The continuation, succession, and revival of theRoman Empire is a running theme of thehistory of Europe and theMediterranean Basin. It reflects the lasting memories of power, prestige, and unity associated with the Roman Empire.
Several polities have claimed immediate continuity with the Roman Empire, using its name or a variation thereof as their own exclusive or non-exclusive self-description. As centuries went by and more political ruptures occurred, the idea of institutional continuity became increasingly debatable. The most enduring and significant claimants of continuation of the Roman Empire have been, in the East, theOttoman Empire andRussian Empire, which both claimed succession of theByzantine Empire after 1453; and in the West, theCarolingian Empire (9th century) and theHoly Roman Empire from 800 to 1806.
Many of these claims were monarchist in nature, with the ethnic or national identity of the Ancient Romans never actually becoming established among the common people (poor peasants and urban workers) of these empires (except in the Byzantine Empire), the idea of succession being restricted to niche groups of intellectuals and members of the elites. Thus, when these empires were replaced bysuccessor states that arerepublics (such as theRepublic of Turkey, theFederal Republic of Germany and theSoviet Union and later theRussian Federation) there was an abandonment of these claims.
In relation to ethnic and national identity, theItalians of Rome continue to identify with the demonym 'Roman' to this day.[1][2][3] The vast majority of the Western Romance peoples (Portuguese,Spaniards,French, their colonial descendants, among others) diverged into groups that no longer identify as Romans. TheRomansh people of Switzerland however, identify as Romans, and similar subnational "Roman" identity exists in the case ofRomagnol. Roman identity is claimed by several Eastern Romance peoples. Prominently, theRomanians call themselvesromâni and their nationRomânia.[4] And the modernGreek people still sometimes useRomioi to refer to themselves, as well as the term "Romaic" ("Roman") to refer to their Modern Greek language (but the termÉllines andHellēnikḗis are much more popular among the Greeks to refer to themselves and their language)[5]
Separately from claims of continuation, the view that the Empire had ended has led to various attempts to revive it or appropriate its legacy,notably in the case of Orthodox Russia. The vocabulary of a "Third Rome", the "First Rome" being Rome inItaly and the "Second Rome" beingConstantinople in the Byzantine Empire, has been used to convey such assertions of legitimate succession.
In Western Europe, the view of thedeposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476AD as a historic watershed, marking thefall of the Western Roman Empire and thus the beginning of theMiddle Ages, was introduced byLeonardo Bruni in the early 15th century, strengthened byChristoph Cellarius in the late 17th century, and cemented byEdward Gibbon in the late 18th century. In practice, it is little more than a historiographic convention, since the Imperial idea long survived theWestern Roman Empire in most of Western Europe, and reached territories that had never been under Roman rule duringclassical antiquity.
The fall of Constantinople in 1453 is historically and broadly accepted as the end of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire and the end of the Middle Ages.[6] Nonetheless, two notable claims to succession of the Eastern Roman Empire arose in the centuries after the fall of Constantinople: the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire; notably, Mehmed II, the Ottoman sultan who captured Constantinople, justified his assumption of the title of Emperor of the Romans (Kayser-i Rum) byright of conquest,[7] which was consistent with Byzantine imperial ideology which believed that control of Constantinople constituted the key legitimizing factor for an emperor[8] and also was supported by contemporary historiographerGeorge of Trebizond.[9][10] Mehmed II's claim was also recognized byGennadius Scholarius after Mehmed II installed him asecumenical patriarch of Constantinople in 1454, the year after the fall of Constantinople.[11][12] Mehmed II's claims were not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church or the Christian states of Europe at the time, and though Mehmed II intended to follow through on his claims by launching a conquest of Italy, his death in 1481 signaled the last time the Ottoman state attempted to conquer Italy or Rome itself; rather subsequent Ottoman emperors instead fought rival claimants to the Roman title (the Holy Roman Empire and the Russian Empire). As the Ottoman Empire continued its break with Greco-Roman legitimacy in favour of strengthening its Islamic legitimacy, Ottoman claims to the Roman Empire faded; the last official use of the titleKayser-i Rum was in the 18th century.
The empire that modern historiography calls the "Byzantine Empire" never used that expression, and kept calling itself theRoman Empire,Empire of the Romans, orRomania until thefall of Constantinople.[13] Following the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire in 800, Christian Western Europeans were reluctant to apply the "Roman" epithet to the Eastern Empire and frequently called it "Empire of the Greeks" or "Greek Empire", even though they also usedRomania – the latter also for theLatin Empire of the 13th century.[citation needed] By contrast, Muslims in theLevant and farther east typically referred to the people of the Eastern Empire as "Romans" (Rum), and to Western Europeans, including those from the Holy Roman Empire, as "Franks" (Farang).[citation needed]
The nameByzantium refers to the ancient city on theBosporus, now calledIstanbul, whichConstantine renamedConstantinople in 330. It was not used thereafter, except in rare historical or poetic contexts, until it first took its new meaning in 1557 when the German scholarHieronymus Wolf published hisCorpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a collection of historical sources about the Eastern Empire. Then from 1648 onwards,Philippe Labbe and fellow FrenchJesuits published the 24-volumeDe Byzantinæ historiæ scriptoribus,[14] and in 1680Du Cange produced his ownHistoria Byzantina. These endeavors further entrenched the use of the "Byzantine" label among French authors, includingMontesquieu in the 18th century.[15] Outside France in the Western world, it only came into general use around the mid-19th century, afterBarthold Georg Niebuhr and his continuators published the 50-volumeCorpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae.[16]
Similarly, what historians call the "Carolingian Empire" and "Holy Roman Empire" – in French and Spanish, "Holy Roman Germanic Empire" (Saint Empire romain germanique,Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico) was theRoman Empire,Empire of the Romans or simplyEmpire to their own subjects and rulers, with "Frankish" or "of the Franks" sometimes added depending on context. Only in 1157 did the twists and turns of theInvestiture Controversy lead to the practice of calling the Empire, though not the Emperor himself, "holy" (sacrum).[17][18] The reference to Germany (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation,Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicæ), which first appeared in the late 15th century, was never much used in official Imperial documents,[19] and even then was a misnomer since the Empire's jurisdiction in Italy had not entirely disappeared. Other colloquial designations in the early Modern era included "German Empire" (Deutsches Reich) or "Roman-German Empire" (Römisch-Deutsches Reich).[20]
In 1773, a few decades before the Holy Roman Empire's demise,Voltaire made the famous quip that it "was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."[21]
In the early decades of the Roman Empire, legitimacy was largely defined by the institutions inherited from theRoman Republic, initially together with a form of hereditary succession within theJulio-Claudian dynasty. As the old Republican institutions gradually lost relevance, many later Emperors derived their legitimacy from acclamation by the army, and during theNerva–Antonine dynasty,adoption by their predecessor. The Roman Empire itself was long defined by its eponymous capital, but this equation became blurred after thecrisis of the Third Century as the administrative center was moved toMediolanum (Milan), then further fragmented into various locations (e.g.Nicomedia,Sirmium,Augusta Treverorum,Serdica) before being reconsolidated byConstantine the Great inByzantium, renamed and dedicated asConstantinople in 330 - whileRavenna replaced Milan as Western political capital in 402. Meanwhile, the Empire wasChristianized in the course of the 4th century, which partly redefined the authority of the Emperor as he became the protector of the new state religion.
Thus, the Imperial identity, and therefore the question of which polity could rightfully claim to be the Roman Empire, rested not on a single criterion but on a variety of factors: dominant territorial power and the related attributes of peace and order; rule over Rome and/or Constantinople; protection of justice and of the Christian faith (against paganism, heresy, and laterIslam); as well as, albeit only intermittently, considerations ofdynastic succession or ofethnic nationalism.
The multidimensionality of the imperial claim, together with the unique prestige of the imperial title, explains the recurrence of often intractable conflicts about which polities and rulers could rightfully assume them. These conflicts lost their potency in the course of theEarly modern period, however, as improved communications and literacy increasingly undermined any claim of universal supremacy.
A letter ofCarolingian Emperor Louis II toByzantine Emperor Basil I, probably drafted in Roman circles close to the Papacy in response to a lost original and surviving in 13th-century copy kept at theVatican Library, articulates how the debate was framed in its time (ca. 871). The following quotes are from a full translation by scholar Charles West.[22]
Territorial rule over Constantinople is not the exclusive criterion for a rightful Imperial claim:
Over here with us, in truth, many books have been read, and many are tirelessly being read, yet never have we found that boundaries were set out, or that forms or precepts were issued, so that no-one is to be called Emperor (Basileus) except whoever happens to hold the helm of rule (imperium) in the city of Constantinople.
While the Empire as an idea is unitary, there is no established doctrine that there should be only one Emperor at any time, especially if the two Emperors are on friendly terms. Whether on purpose or not, Louis's description of two Emperors of a single Empire matches the doctrine underlying theTetrarchy or the division between Eastern and Western Empire between 395 and 476:
You say also that the four patriarchal sees [ofConstantinople,Alexandria,Antioch andJerusalem] have a tradition handed down from the God-bearing Apostles to commemorate a single empire (imperium) during mass, and you advise us that we should persuade them that they should call us emperors. But neither does reason demand this, nor does it need to be done. Firstly, since it is not fitting for us to instruct others on how we should be called. Secondly, because we know that, without any persuasion on our part, both patriarchs and all other people under this heaven, except Your Fraternity, both office-holders and private citizens, do call us by this name, as often as we receive letters and writings from them. And we find that our uncles, glorious kings [i.e.Charles the Bald andLouis the German], call us emperor without any envy and say without any doubt that we are the emperor, not taking age into account – for they are older than us – but considering instead unction and the blessing by which, through the laying on of hands and prayer of the highest pontiff, we are divinely raised to this height and to the rulership of the Roman principality (romani principatus imperium), which we hold by heavenly permission. But however this may be, if the patriarchs do make mention of a single empire during the holy sacraments, they should be praised as acting entirely appropriately. For there is indeed one empire of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, of which the church on earth is a part. But God has not granted this church to be steered (gubernari)either by me or you alone, but so that we should be bound to each other with such love that we cannot be divided, but should seem to exist as one.
Louis's claim is ancient enough to be justified by tradition since it has already held for several generations:
We are justified in feeling some astonishment that your Serenity believes we are aspiring for a new or recent title (appellatio). For as much as it pertains to the lineage of our descent (genus), it is neither new nor recent, for it comes from our great-grandfather of glorious memory [i.e.Charlemagne]. He did not usurp it, as you maintain, but received the imposition and the unction of his hands by the will of God, and by the judgement of the church and of the highest pontiff, as you will easily find written in your books. (...) Indeed none doubts that the dignity of our empire (imperium) is ancient, who is aware that we are the successor of ancient emperors, and who knows the wealth of divine piety.
Louis defends the Carolingian principle of dynastic succession as validated by tradition. Furthermore, Louis thinks that there should be no exclusive ethnic criterion for the Imperial dignity. Here Louis apparently refers to a claim by Basil that the Emperor should be a Roman and not from a non-Roman ethnicity (gens):
It is only right to laugh at what you said about the imperial name being neither hereditary (paternum) nor appropriate for a people (neque genti convenire). How is it not hereditary, since it was hereditary for our grandfather? In what way is it inappropriate for a people (gens), since we know – mentioning only a few for the sake of brevity – that Roman emperors were created from the people (gens) ofHispania [e.g.Theodosius I],Isauria [e.g.Leo III], andKhazaria [e.g.Leo IV]? And though you will not truthfully assert that these nations (nationes) are more outstanding in religion or virtues than the people (gens) of theFranks, yet you do not refuse to accept them nor disdain to talk of emperors coming from them. (...) Your beloved Fraternity moreover indicates you are surprised that we are called emperor of the Romans, not of the Franks. But you should know that if we were not emperor of the Romans, we should not be emperor of the Franks either. We derive this title and dignity from the Romans, amongst whom the first summit of glory and exaltation shone out, whose people (gens) and whose city we divinely received to govern, and whose church, the mother of all the churches of God, we received to defend and raise up. (...) Since things are so, why do you take such effort to criticise us, because we come from the Franks and have charge of the reins of the Roman empire (imperium), since in every people (gens) anyone who fears God is acceptable to Him? For certainly theelder Theodosius and his sonsArcadius andHonorius, andTheodosius the younger, the son of Arcadius, were raised from Spaniards to the summit of the Roman empire.
Using a modern vocabulary, Louis thought that those populations (gens) he cited (e.g. Spaniards, Isaurian etc.) were not Romans and that only the inhabitants of the city of Rome were Romans, not recognizing that those populations would have been seen as Romans, being citizens of the empire. While for Basil, the population (gens) of the Franks would not make good emperors because they were not citizens of the empire.
Since the 4th century and particularly since theEdict of Thessalonica in 380, the defense and promotion of Christianity has been a key driver of Imperial identity. After that date, the territorial scope of the Empire or any of its continuating entities has never exactly coincided with that of Christendom, and the discrepancies led to enduring conflicts of legitimacy. The most consequential of these was theEast-West Schism, which crystallized in 1054 as a consequence of longstanding fights over governance and jurisdiction (known asecclesiastical differences) and over doctrine (theological differences), and can be fairly viewed as a delayed effect of theproblem of two emperors arising from the creation of theCarolingian Empire in 800.
Earlier examples include the preference of severalbarbarian kingdoms during theMigration Period forArianism after the competingNicene Creed had regained dominance in Constantinople: theBurgundians until 516,Vandals until 534,Ostrogoths until 553,Suebi until the 560s,Visigoths until 587, andLombards intermittently until 652. The adoption of Arianism protected these kingdoms' rulers from the religious disputes and policy initiatives of Constantinople, while being more acceptable to their majority-Catholic subjects than paganism.[citation needed]
On two occasions, the Eastern (Byzantine) Emperors reunited their church with its Western (Roman Catholic) counterpart, on political motivations and without durable effect. At theSecond Council of Lyon in 1274,Emperor Michael VIII aimed to appease the Papacy to keep hisFrankish adversaries in check, particularlyCharles I of Anjou's plans to re-invade the Empire; the union was never widely accepted in Constantinople, and was reversed at theCouncil of Blachernae in 1285 after both Michael and Charles had died. At theCouncil of Ferrara/Florence in 1438–39,Emperor John VIII negotiated under the threat of Ottoman conquest, but the union agreement was again resisted in Constantinople and only proclaimed byIsidore of Kiev in December 1452, four years after John's death and too late to prevent thefall of Constantinople a few months later.
Conversely, the Ottoman Sultans' policies as self-proclaimed Emperors of the Romans (i.e. in the language of the time, of theEastern Orthodox Christians) supported the independence of the Orthodox Church from Rome and occasionally favored reforms to keep religiously inspired separatism in check, e.g. the revival of theSerbian Patriarchate of Peć in 1557. The initial instrument of that policy,Gennadius Scholarius, had been a prominent opponent of the union of the Eastern and Western churches in the 1440s and early 1450s.
The link between Empire and Christianity has a durable legacy: to this day,Rome remains the seat of theCatholic Church, andConstantinople (Istanbul) that of theEcumenical Patriarchate with a widely recognized status ofprimus inter pares within theEastern Orthodox Church. In 2018, the negotiations overautocephaly of theOrthodox Church of Ukraine led to aschism between Moscow and Constantinople as theRussian Orthodox Church unilaterally severedfull communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Asimilar schism had occurred in 1996 over theEstonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, but unlike in 2018 it was resolved after a few months.
The Imperial connection extends, through the legacy of theOttoman Empire, toIslam as well. Istanbul was alsountil 1924 the seat of the only widely recognizedCaliphate of the last half-millennium, and keeps most of the survivingRelics of Muhammad as theSacred Trust inTopkapı Palace, close to the location of the formerRoman Imperial palace.
There is seamless continuity between the Roman and Byzantine Empires, to the extent that the date at which the former ends and the latter begins is essentially a matter of historiographical convention. The Byzantines consistently and near-exclusively called themselves Romans, before and after theyadopted Greek as principal state language in the 7th century. Traditional Western European historiography retains 395 as the date of beginning of the Byzantine Empire, whenTheodosius I was succeeded byArcadius in the East andHonorius in the West.[citation needed] Alternative conventions date the transition from Rome to Byzantium at the translation of the imperial capital fromRome toConstantinople in 330, or at the reign of Heraclius marking the end oflate antiquity.[23][citation needed]
Even though the Byzantine Empire went through numerous political upheavals, and faced periods of dramatic contraction in the 7th and late 11th centuries, it exhibited unquestionable institutional continuity until 1204, not least because its central and defining seat of power,Constantinople, was never conquered during this period. Conversely, in the Eastern Mediterranean territories that ceased being part of the Empire during that period, there emerged almost no competing claim of Imperial legitimacy. In their different ways, theAvars andSlavs in the Balkans, and theSasanians andMuslims in the Levant and Northern Africa, had different models of governance and no appetite for posing as Romans. This may also be linked to their inability to conquer the Imperial capital despitenumerous attempts, as is suggested by the counter-example of the Ottoman Sultans claiming the Imperial title after 1453.
In the period before 1204, the only significant competing Imperial claim in the East appeared in 913, whenSimeon I the Great, ruler ofBulgaria, was crowned "Emperor and Autocrat of all Bulgarians and Romans" (Car i samodǎržec na vsički bǎlgari i gǎrci in the modern vernacular) by thePatriarch of Constantinople and imperial regentNicholas Mystikos outside of the Byzantine capital. The decade 914–927 was then spent in a destructiveByzantine–Bulgarian war over the Imperial claim and other matters of conflict. The Bulgarian monarch was eventually recognized as "Emperor of the Bulgarians" (basileus tōn Boulgarōn) by the Byzantine EmperorRomanos I Lakapenos in 924, following the convention also adopted with theCarolingian Empire thatbasileus (a Greek word that can translate asking oremperor depending on context) was not an equal title to that of the Emperor as long as it did not explicitly confer authority over the "Romans". Constantinople's recognition of thebasileus dignity of the Bulgarian monarch and the patriarchal dignity of theBulgarian patriarch was again confirmed at the conclusion of permanent peace and a Bulgarian–Byzantine dynastic marriage in 927. The Bulgarian title "tsar" (Caesar) was adopted by all Bulgarian monarchs up to the fall of Bulgaria under Ottoman rule.
During theSecond Bulgarian Empire, 14th-century literary compositions portrayed the then capital of Tarnovo, nowVeliko Tarnovo, as successor of both Rome and Constantinople.[24] Bulgarian contemporaries called the city "Tsarevgrad Tarnov", theImperial city of Tarnovo, echoing the Bulgarian name then used for Constantinople,Tsarigrad.[25]
TheFourth Crusade andsack of Constantinople in 1204 marked a major rupture in the history of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, and opened a period of fragmentation and competing claims of Imperial legitimacy. The crusading (Latin) invaders divided most of the Empire among themselves by aformal treaty of partition, under which theLatin Empire of Constantinople's direct rule did not extend greatly further than the city itself. It included theStraits and their immediate hinterland, e.g.Adrianople andNicomedia, but neitherSalonica norNicaea. Other territories of the former Empire were not conquered by the Latin crusaders, and remained held by various holdovers of the former (Greek) Empire.
Several of the polities emerging from that fragmentation claimed to be the rightful successor of the prior Empire, on various motives: the Latin Empire held the Imperial capital; the rulers of theEmpire of Trebizond stemmed from the formerly ImperialKomnenos family; those of theDespotate of Epirus (briefly theEmpire of Thessalonica) were from theAngelos family, even though they renounced the imperial claim by accepting Nicaean overlordship in 1248; theEmpire of Nicaea successfully claimed thepatriarchate in 1206, and eventually prevailed through skillful management of alliances and its recapture of Constantinople in 1261.
The Latin Empire had its own line of Imperial succession, initially dominated by theHouse of Flanders then by the FrenchHouse of Courtenay. It was embattled almost from the start, as the city was never able to recover from the trauma of 1204. Despite its theoreticalsuzerainty, the Latin Empire was not even politically dominant among the crusader states, which were referred to as Latin orFrankish by Easterners.
After being expelled from Constantinople in 1261, itstitular Emperors occasionally held territorial power in parts of modern Greece.Jacques des Baux wasPrince of Achaea in 1381–1383, and the last recorded claimant to the Latin Imperial title.[citation needed]
ThePalaiologos dynasty prolonged the Roman Imperial experience from its recovery of Constantinople in 1261 until the Ottoman conquest in 1453. The Empire shrunk considerably during that period, and at the end it was only the imperial city itself without any hinterland, plus most of thePeloponnese (then referred to asMorea) typically under the direct rule of one of the Emperor's sons with the title ofDespot. This line of Imperial succession ceased in 1453; even though theDespotate of the Morea lingered on a few more years, until the Ottomans conquered it in 1460, its rulers at the time did not claim Imperial authority.
In 1345, theSerbian KingStefan Dušan proclaimed himself Emperor (Tsar) and was crowned as such atSkopje onEaster 1346 by the newly createdSerbian Patriarch, as well as by thePatriarch of All Bulgaria and theArchbishop of Ohrid. His imperial title was recognized by, among others, the Bulgarian Empire, much diminished following theBattle of Velbazhd in 1330, albeit not by the Byzantine Empire. InSerbia, the title of "Emperor of Serbs and Romans" (in its final simplified form;цар Срба и Римљана /car Srba i Rimljana in modern Serbian) was only employed thereafter by Stefan Dušan's sonStefan Uroš V until his death in 1371. A half-brother of Dušan,Simeon Uroš, and then his sonJovan Uroš, used the same title until the latter's abdication in 1373, while ruling as dynasts inThessaly.
TheEmpire of Trebizond, one of the entities that had emerged from the fragmentation of the early 13th century, survived until Ottoman conquest in 1461. ItsKomnenos rulers claimed the Imperial title for themselves in competition to the ones in Constantinople, even though they did not receive any meaningful international recognition.
A separate polity on the Crimean coast of the Black Sea, thePrincipality of Theodoro, only fell to the Ottomans in 1475. There is no indication that its rulers made any claim of being Roman Emperors.
Andreas Palaiologos, a nephew of the last Byzantine EmperorConstantine XI Palaiologos and the head of what remained of the Palaiologos family, started calling himself Emperor of Constantinople in 1483 and, possibly childless, sold what he viewed as his imperial title toCharles VIII of France in 1494.[26] The following Kings of France kept the claim untilCharles IX in 1566, when it went into disuse. Charles IX wrote that the imperial Byzantine title "is not more eminent than that of king, which sounds better and sweeter."[27]
In his last will in 1502, Andreas Palaiologos again ceded his self-awarded imperial title, this time toFerdinand II of Aragon andIsabella I of Castile.[28] Otherpretenders to the Byzantine throne have appeared following his death that year, with increasingly dubious claims as centuries went by.Charles I Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, who also claimed descent from the Palaiologos family, declared in 1612 his intent to reclaim Constantinople but only succeeded in provoking an uprising in theMani Peninsula, which lasted until 1619.
After theconquest of Constantinople in 1453,Mehmed II declared himself Roman Emperor:Kayser-i Rum, literally "Caesar of the Romans", the standard title for earlier Byzantine Emperors in Arab, Persian and Turkish lands.[29] In 1454, he ceremonially establishedGennadius Scholarius, a staunch antagonist ofCatholicism and of the Sultan's European enemies, asEcumenical Patriarch of Constantinople andethnarch (milletbashi) of theRum Millet, namelyGreek Orthodox Christians within the Empire. In turn, Gennadius endorsed Mehmed's claim of Imperial succession.[30][31]
Mehmed's claim rested principally with the idea that Constantinople was the rightful seat of the Roman Empire, as it had been for more than a millennium even if the 1204–1261 period is subtracted. Contemporary scholarGeorge of Trebizond wrote that "the seat of the Roman Empire is Constantinople ... and he who is and remains Emperor of the Romans is also the Emperor of the whole world".[32] An additional though questionable claim of legitimacy referred to the past alliances between theOttoman dynasty and Byzantine Imperial families. Byzantine PrincessTheodora Kantakouzene had been one of the wives ofOrhan I, and an unsupported but widespread story portrayed Mehmed as a descendant ofJohn Tzelepes Komnenos.[26]
George of Trebizond addressed Mehmed in a poem:[33]
No one can doubt that he is emperor of the Romans. He who holds the seat of empire in his hand is emperor of right; and Constantinople is the centre of the Roman Empire.
Mehmed's imperial plans went further and aimed at conquering Rome itself, thus reuniting the Empire in a way it hadn't been for nearly eight centuries. His Italian campaign started in 1480 with theinvasion of Otranto, but was cut short by Mehmed's sudden death on 3 May 1481.[34] None of his successors renewed that endeavor. Instead, they repeatedly (albeit never successfully) attempted to conquer the capital of the rival contenders to the Imperial Roman title, with afirst siege of Vienna in 1529 and asecond one in 1683.
Being the rightful heir of the Roman/Byzantine Empire became part of the identity of the Sultanate, along with its Turkish and Muslim heritage, even though that dimension was played down by Western observers. According to Turkish scholar F. Asli Ergul:[35]
Although this title was not recognized by either the Greeks or the Europeans, the Ottoman dynasty, by defining itself as Rum [Roman], internalized the hegemonic and multi-cultural structure of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire). Obviously it was a declaration of the Ottoman Sultan's seizure of the heritage of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Additionally, over the centuries, many Greeks abandoned Orthodoxy and embraced Islam, to the point that today, in partbecause of the intermingling of ethnic Greeks with Turks in the Ottoman Empire, genetic studies have found that modern Turks are closer, genetically, to Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people than to Central Asians.[35]
In diplomatic exchanges with theHoly Roman Empire, the Ottomans initially refused to acknowledge the latter's Imperial claim, because they saw themselves as the only rightful successors of Rome. In theTreaty of Constantinople (1533), the Austrian negotiators agreed not to make any mention of the Holy Roman Empire, only referring to Ferdinand I as King of Germany and Charles V as King of Spain. The Ottomans abandoned that requirement in theTreaty of Sitvatorok in 1606, and similarly to theRussian Empire in theTreaty of Küçük Kaynarca in 1774.
Chinese usage during theMing dynasty referred to the Ottomans as Lumi (魯迷), derived fromRûmi, literally "Roman". It is important to emphasize that in China there is the concept of "conquest dynasty", with the Chinese considering dynasties of non-Han ethnic origin as theYuan dynasty (Mongolian origin) andQing dynasty (Manchu origin) as Chinese dynasties, this concept (when used for non-Chinese foreign people) may have influenced the Chinese to see the Ottomans as a Roman dynasty.[36]
By the start of the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire remained close to its maximum territorial extent, notwithstanding the loss of theAgri Decumates during thecrisis of the Third Century, but Roman rule had become fragile and many areas were depopulated. In the early years of the century, the Empirewithdrew from Great Britain, leaving it open toAnglo-Saxon settlement. Mountingforeign incursions soon resulted in permanent settlement of Germanic and other ethnic groups into territories that became gradually autonomous, were sometimes acknowledged or even encouraged by treaty (foedus) by the Western Empire, and often embarked on expansion by further conquest.
TheVandals crossed the Rhine in 406, the Pyrenees in 409, theStrait of Gibraltar in 428, and established theVandal Kingdom in Northern Africa and the Western Mediterranean islands by the mid-5th century; theSuebi, initially moving alongside the Vandals, established theirWestern Iberian kingdom in 409; theVisigothic Kingdom was initially established by treaty in 418 in theGaronne Valley, and soon expanded into theIberian Peninsula; theAlemanni expanded intoAlsace and beyond, from their initial base in theAgri Decumates; in the 440s, theKingdom of the Burgundians was established around theRhone; an autonomousKingdom of Soissons was carved out from 457 by Roman military commanders between theSeine andSomme rivers; last but not least, theFranks, which had been established north of the Rhine in 358 by treaty withEmperor Julian, expanded into what is now Belgium and Northern France. As a consequence, when the last Western EmperorRomulus Augustulus was deposed by military commanderOdoacer in 476, his direct rule did not extend much beyond the current Northern borders of Italy. Another military leader,Julius Nepos, briefly Romulus Augustulus's predecessor, held territory inDalmatia and kept the Imperial title until his assassination in 480.
In a symbolic act that would fascinate later historians, Odoacer sent back the Imperialregalia or accessories of Romulus Augustulus to the EasternEmperor Zeno in Constantinople. Far from signaling the end of imperial rule in Italy, this meant that Odoacer acknowledged Zeno's overlordship and did not claim full sovereignty. Like previousfoederati leaders, he adopted the title of King (Rex) and ruled in the name of the remaining Emperors, namely Zeno and also Julius Nepos while the latter was still alive. This arrangement was kept byTheodoric the Great, who vanquished and killed Odoacer in 493 and replaced him asKing of Italy.
Political boundaries kept moving in the later 5th and 6th centuries.Clovis I, king of the Franks (d. 511), conqueredAlemannia, theKingdom of Soissons and most of theVisigothic Kingdom north of the Pyrenees, and his sons conquered theKingdom of the Burgundians in 534, thus creating a vastkingdom of Francia, which was periodically divided between various members of theMerovingian dynasty. Meanwhile, EasternEmperor Justinian I reestablished direct Imperial rule inSouthern Spain,North Africa and especiallyItaly, reconquered during the hard-foughtGothic War (535–554). Later in the 6th century,Emperor Maurice sponsoredGundoald, a member of Clovis'sMerovingian dynasty, in his claim to the Frankish kingdom, which ended unsuccessfully in 585 atSaint-Bertrand-de-Comminges.
Even though it was out of the Empire's direct military reach,Francia kept acknowledging the overlordship of Constantinople throughout the 6th century. At a ceremony in early 508 inTours,Clovis received theinsignia sent byEmperor Anastasius I which established his service to the Empire asConsul. Similarly, in the early 6th century,King Gundobad of the still-independentBurgundians, despite being anArian, wasMagister militum in the name of the Emperor.[37] TheGesta pontificum Autissiodorensium, a compendium of information about theBishops of Auxerre first compiled in the late 9th century, keeps referring to the reigning Roman Emperor up toDesiderius (d. 621), listed as bishop "in the reigns ofPhocas andHeraclius" (imperantibus Foca, atque Heraclio).[38][39] No such deference appears to have existed in theVisigothic Kingdom at the same time.Chris Wickham portrays the Visigothic kingEuric (466–484) as "the first major ruler of a 'barbarian' polity in Gaul - the second in the Empire afterGeiseric - to have a fully autonomous political practice, uninfluenced by any residual Roman loyalties."[40] A century and a half later in the 620s,Isidore of Seville articulated for the Visigothic Kingdom, by then aCatholic monarchy following the conversion ofReccared I in 587, a vision of Christian monarchy on an equal status with the Eastern Roman Empire that would have seminal influence on later Western European political thinking.[41]: 236
Imperial rule in the West eroded further from the late 6th century. In Britain, to the extent discernible from scarce documentation, Roman rule was at best a distant memory. In Francia, references to Imperial overlordship disappear at the time ofMerovingian renewal in the early 7th century underChlothar II andDagobert I. In the Iberian Peninsula, theVisigothicKing Suintila expelled the last Imperial forces from Southern Spain in 625. In Italy, theLombards invaded in 568, and the resultingKingdom of the Lombards was hostile to the Empire whose territorial footprint shrank gradually.
The Roman Papacy was to become the instrument of the Imperial idea's revival in the West. Rome was increasingly isolated from Constantinople following the devastations ofGothic War (535–554), subsequent imperial choices to favorRavenna over Rome,[41]: 149 and theLombard invasion of Italy starting in 568, which limited its communications with the main imperial outposts inRavenna andSicily.[41]: 141 TheColumn of Phocas on theRoman Forum, dedicated in 608, counts among the last monumental expressions of (eastern) imperial power in Rome. In 649, in breach of tradition,Pope Martin I was elected and consecrated without waiting for imperial confirmation.[41]: 218 Constans II was the last (eastern) emperor to visit Rome for centuries, in 663, and plundered several of the remaining monuments to adorn Constantinople. Meanwhile, and for various reasons, Catholicism finally triumphed overArianism in the Western kingdoms: in the Visigothic Iberian Peninsula with the conversion ofReccared I in 587, and in Lombard-held Italy, after some back-and-forth, following the death ofKing Rothari in 652.Pope Gregory I (590–604) established the foundations for the papacy's incipient role as leader of Christianity in the West, even though at the time there was no conception of an alternative imperial authority to be established there in competition with Constantinople.[41]: 182
The promotion oficonoclasm by EmperorLeo III the Isaurian from 726 led to a deepening rupture between the Eastern Empire and the Papacy.Pope Gregory II saw iconoclasm as the latest in a series of imperialheresies. In 731, his successorPope Gregory III organized asynod in Rome which declared iconoclasm punishable byexcommunication. Leo III responded in 732/33 by confiscating all papal patrimonies in south Italy and Sicily, and further removed the bishoprics ofThessalonica,Corinth,Syracuse,Reggio,Nicopolis,Athens, andPatras from papal jurisdiction,[citation needed] instead subjecting them to the Patriarch of Constantinople. This was in effect an act oftriage: it strengthened the imperial grip in Southern Italy, but all but guaranteed the eventual destruction of theexarchate of Ravenna, which soon occurred at Lombard hands. In effect, the papacy had been "cast out of the empire".[42]Pope Zachary, in 741, was the last pope to announce his election to a Byzantine ruler or seek their approval.[43]
The Popes needed to quickly reinvent their relationship to secular authority. Even though the neighboring Lombard kings were no longer heretical, they were often hostile. The more powerful and more distant Franks, which had by and large been allies of the Empire, were an alternative option as potential protectors. In 739, Gregory III sent a first embassy toCharles Martel seeking protection againstLiutprand, King of the Lombards, but the Frankish strongman had been Liutbrand's ally in the past and had asked him in 737 to ceremonially adopt his son. The Papacy had more luck with the latter,Pepin the Short, who succeeded Charles in October 741 together with his elder brotherCarloman (who withdrew from public life and became a monk in 747).Pope Zachary was pressed into action by the final Lombard campaign against theexarchate of Ravenna, whose fall in mid-751 sealed the end of Byzantine rule in Central Italy. He was in contact with the Frankish ruling elites through the venerableBoniface,Archbishop of Mainz, and other clerics such asBurchard of Würzburg andFulrad. In March 751 he moved to deposeChilderic III, the lastMerovingian King, following which Pepin was dedicated as King of France inSoissons. In 754, Zachary's successorPope Stephen II undertook the first-ever papal visit north of the Alps, met Pepin inPonthion and anointed him as king atSaint-Denis on July 28, setting the template for laterrites of coronation of French Kings. Stephen further legitimized theCarolingian dynasty by also anointing Pepin's sonsCharles andCarloman, by prohibiting the election of any non-descendant of Pepin as king, and by proclaiming that "the Frankish nation is above all nations".[44] This in return prompted theDonation of Pepin in 756, cementing the Popes' rule over thePapal States over the next eleven centuries. Subsequently, in 773–774, Pepin's son and successorCharlemagne conquered the Lombard Kingdom of Italy.
The coronation ofCharlemagne byPope Leo III, in Rome on Christmas Day 800, was explicitly intended as establishing continuity with the Roman Empire that still existed in the East. In Constantinople,Irene of Athens had blinded and deposed her sonEmperor Constantine VI a few years earlier. With no precedent of a woman being sole holder of the imperial title, her critics in the West (e.g.Alcuin) viewed the imperial throne as vacant rather than recognizing her as Empress. Thus, asPeter H. Wilson put it, "it is highly likely Charlemagne believed he was being made Roman Emperor" at the time of his coronation; however, Charlemagne's imperial title rested on a different base from any of the Roman emperors until him, as it was structurally reliant on the partnership with the Papacy, embodied in the act of his coronation by the Pope.[17]
Meanwhile, the accession to the Byzantine throne ofNikephoros I in 802 confirmed the conflict of legitimacy between the Frankish and Byzantine incarnations of the Roman Empire, known in historiography as theproblem of two emperors (in German,Zweikaiserproblem). According toTheophanes the Confessor, Charlemagne had attempted to prevent that conflict with a project to marry Irene, but this was not completed. The territorial conflicts were addressed in the following years through a series of negotiations known as thePax Nicephori, but the broader conflict with Constantinople about Imperial legitimacy proved extremely durable.
2.JPG)
Political authority fragmented within the Empire following Charlemagne's death. The eventual outcome was an association of the Imperial dignity with the easternmost ("German") lands of the Carolingian geography, but that was not self-evident at the start and took a long time to happen. From 843 to 875, the holders of the Imperial title only ruled over Northern Italy and, at the start, the "middle kingdom" ofLotharingia. On Christmas Day 875, exactly 75 years after Charlemagne,Charles the Bald ofWest Francia was crowned Emperor in Rome byPope John VIII, adopting the mottorenovatio imperii Romani et Francorum, which raised the prospect of an Empire centered on what is todayFrance. Charles died soon afterwards in 877, and his successorCharles the Fat only briefly managed to reunite all the Carolingian domains, and after his death in 888 the Western part ofFrancia was dominated by the non-CarolingianRobertians, later theCapetian dynasty. For over seven decades, the Emperors' authority was then mostly confined to Northern Italy, untilOtto I revived the Imperial idea and was crowned byPope John XII in Rome in 962. From then on, all Emperors had dynastic roots in the Germanic-speaking lands (even thoughFrederick II was born in Italy,Henry VII inValenciennes,Charles IV inPrague,Charles V inGhent,Ferdinand I in Spain,Charles VII inBrussels,Francis I inNancy, andFrancis II inFlorence).
During the millennium of the Holy Roman Empire, several specific attempts were made to recall the Empire's classical heritage.Emperor Otto III reigned from Rome from 998 to his death in 1002, and made a short-lived attempt to revive ancient Roman institutions and traditions in partnership withPope Sylvester II, who chose his papal name as an echo of the time ofConstantine the Great.Frederick II took a keen interest in Roman antiquity, sponsored archaeological excavations, organized a Roman-styletriumph inCremona in 1238 to celebrate his victory at thebattle of Cortenuova, and had himself depicted in classical imagery.[45] Similarly,Maximilian I was highly mindful of classical references in his "memorial" projects of the 1510s that included the three monumentalwoodblock prints of theTriumphal Arch,Triumphal Procession andLarge Triumphal Carriage.
According to his biographerEinhard, Charlemagne was unhappy about his coronation, a fact that later historians have interpreted as displeasure about the Pope's assumption of the key role in the legitimation of Imperial rule. Instead of the traditional recognition by popular acclamation, Leo III had crowned Charlemagne at the outset of the ceremony, just before the crowd acclaimed him. In September 813, Charlemagne tried to override that precedent by himself crowning his sonLouis the Pious inAachen, but the principle of Papal coronation survived and was renewed in 962 whenOtto I restored the Empire and its rituals after decades of turmoil and received the Imperial Crown fromPope John XII.
The interdependence between Pope and Emperor led to conflict after the Papacy started asserting its position with theGregorian Reform of the mid-11th century. TheInvestiture Controversy (1076–1122) included episodes of dramatic confrontation, in which the pope attempted to deprive the emperor of his imperial dignity. TheDictatus papae, a papal document issued in 1075 shortly after the election ofGregory VII, states that the pope "alone may use the Imperial Insignia", that "All princes shall kiss the feet of the Pope alone", and that "It may be permitted to him to depose emperors". FollowingEmperor Henry IV'swalk to Canossa in January 1077, Gregory VII pronounced his absolution but referred to him asrex Teutonicorum ("king of the Germans"), thus omitting the imperial title and the fact that Henry was king (rex) of several realms, includingBurgundy andItaly.[46] Wars ofGuelphs and Ghibellines, the respective partisans of the Pope and the Emperor, lasted until the 15th century. In 1527, the Pope's involvement in theItalian Wars led to the traumaticsack of Rome byCharles V's imperial troops, after which the Papacy's influence in international politics was significantly reduced.
Early in the Empire's history,Louis the Pious formally established the supremacy of the Empire over Catholic kingdoms through the document issued in 817 and later known asOrdinatio Imperii. The view at the time was that the Empire covered all Western Christendom under one authority. (The British Isles, Brittany, and theKingdom of Asturias were omitted in this vision.) Under Louis's arrangement, only his elder sonLothair would hold the title of Emperor, and Lothair's younger brothersPepin andLouis should obey him even though they were kings, respectively, ofAquitaine andBavaria. That document was controversial from the start, not least as it did not conform to Frankish succession law and practices. Following Louis the Pious's death in June 840, theBattle of Fontenoy (841),Oaths of Strasbourg (842) andTreaty of Verdun (843) established a different reality, in which the Imperial title remained undivided but its holder competed with kings for territory, even though at the time all were still bound by the family links of theCarolingian dynasty and the bounds of Catholic Christianity.
Following the gradual demise of the Carolingian dynasty in the late 9th and 10th centuries, the rivalry between the Empire and individual kingdoms developed on these early precedents. TheKingdom of France, developing fromCharles the Bald'sWest Francia, was continually reluctant to acknowledge the Emperor's senior status among European monarchs. As Latin Christendom expanded in theHigh Middle Ages, new kingdoms appeared outside of the Empire and would similarly bid for territory and supremacy. France itself was instrumental in the developments that led to the Empire's political decline from the 16th to the early 19th centuries.
A number of political regimes have claimed various forms of successorship of the Roman Empire, even though they acknowledged a significant time lag between what they viewed as the Empire's extinction and their own efforts to revive it. These attempts have increasingly been framed in nationalist terms, in line with the times.
Ivan III of Russia in 1472 marriedSophia (Zoé) Palaiologina, a niece of the last Byzantine EmperorConstantine XI, and styled himselfTsar (Царь, "Caesar") orimperator. In 1547,Ivan IV cemented the title as "Tsar of All Rus" (Царь Всея Руси). In 1589, theMetropolitanate of Moscow was grantedautocephaly by thePatriarchate of Constantinople and thus became thePatriarchate of Moscow, thanks to the efforts ofBoris Godunov. This sequence of events supported the narrative, encouraged by successive rulers, that Muscovy was the rightful successor of Byzantium as the "Third Rome", based on a mix of religious (Orthodox), ethno-linguistic (East Slavic) and political ideas (the autocracy of the Tsar).[47][48] Supporters of that view also asserted that the topography of theseven hills of Moscow offered parallels to theseven hills of Rome and theseven hills of Constantinople.
In 1492,Zosimus, Metropolitan of Moscow, in a foreword to hisPresentation of thePaschalion, referred toIvan III as "the new Tsar Constantine of the newcity of Constantine — Moscow."[49] In apanegyric letter to Grand DukeVasili III composed in 1510, Russian monkPhilotheus (Filofey) of Pskov proclaimed, "Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will be no fourth. No one shall replace your ChristianTsardom!"[47]
TheHispano-Gothic Monarchy, recognized himself politically and legally as the heir and successor of Roman Empire inHispania,[50] using the Roman symbols of monarchy.[51] Additionally, two Roman usurpers of the Visigothic Kingdom attempted to claimimperial authority:Burdunellus (496) andPetrus (506).[52][53]
During theMiddle Ages in Spain, some iberian monarchs, mostly fromKings of Castile andKings of Leon, used the title ofImperator totius Hispaniae,[54] in which there were claims, not only of thesuzerainty over the other kings of the peninsula (both Christian and Muslim), but also the king's equality with the rulers of theByzantine Empire andHoly Roman Empire.
The last titular holder heir to the rank ofEastern Roman emperor,Andreas Palaiologos, sold his imperial title, along with his domains inMorea,[55] to theCatholic Monarchs of Spain (Ferdinand II of Aragon andIsabella I of Castile)[56][57] in his will, written on 7 April 1502,[58] designating them, and their successors (the futureSpanish monarchs) as his universal heirs.[59] Andreas argued that the Spanish kings held, through the Aragonese line, the ownership of theduchy of Athens andNeopatria, also because in Spanish noble circles there was a belief that theÁlvarez de Toledo family (cousins of Ferdinand of Aragon) descended from the ancient Byzantine imperial lineage of theKomnenos. He was hoping that the Spanish Army would launch a crusade (duringOttoman–Venetian wars) from theirsouth-Italians domains inApulia,Calabria, andSicily to conquer thePeloponnese, before moving on toThrace,Macedonia, andConstantinople; however, no Spanish monarch is known to have used the Byzantine imperial titles.[55] In 1510,Pope Julius II revokedAlexander VI's granting of the title ofKing of Jerusalem toLouis XII of France, and transferred it toFerdinand the Catholic (which was included in his title ofKing of Naples afterTreaty of Blois).[60][61] This gave a step to make the confrontation with theOttoman Empire in the Mediterranean in theSpanish-Ottoman wars, against Turkish claims of being Rome Successor.[55]
During this times of theCatholic Monarchy,Antonio de Nebrija conceived Spain, after the end of theReconquista and its political unification of Castille and Aragon, as the heir of the Roman empire, because there was a direct lineage from the Roman emperors and the Visigothic kings (considered their legal successors of Hispania), also appealed to a literary legitimisation in which Castilian replaced Latin as the language of the Empire.[62]
With the succession ofCharles I of Spain to the throne ofCastile andAragon, the peninsular territories were included in a greater inheritance that included theBurgundians (theNetherlands,Luxembourg,Burgundy,Franche-Comté) and theAustrians (Tyrol,Austria,Styria,Carinthia,Carniola), to which in 1519 was added the title ofHoly Roman Emperor. It was the first time, since the coronation ofCharlemagne in 800, and after theFall of Constantinople in 1453, in which theRomano-Germanic andByzantine crowns coincided in the same person.[55] The followers of theEmpire of Charles V (and hisimperial ideal of being theuniversal monarch ofChristendom, theUniversitas Christiana)[63] created maps, like theEuropa regina, in which Hispania is the head, crowned with the Holy Roman Empire'sinsignia, its Carolingian crown (inherited of its Roman claims).[64][65][66]
DuringBourbon Spain, following theRenaissance tradition, theSpanish Bourbons, likePhilip V, in their attempts to establish theEnlightenment programme, conceived theSpanish empire to be the equal of the Roman empire. So, they started to recover the cultural hegemony, lost under the last Austrian rulers, by imitating Rome political power, institutions and symbols.[62]
With all of this history in the Spanish Monarchy,[67]Spanish nationalism claims that there is a legitimate ideological-dynastic (titles ofEmperor of Constantinople andKing of Jerusalem in theSpanish Crown, also in the past have beenHoly Roman Emperor), geostrategic (kingdom of Naples andSicily together, the conquests of North African plazas in Barbary, likeMelilla,Ceuta,Mazalquivir,Oran,Bugia andPeñón of Algiers) and cultural basis (being aLatin country) to claim the inhertiance of the Roman Empire. Also, because many cities and institutions in the Kingdom of Spain still use the Roman double-headed eagle to this day, like the city ofToledo, theprovince of Toledo and theprovince of Zamora.[68] and the manual of history of Edebé editorial (conservative nationalist) establishes a continuity between the Iberians, Rome, the Visigoths, and the peninsular Christian kingdoms as direct heirs of this Roman imperial tradition as Hispano-romans.[69] This claim is also reinforced by the history ofSpanish colonization of the Americas, which a lot ofHispanists claim is the definitive proof that Spain is the most accurate heir of Rome's imperial legacy, as Spain was important for the culture of a continent, America (theNew World), like Rome was to Europe (theOld World), some even claim that Spain surpassed Rome, since it also knew how to unify diverse peoples for centuries and maintaining cultural unity despite the imperial collapse.[70][71][72][73] Even today there are opinions in whichPhilip VI of Spain is considered the nearest heir of Rome.[74][75]
Italy's nationalist visionaryGiuseppe Mazzini promoted the notion of the "Third Rome" during theRisorgimento (Italian word that means 'Resurgence'). AddressingItalian unification and the establishment of Rome as the capital, he said: "After the Rome of the emperors, after the Rome of the Popes, there will come the Rome of the people."[76] After the Italian unification into theKingdom of Italy, the state was referred to as the Third Rome by some Italian figures.[77] After unification, Rome was chosen as capital despite its relative backwardness as it evoked the prestige of the former Empire. Mazzini spoke of the need of Italy as a Third Rome to have imperial aspirations, to be realized in theItalian Empire.[78] Mazzini said that Italy should "invade and colonize Tunisian lands" as it was the "key to the Central Mediterranean", and he viewed Italy as having the right to dominate theMediterranean Sea as ancient Rome had done.[78]
In his speeches,Benito Mussolini echoed the rhetoric of theRisorgimento and referred to his regime as a "Third Rome" or as a New Roman Empire.[79]Terza Roma (Third Rome) was also a name for Mussolini's plan to expand Rome towardsOstia and the sea. TheEUR neighbourhood was the first step in that direction.[80]
Both the United Kingdom and the United States took inspiration from the Roman Empire in constructing their visions for dominating and transforming the world.[81] For example, leading thinkers inBritish India saw the possibility toreconstruct the colony's education system and leave a legacy similar to that produced by theRomans in ancient Britain.[82]
Famous historianGordon S. Wood writes, “The Roman Republic was the model of a virtuous republic in which citizens acted for the common good, and it was the model that American patriots looked to as they established their republic.”[83]
Several political regimes in the 19th and early 20th centuries defined themselves with reference to continuators of the Roman Empire, but not to the (Classical) Roman Empire itself. They all assumed nationalist reinterpretations of those continuators, and underplayed the extent to which the latter had portrayed themselves as Roman.
In the 20th century, several political thinkers and politicians have associated themulti-level governance andmultilingualism of the Roman Empire in its various successive incarnations with the modern legal concepts offederalism andsupranationalism.[clarification needed]
French historianLouis Eisenmann, in a 1926 article titledThe Imperial Idea in the History of Europe, portrayed the newly createdLeague of Nations as the modern expression of an "imperial idea" that had been degraded by the nationalistic drift of theGerman Empire,Habsburg monarchy andRussian Empire. He argued that the three empires' final demise and the League's establishment represent a renewal of thePax Romana imperial idea.[90]
Memories of the Roman Empire have accompanied theEuropean Union since its inception with the 1950Schuman Plan.[citation needed] The Roman Empire has provided the European Union, like many countries, withRoman legal concepts and their language,Latin. As such Latin has been used in some circumstances as one non-officiallingua francain the European Union,[citation needed] for example byEU Institutions using Latin concepts in texts and titles.
The comparison of the European Union with the Holy Roman Empire, in a negative or positive light, is a common trope of political commentary.[91][92] The European Union has been viewed as a reincarnation of a foreign and overbearing Roman Empire in some European countries, particularly theUnited Kingdom. The 2020 withdrawal of the UK from the Union, orBrexit, has been variously compared with theBoudica Rebellion[93][94] or withend of Roman rule in Britain.[95] A different negative view of the European Union as new Roman Empire has been regularly formulated inChristian fundamentalist circles, principally in the United States. According to that view, the EU, like other supranational endeavors such as theUnited Nations andWorld Bank, by attempting to revive the Roman Empire, signals the approachingend time,rapture orSecond Coming. Occasionally, the European Union is portrayed as a "Fourth Reich", further emphasizing its demonic nature. This critique is often portrayed as fringe despite its widespread following amongAmerican Evangelicals for several decades.[96]
It is the end of the Middle Ages
Ce corps qui s'appelait, & qui s'appelle encore, le Saint-Empire Romain, n'était en aucune manière, ni saint, ni romain, ni empire
В «Изложении пасхалии» митрополит провозглашает Москву новым К-полем, Московского вел. князя именует «государем и самодержцем всея Руси, новым царем Константином новому граду Константинову Москве, и всей Русской земле, и иным многим землям государем».
_from_the_Chronikon_of_Ioannis_Skylitzes.jpg)
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
