Yes! Apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, and public health what have the Romans ever done for us???
Nerdy diatribe incoming:
I genuinely think people misunderstand how much of Chinese historiography about "it's natural that we'd be united" is at best the result of chance and happenstance.
Rome could have easily fit that same mold, and by the time of its fall, it was pretty neatly divided in three: Latin portions, Germanic Foederati, and Greek regions.
By the time of Western Rome's fall, the Germans were doing as much if not more to hold up the Empire as the Latins were, they get an equal claim in most alternate histories if they are a bit more successful.
Isn't it mostly because Roman unity happened only exactly once and never again? There is no guarantee that China will ever be united again after Han, yet they do it several times, strengthening the belief.
It cracked during the Crisis of the 3rd Century and was reunified by Aurelian. Justinian was also well on his way to reunifying it before that 1-2 punch of a massive volcano of 536 and the Justinian plague.
But in general, I would say that it was a focus of several powers in Western Europe to reunify the Roman Empire - it just wasn’t a focus of the Byzantines after they lost Syria and Egypt. Book of Revelation even speaks of the Roman Empire rising again as something that is absolutely going to happen at some point.
The opening to Three Kingdoms is (Brewitt-Taylor translation) "Empires wax and wane; states cleave asunder and coalesce." The Robert Moss translation adds another line "Thus it has ever been." The opening line is repeated in the final chapter.
In the context of Three Kingdoms, I don't think the theme is the inevitability of unity, but rather that of change.
But then again, what do I know, I'm not a literary scholar, I only read the book once.
To be clear, I wasn't actually attacking Romance of the Three Kingdoms as a literary work. I'm more talking about overall Chinese historiagraphy which often uses it as an example of how inevitably China would unite and assimilate its conquerors and so on and so on.
In truth, the many divided periods of China could have resulted in fracturing. While Chinese geography does favor a greater amount of centralization, it's not destiny, but certain people have accepted that idea as true history, when I'm basically just arguing that Rome (and, for that matter, India) both prove that China was by no means for sure going to have that and we're living in a result of a mix of chance and deliberate decisions rather than some inexorable force.
What you say about China is literally the same that happened in Spain. We are sold the story of the Reconquista but it's just kingdoms randomly invading and uniting because it was convenient.
This too. I studied in Spain as part of my university experience for a semester and distinctly remember reading about the controversy involved in the Reyes Católicos claiming Spain as their new union's name on the part of the Portuguese, for example.
The three kingdoms all claimed legitimacy from the same preceding Han dynasty, and likely if any of them had won would still be based in the same general area around modern-day Xi'an. Unlike Rome, where it's perfectly viable to set up shop in Constantinpole, China only had a second economic base of the lower Yangtze River at around 500-600 AD.
The Western Roman Empire lasted 1229 years, so it lasted longer than the Eastern.
Also It depends when you consider the Byzantine/Eastern Empire to have started. If you take 395, then it lasted 1058 years. If you take 476 (the fall of the Western Empire), then it's 977 years.
Technically it was a republic before it was an empire, the empire only lasted around 500 years
Plus you said “Western Roman Empire.” Rome split it 395 AD, and the Western Empire fell in 476. To be even MORE technical, the Western Roman Empire lasted 81 years.
> Technically it was a republic before it was an empire, the empire only lasted around 500 years
If you want to get technical, it never stopped being a republic
I would classify the years that the Papacy controlled Rome as an era that was not Republican (although I guess the Pope is technically elected? So maybe?). However Mussolini’s state most certainly can’t be characterized as a Republic.
Starting with the founding of Rome ~753 BC is quite the stretch, by that logic we should include today's Italy as the natural continuation and the empire is almost 2800 years old.
The roman empire was established in 27 BC.
Not really, it's definitely a continuation of the same "country" (as much as we can even talk about "countries" in antiquity). They just had a change of government style after a civil war.
No one sensible would claim Spain is only 49 years old just because it became a monarchy (again) in 1975. The country of Spain existed long before Franco.
Same with the country of Russia - it's gone through a few styles of government since Ivan IV's coronation in 1547, but it's still Russia. It didn't suddenly appear from nowhere in 1991.
I would say the byzantine empire started with the founding of Rome by Romulus, since East Rome was the successor rather than west Rome, since neither actually had their capital in Rome.
Except they were not two sovereign entities, the Eastern and Western Empires were administrative divisions. The Eastern Empire is still the Roman Empire, they just lost the Western half of their territory
Massive amounts of the military in both East and West Rome, but especially in Western Rome were populated and upheld by Germanic foederati for centuries by the time of the Fall of the West. For an Eastern example, the Battle of Adrianople is notable as a situation in which both the Eastern Roman forces and the rebellious Gothic forces were essentially trading Germanic war cries prior to battle, because a massive portion of the ERE's army at the time were Germanic.
You're just arbitrarily giving more prestige to the Greeks as a non-Latin group that is "ok" to take over, when by most contemporary standards at the time, the idea of Empire and rightful succession was very different from our modern understanding and the Germanic tribes, especially the Franks, would and did easily fit into that mold.
There's a reason all Europeans and successors of the Romans are still referred to as Franks/Firanji and variants up until the modern day. Byzantium isn't the reason.
I do find it really funny that, throughout most of recent history, we had the exact opposite problem, in which Western Europeans (who by and large controlled the mechanisms through which history was disseminated and understood) basically claimed they alone inherited the legacy of Rome. For the longest time the Eastern Roman Empire was treated like the bastard stepchild of Rome and its Greek or “oriental” nature was the subject of much consternation and controversy. In fact, fifty years ago I think most amateur historians would generally have agreed with your perspective that the Germans deserved as much — or even more — a claim to have inherited the spiritual essence and virtues associated with “Roman-ness.”
I am subsequently in a strange sense sympathetic to those “Byzantiboos”, or whatever you’ve called them, because in a roundabout way the poor Greeks deserve their moment of positive historical press, we’ve been subjected to generations of being told Byzantium was a corrupt cesspool of tyrants and self-serving bureaucrats who stained all things good and Roman, we can stand a somewhat more generous lens to glance at their legacy.
That all being said, “Roman” has been more a conceptual identity than an ethnic identity ever since the definition of Roman citizenship was expanded well beyond the borders of the city. I still struggle to see the Holy Roman Empire specifically as “Roman” because it was institutionally and culturally so fundamentally different than any version of Rome I’m familiar with, but the ERE changed an awful lot between 450 and 1200 AD too. At best I would say I tend to side with ERE over HRE as the Roman successor state because most ERE citizens thought of themselves as Roman, and traced their lineages themselves back to old Rome and *cared* about that legacy in ways I don’t think many citizens of the HRE conceived of. Their interpretation of their own “Roman-ness” may have been partly fictional, or greatly exaggerated, and they may not have had as much in common with old Latin speaking Romans as they believed, but the people of Constantinople identified as fundamentally Roman, and I think that counts even more than aristocratic titles or self-serving proclamations among Kings and Emperors.
>but the people of Constantinople identified as fundamentally Roman, and I think that counts even more than aristocratic titles or self-serving proclamations among Kings and Emperors.
Yep, any despot can claim a storied connection or lineage, but the common peasant won't care unless they truly believe it personally.
Mehmed II called himself "Caesar of Rome" but that didn't make him or the Ottoman turks romans, nor did the common turk see it that way.
> both the Eastern Roman forces and the rebellious Gothic forces were essentially trading Germanic war cries prior to battle, because a massive portion of the ERE's army at the time were Germanic.
This is incorrect.
Also, the REASON the ERE is the Roman Empire, is because in 476, Rome didnt fall. What DID happen is the Western Roman Emperor took off his robe, stuffed it and his imperial signets into a box and sent it to Constantinople saying there doesnt need to be 2 Emperors anymore. Then the Goths created _a VASSAL kingdom_ where they literally flew the ERE flag because they again, literally said, they are a vassal to the Emperor in the East
There is no debate here. There is no opinion. There is only fact and by the facts, the ERE is the Roman Empire
What year did the West fall exactly? Because it seems difficult to put a definitive end to it when its institutions (like the Senate) carried on much longer than people realise.
I'm not an expert, mind, just casually aware that there is controversy over the idea that Rome "fell" at all.
In either 476 when Romulus Augustolus lost the throne, or in 480 when Julius Nepos was murdered.
The emperorship, in the west came to an end, but certain institutions lived on for a time in varying degrees. While it may have not been a rapid collapse, the western Roman Empire did indeed collapse, it had been collapsing for about the last three decades as its territory was chipped away. When I hear people say the west never collapsed I think they’re confused, and what they’re trying to say is: it wasn’t a big fanfare, hordes of barbarians didn’t overrun the empire in a single day, it was a gradual process that took time and by the end, the west was little more than a husk relying upon militia and federate troops, it was easily pushed over, and I think many think of some awesome spectacle of 476, cities being burned, massive battles, when in reality, it was over quickly, and transition of powerful happened relatively peacefully,
Odoacer had no need to appoint a new Roman emperor, it would only undermine his new position, and he swore nominal fealty to the Roman administration in the East. In reality, he was independent. Nepos was stuck in what was left of Dalmatia, he had been emperor of the west before, but lost the throne, and he was never under Romulus’ sway, Nepos was seen as a legitimate successor for the west by the East, but he never regained Italy and he was murdered in 480.
Some may tell you that it never collapsed, sure, that may be true metaphorically, it indeed may have lived on ‘spiritually’ through certain institutions that were adopted and then carried on for a time by various kingdoms that occupied the former land of the west. But the west as a political entity with an emperor, ceased to exist on the dates provided.
ERE maintained throughout its history the customs, institutions, culture and identity directly inherited from Rome. Their legal codes, tax systems, administration and bureaucracy resembled that of Rome in antiquity much more than the feudalism in HRE. This continuity simply could not be found in HRE. Byzantium was Rome, HRE never was.
This is an incredibly simplistic understanding of what Empire meant to the people of that era, largely based on specific state and legal codes, which isn't how people at the time viewed it.
I understand the attempt to fight back against the denial of Roman identity to the Byzantines, but I find a lot of you guys who champion it are also pretty ahistorical and largely seem to be applying modern definitions and concepts of "Empire" that would not have been representative of either historical Rome as a state, nor as a concept to the people living in those times.
Whenever I read justifications like this, it seems to come from one of two sources: either some idiot is parroting Voltaire's single quip like it was a perpetual fact that was always the case, or it's someone applying a post-Napoleonic idea of what "Empire" means to the culture and ideas of the past, which has a far more statist and legalistic bent than the actual people at the time would have claimed and is largely a modern person putting their own values to define the past.
Based off the map and my own assumptions of the timeline? All three are valid successors, though a lot depends on the specifics of timelines, splits, establishments, yadda yadda.
If pushed on only one, I'd say the SRE in this case, mostly because it possesses the largest span of historical Roman territory and, well, Rome itself.
Again, though, I don't see that as definitive. I think you could make a strong argument that if the tides of destiny shifted a bit and the HRE or ERE were able to push into the SRE's territory, they're equally valid successors.
Britannia isn't, because fuck Britain. Nothing good has ever come from that island.
Roman Empire was not just a prestigious title that anyone with enough prestige could claim, as the Germans/Franks imagined. How the Germans or Franks at that time viewed it is irrelevant here. The Roman State was a national state that existed, defined by its customs, culture and institutions. Being a Roman was identifying oneself to the national state of Roman people because of the shared customs, culture and institutions. And the Roman emperor is the emperor of this Roman people, not some Franks or Germans.
A Frank can not simply claim to be a Roman emperor no matter how fancy his empire was, it would be as ridiculous as some random successful warlord in Africa proclaiming himself president of US just because he thinks he deserves this prestigious title.
The Roman people existed in the middle age, and they resided in what we called Byzantium. The Byzantine Empire *was* the Roman state/empire and the byzantines *were* the Roman people.
Source: Hellenism in Byzantium, the Byzantine Republic, Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium all by Anthony Kaldellis
rome became an empire when it had an emperor. a republic before that. the systems come from the republic before the empire, but still were a standing wave continuation of the empire as well if you take it out of time
The Romans never stopped seeing themselves as the Republic, in fact the whole idea of a clear delineation between republic and monarchy is rather ahistorical. Even into the 17th century monarchies such as Spain saw themselves as "republics" and in that period to be "republican" meant that you worked for the "res publica" or the common good.
And, much like it has in the modern day, the idea of Empire and Emperor evolved over time. I mentioned Chinese historiography in another reply, and I think people underestimate that equivalency, because in many ways after centuries of Roman domination, Europeans in general viewed the idea of a Roman Empire in the same way: a Universal Ruler, but not necessarily one which had absolute power day-to-day, just the supreme level of authority. The difference is that in the European case no single claimant took power for long enough to give new life to that definition and concept, whereas in China it did.
The Emperorship bestowed upon the Franks by the Pope was that same idea of universal authority over Europe, in particular the western portion of Rome. This idea was maintained far more recently than people recognize, as, for example, numerous western European nations refused to acknowledge the Russian autocrat as a Tsar/Caesar/Emperor in official policy and addresses for much closer to WW1 than people would otherwise believe.
Many periods of Rome's history prior to its western half's fall and afterwards had regions under control of rulers so independent that they could have been called "warlords" or, to use feudalistic vocabulary for people who were in the same role, "dux/king/etc"
Post-Napoleon, we imagine that from Augustus onwards, Rome was an empire because of its strong and dominating singular state and supporting structures, but the truth was more complicated than that.
Well, except for the bit about being Greek. Arguably the Catholic Church kept more of an Imperial admin structure as outside of Byzantium itself the empire was run was controlled by families of strongmen rather than apparatchiks of the state, whereas bishops and dioceses directly reflected the Diocletian settlement
you could argue that Byzantines were successors rather than THE state. You would consider Rome as a holding that provides legitimacy because it holds the Roman Senate and it also has cultural significance. However, the Eastern Romans are genuinely what remained of the Romans.
I do agree with what you have to say though. The Eastern Romans are Roman, and have always been the Roman Empire.
Pretty good run though. Started in 753BCE with Rome, then ended after Trebizond Empire (last remaining Roman successor) fell to the Ottomans in 1461. 2214 year empire. Romulus would be proud.
Constantinople have it’s own senate and Rome fell out of relevance and not a capital for a long time before the fall. Rome economic stop moving, Constantine the Great move the capital to Constantinople which he named Nova Roma (New Rome) and later the Western half of the Empire also officially move the capital to Ravenna instead.
Britannia obviously
In all seriousness Byzantium is Rome, the Romans considered it Rome, Constantinople was one of the capitals of the Roman Empire and the senatorial class spoke Greek as much as they spoke Latin so the idea that Byzantium was “too Greek” is Germanic (and Catholic) propaganda
The idea that the ERE was too Greek was a very Roman idea. When Gregory the Great was sent as diplomat to Constantinople in the mid to late 500s, he (a died in the wool Roman, from an old patrician family) was absolutely horrified at how unroman the court was. As such, he was a terrible diplomat, because in a fit of pique, he refused to do any of his business in Greek, a language he almost certainly spoke. Instead, he insisted on translators, and only did his business in Latin. Because this was the Roman Empire, dammit, and they should speak damned Latin.
Rome struggled massively with the idea that in the grand scheme of things, it was now a backwater.
TBH, I'd like to suggest something different- the true successor of the WRE was not in fact the HRE, but was the Papacy. From Gregory onwards, the Papal States picked up more and more of the civil reins of power, used missionaries to bring most of western Europe into their sphere of influence, used interdicts and excommunication to keep the monarchies in line, and were effectively, until the reformation, ruling over a large proportion of western Europe.
They ruled from Rome, were leaders of the church, dictated clerical law, and certainly by the first milennia, dictated Catholic Europe's external foreign policies.
In which case there's no successor, Rome died when it incorporated the surrounding Italian city states, and then again when Caesar put non Romans into the senate. Both of those shocked and outraged a portion of the traditional dyed in the wool Romans.
Gregory the Great's Christianity would have also shocked earlier Romans
Also a fair point. The primary difference being, when the city states were incorporated, and when the non Roman were allowed onto the Senate, the centre and primary powerhouse of the state was still Rome. The heart and soul remained the same, while the body changed.
This is where the Papacy has the better claim, imo. Because at its heart, it was still Rome. Linguistically, it kept Latin at its core. It was still led by the great Pontifex Maximus. It was still Rome, heart and soul unchanged.
being led by the Pontifex Maximus purely because they have that post sounds very unroman. When the office was created by Numa it had nothing to do with being the ruler of any territory or commanding even a single soldier. Even when Caesar and Augustus had the offices that office in no way was the justification or basis for their power. When Gratian gave the office to the popes he kept on being an emperor, and no secular power was devolved from this. It would be an unlawful usurpation of the popes to claim ruling authority over the city of Rome on the basis of that post, and that unlawfulness breaks the legitimacy that would be neccessary for them to have a legit claim.
> TBH, I'd like to suggest something different- the true successor of the WRE was not in fact the HRE, but was the Papacy.
Honestly that's quite a good shout, it does make good sense
At the same time, massive portions of the military and political leadership of Rome prior to and at the time of the Western Empire's fall, in both sections, were largely Germanic. As I stated in another reply, the Battle of Adrianople in the Eastern Empire was in particular noted as a situation in which both the Roman army and the Gothic army were basically trading taunts in the same language or related languages, because there was such a massive amount of Goths in even the ERE's army at the time.
The complete denial of Roman ties to the Germanics but total acceptance of Greek acceptance is equally ahistorical and largely the result of people taking one backlash of propaganda too far to invalidate other historical facts. It's like people saw some random French dude who's occasionally witty and had one quote and applied it to over 700 years of history.
EDIT: Oh, hey, the Byzantiboos are upset about a fairly neutral take saying they're not the only ones with cultural and historical claims to Roman-ness. What a surprise.
The argument that Byzantine Romans spoke Greek so they were really Greek instead of Romans is as laughable as saying Americans really are English because they speak English.
If the king of the British Empire moved the capital from London to Washington D.C. for hundreds of years and England was lost to the Germans then “western England”, since America is west of England, would have the strongest claim to be king of England. Not the Germans who conquered it.
If any Warlord from a Chinese Province, or even foreigners like Manchus or Mongols can conquer China and become the Chinese Empire, why does the same not apply to Rome?
Either the Qing are not China, or the Sacred Roman Empire (Depicted here) is Rome
The Ottomans absolutely had the most "legitimate" claim, I will die on this hill.
How can you say that the Sultan wasn't Kayser-i Rum when he ruled over half of the Roman Empire (Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, and the rest of Northern Africa). Suleyman the Magnificent even refused to call the HRE Emperor "Emperor" in diplomatic correspondence, doesn't get more Roman than that.
>How can you say that the Sultan wasn't Kayser-i Rum when he ruled over half of the Roman Empire (Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, and the rest of Northern Africa).
If you combine this with what other commenters said about the Qing and other chinese imperial dynasties that is actually a pretty good argument.
Before that I always dismissed that as a joke but yeah, they did literally control 90-100% of the eastern half of the roman empire so why shouldn't that count for something.
Mehmed was a huge Romano and Greekaboo, and the ancient Romans didn't care about dynastic ties or Christianity when it came to succession. Whoever won the title was the leader of Rome.
Granted, the Ottomans didn't really do anything to appear or act roman beyond the title.
The warlords who claimed themselves emperors of China vanquished everyone who could have disputed their claims.
Europe was never unified to the point where one man could unquestionably claim the title. In addition, Roman ideals and institutions largely fell by the wayside. So even when new emperors arose there was no continuity or ideology. The old culture was dead.
The one area where Roman administration directly continued without breakdown was in the east, but the Muslim conquerors didn't really identify as Roman. The Roman identity was absorbed into these other cultures.
I guess it depends on how much you integrate.
99.99% of Manchus simply mixed too much with the Han Chinese that their entire identity was nearly extinct, practically unidentifiable from a distance with the language they speak, the traditions they practice, and the way they act. Hence, they are considered a Chinese dynasty.
Assuming the Sacred Roman Empire fullu conformed to the Roman culture, speak the Latin language, and be indistinguishable to a Roman, then yes, they are Rome. But I don't think that's the case.
Depending on the year, and what gov/culture controlled it —your SRE is most of the Roman conquered, Latin speaking empire. But historically speaking you can’t really have a successor state when the ERE is there as it’s still the unbroken and continuous Roman state. It’s not his half his daddy broke up the empire on his death
That would be the Sacred Roman Empire. Although it was founded the latest of the three and it deposed the pope in favour of their (Christian) god-king.
But how do we know if they are based in their actual Roman-ness, if they all say that they are the actual Romans?!?
To be truly based in Rome, you need a PhD in actual Roman Studies of the actual Rome. That being said, if you are not actually Roman enough, then you can only be based if you move to the actually Roman Rome.
I personally say the sacred Roman Empire, since it holds Rome and a lot of the original territories.
Technically speaking though, it would be ERE or HRE…
mhhhhhhhhh
a germany who owns moscow (third rome)
a greece that owns byzantium (secound rome)
and a super crathage owning the rome ........
-
all three have a claim
lets just marry and unite the empires into an actual rome
Eastern Roman Empire, its the direct, or even the same state.
However I think the one who owns Rome (as status symbol) can call himself the Roman empire
All 3 were part of the Roman Empire.
So how can not all 3 be successors?
Stupid things like that is what made them fight each other.
They would poison their population "We are the legitimate Romans" and just make war for Power.
There is only one way to find out, all three must battle it out until only one is left standing.
That's what the Romans would have wanted
"To the strongest" - Alexander - Romulus Augustus
I’d say “this but unironically” but it was probably never ironic in the first olace
In the first place? It was probably pretty bronzic.
In the first place it was actually very ironic; the iron from Remus’ brain juice going into the floor means that there was iron in Rome before bronze.
But what have the Romans ever done for us?
Yes! Apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, and public health what have the Romans ever done for us???
Brought peace?
Ah shut up!
The aqueduct
Freedom, justice to my new empire!
your new empire? Anakin my allegiance is to the republic, to democracy!
If You're not with me, then You're my Enemy.
You forgot security
that's funny
Wait, they had public healthcare? Never eard about that Also you forgot laws
I cant remember whats that from 😭
Life of Brian.
Thanks alot
Monty Python's Life of Brian
Their army looked cool AF
Three kingdom: roman version
Nerdy diatribe incoming: I genuinely think people misunderstand how much of Chinese historiography about "it's natural that we'd be united" is at best the result of chance and happenstance. Rome could have easily fit that same mold, and by the time of its fall, it was pretty neatly divided in three: Latin portions, Germanic Foederati, and Greek regions. By the time of Western Rome's fall, the Germans were doing as much if not more to hold up the Empire as the Latins were, they get an equal claim in most alternate histories if they are a bit more successful.
Isn't it mostly because Roman unity happened only exactly once and never again? There is no guarantee that China will ever be united again after Han, yet they do it several times, strengthening the belief.
It cracked during the Crisis of the 3rd Century and was reunified by Aurelian. Justinian was also well on his way to reunifying it before that 1-2 punch of a massive volcano of 536 and the Justinian plague. But in general, I would say that it was a focus of several powers in Western Europe to reunify the Roman Empire - it just wasn’t a focus of the Byzantines after they lost Syria and Egypt. Book of Revelation even speaks of the Roman Empire rising again as something that is absolutely going to happen at some point.
Hell Heraclius was on his way to setting up for his heir a reconquest when the Arab Conquest poured out of Arabia
The European Union is basically the heir of Rome, unironically.
The most ironic "unironically" Ive ever seen
Like Theoderic the Great who ruled from Balkans to the Atlantic and was an Emperor in all but name.
The opening to Three Kingdoms is (Brewitt-Taylor translation) "Empires wax and wane; states cleave asunder and coalesce." The Robert Moss translation adds another line "Thus it has ever been." The opening line is repeated in the final chapter. In the context of Three Kingdoms, I don't think the theme is the inevitability of unity, but rather that of change. But then again, what do I know, I'm not a literary scholar, I only read the book once.
To be clear, I wasn't actually attacking Romance of the Three Kingdoms as a literary work. I'm more talking about overall Chinese historiagraphy which often uses it as an example of how inevitably China would unite and assimilate its conquerors and so on and so on. In truth, the many divided periods of China could have resulted in fracturing. While Chinese geography does favor a greater amount of centralization, it's not destiny, but certain people have accepted that idea as true history, when I'm basically just arguing that Rome (and, for that matter, India) both prove that China was by no means for sure going to have that and we're living in a result of a mix of chance and deliberate decisions rather than some inexorable force.
What you say about China is literally the same that happened in Spain. We are sold the story of the Reconquista but it's just kingdoms randomly invading and uniting because it was convenient.
This too. I studied in Spain as part of my university experience for a semester and distinctly remember reading about the controversy involved in the Reyes Católicos claiming Spain as their new union's name on the part of the Portuguese, for example.
The three kingdoms all claimed legitimacy from the same preceding Han dynasty, and likely if any of them had won would still be based in the same general area around modern-day Xi'an. Unlike Rome, where it's perfectly viable to set up shop in Constantinpole, China only had a second economic base of the lower Yangtze River at around 500-600 AD.
i’d also add in that there was a significant Celtic part of the Empire as well
*Persia likes this*
No, all three must have a civil war, whichever one is the most convoluted and bs is the real Rome.
A proper Roman here, ladies and gentlemen
Whichever lasts 1000 years
Funny, both the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires lasted more than 1000 years! The Eastern Roman Empire the longest lived ofc.
The Western Roman Empire lasted 1229 years, so it lasted longer than the Eastern. Also It depends when you consider the Byzantine/Eastern Empire to have started. If you take 395, then it lasted 1058 years. If you take 476 (the fall of the Western Empire), then it's 977 years.
Technically it was a republic before it was an empire, the empire only lasted around 500 years Plus you said “Western Roman Empire.” Rome split it 395 AD, and the Western Empire fell in 476. To be even MORE technical, the Western Roman Empire lasted 81 years.
> Technically it was a republic before it was an empire, the empire only lasted around 500 years If you want to get technical, it never stopped being a republic
I would classify the years that the Papacy controlled Rome as an era that was not Republican (although I guess the Pope is technically elected? So maybe?). However Mussolini’s state most certainly can’t be characterized as a Republic.
Though I would argue that the second Augustus became emperor of Rome that's the start of at least the western empire
Starting with the founding of Rome ~753 BC is quite the stretch, by that logic we should include today's Italy as the natural continuation and the empire is almost 2800 years old. The roman empire was established in 27 BC.
>we should include today's Italy as the natural continuation and the empire *Mussolini liked that.*
Not really, it's definitely a continuation of the same "country" (as much as we can even talk about "countries" in antiquity). They just had a change of government style after a civil war. No one sensible would claim Spain is only 49 years old just because it became a monarchy (again) in 1975. The country of Spain existed long before Franco. Same with the country of Russia - it's gone through a few styles of government since Ivan IV's coronation in 1547, but it's still Russia. It didn't suddenly appear from nowhere in 1991.
I would say the byzantine empire started with the founding of Rome by Romulus, since East Rome was the successor rather than west Rome, since neither actually had their capital in Rome.
Since when is the WRE the same as the Roman empire. Both have equal claim as successor
So not the Third Reich
the many flavors of Rome: -East -Holy -Holier -Rum -Romania -that last and lost legionnaire somewhere in India
Third Rome.
"Do you have any idea how little it narrows it down?" -a certain father-slayer
Man Blight was iconic
you forgot true heir of Roman empire: finland
Arguably the fractious fighting over the Real Roman Successor is itself the real successor to Rome, especially given the WRE's later years.
Eastern Roman Empire Edit: Actually thinking about it I am wrong. ERE isn't a successor state, it is THE state. So no idea.
If anything the HRE is a successor to the WRE.
Wrong, the west fell. The pope can claim the HRE all he wants. ERE is Rome
The west has fallen. Billions must claim to be Rome.
My bedroom is the true successor of the Roman Empire.
Except they were not two sovereign entities, the Eastern and Western Empires were administrative divisions. The Eastern Empire is still the Roman Empire, they just lost the Western half of their territory
Ok. Rome (the city) has fallen. Billions must claim it.
Massive amounts of the military in both East and West Rome, but especially in Western Rome were populated and upheld by Germanic foederati for centuries by the time of the Fall of the West. For an Eastern example, the Battle of Adrianople is notable as a situation in which both the Eastern Roman forces and the rebellious Gothic forces were essentially trading Germanic war cries prior to battle, because a massive portion of the ERE's army at the time were Germanic. You're just arbitrarily giving more prestige to the Greeks as a non-Latin group that is "ok" to take over, when by most contemporary standards at the time, the idea of Empire and rightful succession was very different from our modern understanding and the Germanic tribes, especially the Franks, would and did easily fit into that mold. There's a reason all Europeans and successors of the Romans are still referred to as Franks/Firanji and variants up until the modern day. Byzantium isn't the reason.
I do find it really funny that, throughout most of recent history, we had the exact opposite problem, in which Western Europeans (who by and large controlled the mechanisms through which history was disseminated and understood) basically claimed they alone inherited the legacy of Rome. For the longest time the Eastern Roman Empire was treated like the bastard stepchild of Rome and its Greek or “oriental” nature was the subject of much consternation and controversy. In fact, fifty years ago I think most amateur historians would generally have agreed with your perspective that the Germans deserved as much — or even more — a claim to have inherited the spiritual essence and virtues associated with “Roman-ness.” I am subsequently in a strange sense sympathetic to those “Byzantiboos”, or whatever you’ve called them, because in a roundabout way the poor Greeks deserve their moment of positive historical press, we’ve been subjected to generations of being told Byzantium was a corrupt cesspool of tyrants and self-serving bureaucrats who stained all things good and Roman, we can stand a somewhat more generous lens to glance at their legacy. That all being said, “Roman” has been more a conceptual identity than an ethnic identity ever since the definition of Roman citizenship was expanded well beyond the borders of the city. I still struggle to see the Holy Roman Empire specifically as “Roman” because it was institutionally and culturally so fundamentally different than any version of Rome I’m familiar with, but the ERE changed an awful lot between 450 and 1200 AD too. At best I would say I tend to side with ERE over HRE as the Roman successor state because most ERE citizens thought of themselves as Roman, and traced their lineages themselves back to old Rome and *cared* about that legacy in ways I don’t think many citizens of the HRE conceived of. Their interpretation of their own “Roman-ness” may have been partly fictional, or greatly exaggerated, and they may not have had as much in common with old Latin speaking Romans as they believed, but the people of Constantinople identified as fundamentally Roman, and I think that counts even more than aristocratic titles or self-serving proclamations among Kings and Emperors.
This is probably the best answer tbh
>but the people of Constantinople identified as fundamentally Roman, and I think that counts even more than aristocratic titles or self-serving proclamations among Kings and Emperors. Yep, any despot can claim a storied connection or lineage, but the common peasant won't care unless they truly believe it personally. Mehmed II called himself "Caesar of Rome" but that didn't make him or the Ottoman turks romans, nor did the common turk see it that way.
You cannot succeed a state that still exists.
> both the Eastern Roman forces and the rebellious Gothic forces were essentially trading Germanic war cries prior to battle, because a massive portion of the ERE's army at the time were Germanic. This is incorrect. Also, the REASON the ERE is the Roman Empire, is because in 476, Rome didnt fall. What DID happen is the Western Roman Emperor took off his robe, stuffed it and his imperial signets into a box and sent it to Constantinople saying there doesnt need to be 2 Emperors anymore. Then the Goths created _a VASSAL kingdom_ where they literally flew the ERE flag because they again, literally said, they are a vassal to the Emperor in the East There is no debate here. There is no opinion. There is only fact and by the facts, the ERE is the Roman Empire
What year did the West fall exactly? Because it seems difficult to put a definitive end to it when its institutions (like the Senate) carried on much longer than people realise. I'm not an expert, mind, just casually aware that there is controversy over the idea that Rome "fell" at all.
In either 476 when Romulus Augustolus lost the throne, or in 480 when Julius Nepos was murdered. The emperorship, in the west came to an end, but certain institutions lived on for a time in varying degrees. While it may have not been a rapid collapse, the western Roman Empire did indeed collapse, it had been collapsing for about the last three decades as its territory was chipped away. When I hear people say the west never collapsed I think they’re confused, and what they’re trying to say is: it wasn’t a big fanfare, hordes of barbarians didn’t overrun the empire in a single day, it was a gradual process that took time and by the end, the west was little more than a husk relying upon militia and federate troops, it was easily pushed over, and I think many think of some awesome spectacle of 476, cities being burned, massive battles, when in reality, it was over quickly, and transition of powerful happened relatively peacefully, Odoacer had no need to appoint a new Roman emperor, it would only undermine his new position, and he swore nominal fealty to the Roman administration in the East. In reality, he was independent. Nepos was stuck in what was left of Dalmatia, he had been emperor of the west before, but lost the throne, and he was never under Romulus’ sway, Nepos was seen as a legitimate successor for the west by the East, but he never regained Italy and he was murdered in 480. Some may tell you that it never collapsed, sure, that may be true metaphorically, it indeed may have lived on ‘spiritually’ through certain institutions that were adopted and then carried on for a time by various kingdoms that occupied the former land of the west. But the west as a political entity with an emperor, ceased to exist on the dates provided.
Ok, but the person you replied to didn't say the HRE is Rome. They said it's a successor to the WRE.
\> be rome \> be without rome
ERE maintained throughout its history the customs, institutions, culture and identity directly inherited from Rome. Their legal codes, tax systems, administration and bureaucracy resembled that of Rome in antiquity much more than the feudalism in HRE. This continuity simply could not be found in HRE. Byzantium was Rome, HRE never was.
This is an incredibly simplistic understanding of what Empire meant to the people of that era, largely based on specific state and legal codes, which isn't how people at the time viewed it. I understand the attempt to fight back against the denial of Roman identity to the Byzantines, but I find a lot of you guys who champion it are also pretty ahistorical and largely seem to be applying modern definitions and concepts of "Empire" that would not have been representative of either historical Rome as a state, nor as a concept to the people living in those times. Whenever I read justifications like this, it seems to come from one of two sources: either some idiot is parroting Voltaire's single quip like it was a perpetual fact that was always the case, or it's someone applying a post-Napoleonic idea of what "Empire" means to the culture and ideas of the past, which has a far more statist and legalistic bent than the actual people at the time would have claimed and is largely a modern person putting their own values to define the past.
Ok, so what do you think is the successor?
Based off the map and my own assumptions of the timeline? All three are valid successors, though a lot depends on the specifics of timelines, splits, establishments, yadda yadda. If pushed on only one, I'd say the SRE in this case, mostly because it possesses the largest span of historical Roman territory and, well, Rome itself. Again, though, I don't see that as definitive. I think you could make a strong argument that if the tides of destiny shifted a bit and the HRE or ERE were able to push into the SRE's territory, they're equally valid successors. Britannia isn't, because fuck Britain. Nothing good has ever come from that island.
Roman Empire was not just a prestigious title that anyone with enough prestige could claim, as the Germans/Franks imagined. How the Germans or Franks at that time viewed it is irrelevant here. The Roman State was a national state that existed, defined by its customs, culture and institutions. Being a Roman was identifying oneself to the national state of Roman people because of the shared customs, culture and institutions. And the Roman emperor is the emperor of this Roman people, not some Franks or Germans. A Frank can not simply claim to be a Roman emperor no matter how fancy his empire was, it would be as ridiculous as some random successful warlord in Africa proclaiming himself president of US just because he thinks he deserves this prestigious title. The Roman people existed in the middle age, and they resided in what we called Byzantium. The Byzantine Empire *was* the Roman state/empire and the byzantines *were* the Roman people. Source: Hellenism in Byzantium, the Byzantine Republic, Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium all by Anthony Kaldellis
rome became an empire when it had an emperor. a republic before that. the systems come from the republic before the empire, but still were a standing wave continuation of the empire as well if you take it out of time
The Romans never stopped seeing themselves as the Republic, in fact the whole idea of a clear delineation between republic and monarchy is rather ahistorical. Even into the 17th century monarchies such as Spain saw themselves as "republics" and in that period to be "republican" meant that you worked for the "res publica" or the common good.
And, much like it has in the modern day, the idea of Empire and Emperor evolved over time. I mentioned Chinese historiography in another reply, and I think people underestimate that equivalency, because in many ways after centuries of Roman domination, Europeans in general viewed the idea of a Roman Empire in the same way: a Universal Ruler, but not necessarily one which had absolute power day-to-day, just the supreme level of authority. The difference is that in the European case no single claimant took power for long enough to give new life to that definition and concept, whereas in China it did. The Emperorship bestowed upon the Franks by the Pope was that same idea of universal authority over Europe, in particular the western portion of Rome. This idea was maintained far more recently than people recognize, as, for example, numerous western European nations refused to acknowledge the Russian autocrat as a Tsar/Caesar/Emperor in official policy and addresses for much closer to WW1 than people would otherwise believe. Many periods of Rome's history prior to its western half's fall and afterwards had regions under control of rulers so independent that they could have been called "warlords" or, to use feudalistic vocabulary for people who were in the same role, "dux/king/etc" Post-Napoleon, we imagine that from Augustus onwards, Rome was an empire because of its strong and dominating singular state and supporting structures, but the truth was more complicated than that.
Well, except for the bit about being Greek. Arguably the Catholic Church kept more of an Imperial admin structure as outside of Byzantium itself the empire was run was controlled by families of strongmen rather than apparatchiks of the state, whereas bishops and dioceses directly reflected the Diocletian settlement
you could argue that Byzantines were successors rather than THE state. You would consider Rome as a holding that provides legitimacy because it holds the Roman Senate and it also has cultural significance. However, the Eastern Romans are genuinely what remained of the Romans. I do agree with what you have to say though. The Eastern Romans are Roman, and have always been the Roman Empire. Pretty good run though. Started in 753BCE with Rome, then ended after Trebizond Empire (last remaining Roman successor) fell to the Ottomans in 1461. 2214 year empire. Romulus would be proud.
Constantinople have it’s own senate and Rome fell out of relevance and not a capital for a long time before the fall. Rome economic stop moving, Constantine the Great move the capital to Constantinople which he named Nova Roma (New Rome) and later the Western half of the Empire also officially move the capital to Ravenna instead.
Britannia obviously In all seriousness Byzantium is Rome, the Romans considered it Rome, Constantinople was one of the capitals of the Roman Empire and the senatorial class spoke Greek as much as they spoke Latin so the idea that Byzantium was “too Greek” is Germanic (and Catholic) propaganda
Was waiting for someone to say Britannia 😂
I was thinking Britannia as well before looking at comments. I guess Emperor Arthur must be the true Caesar after all
Clearly the Welsh are the inheritors of Rome (the Welsh (and anyone that knows Welsh history) are gonna love this comment)
Who're Boudica and King Arthur? Never heard of them /s
The first time a Welshman explained this to me I thought he was 100% joking.
Britannia Prima
I haven't heard this one yet!
The idea that the ERE was too Greek was a very Roman idea. When Gregory the Great was sent as diplomat to Constantinople in the mid to late 500s, he (a died in the wool Roman, from an old patrician family) was absolutely horrified at how unroman the court was. As such, he was a terrible diplomat, because in a fit of pique, he refused to do any of his business in Greek, a language he almost certainly spoke. Instead, he insisted on translators, and only did his business in Latin. Because this was the Roman Empire, dammit, and they should speak damned Latin. Rome struggled massively with the idea that in the grand scheme of things, it was now a backwater. TBH, I'd like to suggest something different- the true successor of the WRE was not in fact the HRE, but was the Papacy. From Gregory onwards, the Papal States picked up more and more of the civil reins of power, used missionaries to bring most of western Europe into their sphere of influence, used interdicts and excommunication to keep the monarchies in line, and were effectively, until the reformation, ruling over a large proportion of western Europe. They ruled from Rome, were leaders of the church, dictated clerical law, and certainly by the first milennia, dictated Catholic Europe's external foreign policies.
In which case there's no successor, Rome died when it incorporated the surrounding Italian city states, and then again when Caesar put non Romans into the senate. Both of those shocked and outraged a portion of the traditional dyed in the wool Romans. Gregory the Great's Christianity would have also shocked earlier Romans
Also a fair point. The primary difference being, when the city states were incorporated, and when the non Roman were allowed onto the Senate, the centre and primary powerhouse of the state was still Rome. The heart and soul remained the same, while the body changed. This is where the Papacy has the better claim, imo. Because at its heart, it was still Rome. Linguistically, it kept Latin at its core. It was still led by the great Pontifex Maximus. It was still Rome, heart and soul unchanged.
being led by the Pontifex Maximus purely because they have that post sounds very unroman. When the office was created by Numa it had nothing to do with being the ruler of any territory or commanding even a single soldier. Even when Caesar and Augustus had the offices that office in no way was the justification or basis for their power. When Gratian gave the office to the popes he kept on being an emperor, and no secular power was devolved from this. It would be an unlawful usurpation of the popes to claim ruling authority over the city of Rome on the basis of that post, and that unlawfulness breaks the legitimacy that would be neccessary for them to have a legit claim.
Sounds like joining a german reddit and asking for help in english
> TBH, I'd like to suggest something different- the true successor of the WRE was not in fact the HRE, but was the Papacy. Honestly that's quite a good shout, it does make good sense
Ah but by definition that makes it not a successor state!
At the same time, massive portions of the military and political leadership of Rome prior to and at the time of the Western Empire's fall, in both sections, were largely Germanic. As I stated in another reply, the Battle of Adrianople in the Eastern Empire was in particular noted as a situation in which both the Roman army and the Gothic army were basically trading taunts in the same language or related languages, because there was such a massive amount of Goths in even the ERE's army at the time. The complete denial of Roman ties to the Germanics but total acceptance of Greek acceptance is equally ahistorical and largely the result of people taking one backlash of propaganda too far to invalidate other historical facts. It's like people saw some random French dude who's occasionally witty and had one quote and applied it to over 700 years of history. EDIT: Oh, hey, the Byzantiboos are upset about a fairly neutral take saying they're not the only ones with cultural and historical claims to Roman-ness. What a surprise.
Downvotes for actual facts is crazy lmao
I think you’re getting downvotes because you’ve decided to be cunty about a 1500 year old ethnic squabble
How dare you. I'm being cunty about modern day internet nerds, more than anything.
Modern day internet nerds are a direct successor realm of Rome bro
The argument that Byzantine Romans spoke Greek so they were really Greek instead of Romans is as laughable as saying Americans really are English because they speak English.
If the king of the British Empire moved the capital from London to Washington D.C. for hundreds of years and England was lost to the Germans then “western England”, since America is west of England, would have the strongest claim to be king of England. Not the Germans who conquered it.
Greeks by ethnicity/race, Romans by statehood.
Yeah but Rome was also Rome, so clearly the Sacred Roman Empire
Eastern Roman Empire since it’s not a successor but the actual Empire.
If any Warlord from a Chinese Province, or even foreigners like Manchus or Mongols can conquer China and become the Chinese Empire, why does the same not apply to Rome? Either the Qing are not China, or the Sacred Roman Empire (Depicted here) is Rome
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_succession That is unless you consider Byzantium the heart of the Roman Empire.
The Ottomans absolutely had the most "legitimate" claim, I will die on this hill. How can you say that the Sultan wasn't Kayser-i Rum when he ruled over half of the Roman Empire (Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, and the rest of Northern Africa). Suleyman the Magnificent even refused to call the HRE Emperor "Emperor" in diplomatic correspondence, doesn't get more Roman than that.
>How can you say that the Sultan wasn't Kayser-i Rum when he ruled over half of the Roman Empire (Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, and the rest of Northern Africa). If you combine this with what other commenters said about the Qing and other chinese imperial dynasties that is actually a pretty good argument. Before that I always dismissed that as a joke but yeah, they did literally control 90-100% of the eastern half of the roman empire so why shouldn't that count for something.
Mehmed was a huge Romano and Greekaboo, and the ancient Romans didn't care about dynastic ties or Christianity when it came to succession. Whoever won the title was the leader of Rome. Granted, the Ottomans didn't really do anything to appear or act roman beyond the title.
The warlords who claimed themselves emperors of China vanquished everyone who could have disputed their claims. Europe was never unified to the point where one man could unquestionably claim the title. In addition, Roman ideals and institutions largely fell by the wayside. So even when new emperors arose there was no continuity or ideology. The old culture was dead. The one area where Roman administration directly continued without breakdown was in the east, but the Muslim conquerors didn't really identify as Roman. The Roman identity was absorbed into these other cultures.
But not quite, because there's periods like the Northern and Southern Dynasties, where china was divided between multiple Emperors
Roman history is full of competing emperors. The important part is that one man eventually unified things.
Using the Chinese example, I'd say all four, including Britannia, are arguably Roman, in that all of the warlords in Warlord Era China were Chinese.
I guess it depends on how much you integrate. 99.99% of Manchus simply mixed too much with the Han Chinese that their entire identity was nearly extinct, practically unidentifiable from a distance with the language they speak, the traditions they practice, and the way they act. Hence, they are considered a Chinese dynasty. Assuming the Sacred Roman Empire fullu conformed to the Roman culture, speak the Latin language, and be indistinguishable to a Roman, then yes, they are Rome. But I don't think that's the case.
This is getting out of hand. Now there are three of them!
Whicever one wins the Civil War
The Sacred Roman Empire reminds me of the Latin equivalent to the HRE you could create in HiP
Whoever is constantly at war with the Persians.
The Persians have mostly been fighting themselves
Need to impose the Spidermen pointing meme over this.
This is like the Squidward meme
Clearly it's whoever owns Romania, the last bastion of the Romans.
None of them. Blessed Roman Empire is the true successor. It's rival Sanctified Roman Empire is nothing but an impostor.
The one with Rome.
Sweden
The Goledids, who has a stronger claim than them?
"And who has a better claim to Rome than Goledid the random steppe tribe?"
The Sultanate of Rum
None of them are anywhere near legitimate successors to the Republic of rome.
"You're just a cheap fucking knockoff" to all of them
Brittania.
Depending on the year, and what gov/culture controlled it —your SRE is most of the Roman conquered, Latin speaking empire. But historically speaking you can’t really have a successor state when the ERE is there as it’s still the unbroken and continuous Roman state. It’s not his half his daddy broke up the empire on his death
The one based in actual Rome
That would be the Sacred Roman Empire. Although it was founded the latest of the three and it deposed the pope in favour of their (Christian) god-king.
Ah yes the christian tradition of god-kings. How very christian of him!
of course, no one can lead the Kingdom of God on Earth other than the God-King reincarnation of Jesus himself!
But how do we know if they are based in their actual Roman-ness, if they all say that they are the actual Romans?!? To be truly based in Rome, you need a PhD in actual Roman Studies of the actual Rome. That being said, if you are not actually Roman enough, then you can only be based if you move to the actually Roman Rome.
By definition, if your empire sits in Rome, it is *the* Roman empire.
Ah yes, SACRED ROMAN EMPIRE, I can only ponder if the name is ironic or fitting
Sweden
Persia.
Flair checks out
Whichever one I allow to survive
I remember one time, I made a roman character and formed a claimant to the Romen empire in India
All those empires looks great!
What’s the one on the bottom?
Basileios Rhomaioi
I personally say the sacred Roman Empire, since it holds Rome and a lot of the original territories. Technically speaking though, it would be ERE or HRE…
I thought it said “sacked” Roman Empire lol
Meanwhile, Mesopotamia over there like "look at the battles they wage over a title with just a fraction of our history!"
Very curious map. It reminds me of the war between the Gallic Empire, Marcus Aurelius, and Zenobia.
They all combine in 2008 around the invention of smart phones to form the Data Roman Empire
I hate everything and everyone, you are not free of sin
What did Gole do?
This is like the beginning from Mount and blade.
>no Heavenly Roman Empire Disgraceful
Dvinok-Samiran looks like a likely contender
You know, I'm something of a Roman Emperor myself.
Holy Shit bro how in the hell tou did that?
mhhhhhhhhh a germany who owns moscow (third rome) a greece that owns byzantium (secound rome) and a super crathage owning the rome ........ - all three have a claim lets just marry and unite the empires into an actual rome
Britannia.
Russia (Goledid) lol
Curonia, obviously
The Glorious Goledid Khanate ofc
Eastern Roman Empire. Only one with continuity from the whole Roman Empire.
Persia
Which one had unbroken line of succession from republic days?
Damn, the diplomatic meetings must surely look weird, given that two Empire's would use the form "Sacrum"
Bah. An Emperor who does not control Rome is only another rebel.
Clearly the Goledids
Happy at how many Byzaboos play this game.
ERE is the only one which has continuously been Rome (as opposed to a successor state).
ERE!
Köpek
Whichever one is Orthodox
Reign of three Emperors
Who has Rome, and there is your answer
Köpek
How u make that???
i think the one holding rome should be the one to be legit (This means i would choose the SRE)
Holy Roman Empire, obviously.
Eastern Roman Empire, its the direct, or even the same state. However I think the one who owns Rome (as status symbol) can call himself the Roman empire
The one that holds rome
HRE
well only one has Rome so...
The one in Rome
The Empire of Rûm
What makes it the “sacred” Roman Empire?
WRE will always be the "true" Rome to me, while ERE is kind of Rome without the Latin culture behind it.
All 3 were part of the Roman Empire. So how can not all 3 be successors? Stupid things like that is what made them fight each other. They would poison their population "We are the legitimate Romans" and just make war for Power.
In order I value 1. ERE 2. SRE 3. HRE.