IslamIt was ethnically Roman, you mean Racially Greek.
>>10516842>Justinian for example was ten fold more Roman then a bunch of larping Gothic invaders.I dont understand why youre comparing a Roman Emperor to Holy Roman Emperor. Byzantine Empire exists after Emperor Heraclius in most people's opinion.
>>10517924>byzantines were literal GreeksWeren't they a bunch of hellenized thracians, anatolians, slavs, Armenians, goths, varangians, levantine, jews, Syrians, copts, persians and Italians. Not to mention those that spoke Latin + all the others
>>10519531Ironically though, not kidding, destiny made it that the line of the Habsburgs is apparently R1b-U152+L2+DF90+; U152 is the quintessential Italic lineage and even better the line (L2) was found in two iron age Romans, with one of them possibly DF90 itself
>>10516757Cmon bro HRE wasn’t even an empire, it had no fleet because the Italian city states had each their own private fleets fighting among themselves. They were trannies no standing army either unlike ByzaKINGS
>>10521038>Hansa>the Dutch>Antwerp>fucking Spain>no fleet
>>10521038not really, you are forgetting the HRE lasted a millenium from Charlemagne to Napoleonthere were times were the HRE was a very powerful centralized State with an army, like with Barbarossa during the crusades, while France was a feudal mess with the king controlling less land than many dukes.And the Habsburgs had a big army of their own, and always received the help of some vassals in their wars.the HRE did much better against Turks than the Byzantines, for sure.
>>10516823More importantly, the Western Roman Empire had Odoacer in charge at one point, the guy was blatantly German, and he still counted as Roman and the Romans were glad he was in charge because he removed the guy that was seen as a usurper.
>>10522461Eh Odoacer was basically just there to do what Emperor Zeno in Constantinople wanted so it's a stretch to say he was really in charge.
>>10516889>so holding Rome is meaningless.Officially? Yes.Symbolically? There's a reason Justinian tried so hard to take it back.
>>10517165Even so, Germans had nothing to do with Roman culture. They copied some aspects of it in their art and that's it. You can't possibly compare them to the Byzantine Romans.
>>10517165>If you called yourself Roman and grew up in their culture you were Roman.I thought that regardless of ethnicity or anything, you didn't TRULY count as Roman unless you were from Rome itself.
>>10522461He was Romanized, but the Romans still hated Germanics for obvious reasons and did not want to be ruled by them, hence the puppet emperors.
>>10522616He was asked to come in and dethrone the guy behind the puppet emperor that everyone hated. In fairness Odoacer was never Emperor, he was King of Italy.
Bzyantines were the continuation of Rome. Simple as. Don’t need to complicate it any more then that
>>10521955That was centuries after Byzantium fell
>>10522418>like with Barbarossa did during the Crusades You mean failing to subdue the Italian city states which technically were part of his “empire” and then drawning in a river in Turkey before being able to reach the Holy Lands?>feudal mess like France At least Philip II actually managed to take part in the Crusades and won many territories from England after he returned to France
>>10516764Good one
>>10516757Neither. They're an insult to the glory of Rome. The USA and Revolutionary France to Napoleon are Rome while at the same time being themselves and not stealing from the real Rome. They were also founded by Masonic Pagans.
>>10517413>Holy Father in Rome>Holy Fatherthere is only one Holy Father and He's not some man in Rome
>>10516773>Lombard identityKEKItalians became what they are now. Identity as a local thing, your city, your region at best.Greater authority is the enemy. With a reason, in the context discussed here.
>>10516784Underrated post.
>>10516757Byzantines. I could just call myself Roman and be like the HRE.
