Countries that Claimed to be Ancient Rome 

How is it possible that in every video about Rome nobody even considers italy and greece are almost not even talked in the comments? If the Italians and the Greeks agree someone is their new roman emperor then it would easily become the new most leggitimate heir.

True that

Straight up facts

Now that is true

Yah my opinion is that the Byzantine empire was the last of the romans. Any other claims past that points are just bullshit

Depends on when we're talking. Under Justinian, sure. By the 9th century, nah.

Italy was legitimate. But France, Russia and, especially, Turkey? Nope. Byzantium, eh, maybe. But Turkey? Nope.

Very hard? Insane, you mean. :-P

@@Briselance none of them are really its all Just a larp

@@yoghurtmaster1688 Italy is the most reasonable. We have the pope, Roman monuments, most similar language. Our culture is focused on Rome

@@dariobarboni9276 the pope betrayed the roman empire in favor of the franks and roman monuments are pretty much present throughout europe so yea italy is just italy not this roman larp

That explains why so many PLC kings bore the name "Augustus"

Yep, same as America, France, Venice, Genoa, etc

@@TheLocalLt Idk. Venice and Genoa maybe, but they were merchant republics. French Empire claimed to be sucessor of Roman Empire (which was mentioned in video), French Republic maybe, but It was more of a dictatorship. I haven't heard about America. I heard tho, I'm not sure if it's true, that Commonwealth's system was one of the inspirations for USA, but It would make sense as there were many Poles fighting for their independence. There is even a theory, that US original flag was based on historical polish voivedoship of Sandomierz (the similarities are striking)

@@Pigraider268 forgot to mention Britain of course too. Virtually all (non-Communist) European states, with the exceptions mostly being newer countries, in addition to some non-European states, have claimed or exhibited some kind of significant Roman legacy and are based off of either the Roman Republic or the Roman Empire.

@@TheLocalLt Yes, but that does not make them real sucessors to Rome, does it? Like if you really stretch the definiton, the fact that Taiwan is a republic means that it too is a Roman sucessor state. The majority of the world's countries would be Roman sucessor states.

Me and Z we're tempted to use this shorter name but we didn't! True to Rome!

@@historyrhymes1701 phew I was wander if you haven’t fallen to germ propaganda

yes, it was the Eastern Roman Empire

@@micahistory it wasn’t the Eastern Roman Empire post 476

@@unclesam5230 yes it was

Actually Byzantium did control it for a short time under justinian

@@user-kc8uh9ve4j East Rome is built by Rome. Others were either direct enemies of Rome or never made contact with the original empire. Out of most wannabes only the Germanic tribes met the Romans and again it wasnt a cool relationship. Only East Rome is worth mentioning as a successor state. Others came too late from different tribes and they barely could look like Rome in regards to anything. At least east Rome had similar culture and the legions and so on.

@@user-kc8uh9ve4j i said almost none

@@ivokantarski6220 yes

@@micahistory sorry iread it in hurry my mistake

"When [Lemnos] was taken from the Ottomans by Greece in 1912, Greek soldiers were sent to each village and stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of the island children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. "What are you looking at?" one of the soldiers asked. "At Hellenes," the children replied. "Are you not Hellenes yourselves?" the soldier retorted. "No, we are Romans," the children replied." -Peter Charanis

we turkish cypriots call greek cypriots Rum, the republic of cyprus is often regarded as "rum side" in that case

What a stupid comment, of course they will not understand you if they don't know English. Yunan means greek in Turkish simple as that.

Yes, sultanate of rum

Rum is used for all Byzantine Christians, not specifically to Greeks. A Serb, Armenian or Albanian could be also called rum depending on their integration to Roman society (meaning living in Roman cities and institutions in contrast to their autochthonous lands). Rum literally means Roman but there was a difference between the west and the east. The eastern empire didn’t have a homogeneous latin population and the eastern cultures weren’t crushed by the Romans during their conquest (which is more the case for the western part) so the notion of Roman was an acquired identity for many in the east, resting on top of their own identity. Therefore, the term rum also stuck in the common tongue with people with no actual Roman heritage or lineage. Being an eastern Roman didn’t have to do with ethnic origin, whereas in the west all Romans were, partly or in full, Roman by blood.

YES GERMANY IS HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE!

USA ????????

austria* germany is just Austria Inferior we ruled HRE for 800 years so it makes sense that we should have the claim of the roman empire

@@nocive7381 yes USA subtly winks the eye to people claiming that it is an "empire", of Western type, having the eagle as symbol and world "freedom" as mission.

@@Billswiftgti Also to add, a lot of government buildings in the US follow the Roman Empire style of building, so you could say very well the US does acts like the Roman Empire, just only subtlety

That is a bit of a touchy subject.We really can't know since we don't have enough sources. Though It is likely that Bulgarian control north of the Danube largely diminished by the early 10th century.

@Nova Burebista Relax buddy, you're accusing him of a lot here. It's obvious that you're of Serbian descent, being so stereotypically defensive for no reason. Just ask him why instead of accusing him of falsifying history.

@Nova Burebista You asked him if he changed the map because he doesn't like Serbia. Sorry, but that in my opinion goes over the line. You're (indirectly)"accusing" a historian of being biased. The question was fine, but the way you asked it wasn't.

Exactly.

Nah, they were just a greek little kingdom that was bully by everyone.

@@Ragnarok__ and you just won the price for the most ignorant comment below this video, congrats

@@danielemenichini3930 Ignorant are those who don't understand Roman law

@@Ragnarok__ ignorant is Who call a 1000 years empire/state a Little bullied Kingdom. Lol you claim to be a scholar of Roman law and yet you are referring to the pars orientis as "a Kingdom". Get some good sleep, you Need it

It is a culture interchange, Romans became a little Greek and Greeks became a little Roman

Eastern Roman empire preserved the Roman identity regardless if they dropped latin over the centuries

@@christos3280 yes. Even the late ancient Roman Empire administrators and emperors also spoke Greek even though they were Roman. Greek culture was taking over.

@@christos3280 Yes Romans spoke Greek even though they were Roman, it was considered the language of drama, science, math and medicine. About Res Publica though, they spoke Latin. Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, all educated Romans spoke Greek as their FIRST language during their childhood. It is all history you can look it up.

@@christos3280 and now we both speak English while we know Greek.

Also north macedonia

@@filtchev.thy_drunk and Spain.

@@zyanego3170 i did not know that spain has claimed to be descended of the roman empire thanks for the info

@@filtchev.thy_drunk The Eastern Roman Emperor sold his title to the King of Spain before the fall of Constantinople.

@@zyanego3170 interesting

Italians have both the blood and motherland claim. Culture in Spain, Portugal and France is actually quite similar to the Italian one as the Italians, having colonized those lands for centuries, have also left the strongest footprint over there.

Also Spain was like Rome but never claimed to be like it. Building cities,.roads, hospitals, ports, forts, castles, universities, schools, factories, protoindustries, churches, cathedrals, dictionaries about indigenous languages first than English and French about their ones. Gave.citizenship to indigenous people that had the same rights as any Spanish ( ofc not.in XVI but ending the century). There were interracial marriages, free slaves being college professors Like Juan Latino

Russia also had a decent claim up until 1917 as all descendants of Ivan the Great were also descended from the last emperor, they were also for centuries the largest Orthodox power

@@ajcamp420 we could say that Russian emperor were descendent from the imperial family of eastern Roman empire, and Spain bought the tittle, it is said that french king bought first but some sources says the king died before the transaction was completed so that is why the dude with those tittles sold them to the Catholic kings

But the Ottoman sultan also married a Byzantine Princess, so they had as much of a claim as Russia had, at least until the Sultan was removed from power after World War 1.

Yep. These countries were curved up from old Roman territories.

And with this, we are done.

you kind have a point but Europe today has zero similarities with Rome. all this liberalism and equality created a whole new culture. I would say that Rome culture truly fell into WWI. It was already in decay but that was the final blow

Bruh, "European civilization" doesn't exist, there is no actual unifying entity between every single European country, unless we consider the EU, which is very much in infancy and controversial as it is.

Do greek civilization come from roman civilization?

Zaten Roma içten bozulurken düştü!(476)

@@abdulhakimsaid9264 the fuck. Who said that?

Beautifully said. Roma aeterna victrix

but the ottoman 1453 put an end to eastern roman on may 29th

@@muratbozan1588...On dit:"Byzance apres Byzance!!!"Ne pas oublier!/Derler:"bizans bizansdan sonra...Vesselâm!

well it was a tiny city state in crimea which was completely surrounded by genoese crimea and had no access to the sea so i dont see them making a very good claim

I am Turkish and “Mehmet the Conqueror” always called himself as “Kayser-i Rum”, which translates to “Roman Emperor”, rather than “Ottoman Sultan” after he took Constantinople.

@@denizbeytekin9853 yeah but nobody recognized that title and im pretty sure the sultans after him didnt claim it

Roman empire is the only one empire able to reunites Western Europe of Latin culture, Eastern Europe of Greek culture, and Christianity, Roman Empre was the standard that no other nation able to challenge its domination, after the fall of Western Roma empire, no coutry can reunited allthe West,

latin culture is roman culture, modern italians still have latin blood, greek culture is another culture, they do not deserve the title of “heir of rome” instead they deserve “usurpers of rome”

@@machtvonhre8979 Says the german romanised "barbarian"

And Greece 🇬🇷

What an insult to Rome.

@@alexanderi1183 eastern rome 😇 Western rome 😕

Phew

Rip Basil II getting slandered to this day

@Basil the 2nd of Macedon - the Vardaska slayer The whole world knows that Samuil was bulgarian, so...

Good comment Greek. Khan Krum has decided he won't turn your skull into a cup today.

Well, he was.

Yes, I bet he had latin blood too, as modern italians are the descendants of rome

@@Tortellobello45 No he wasn't. He is born exactly one year after France took effective control of Corsica, after the Genoese sold it to them.

@@duxromanorum9861 Berdanotte was a french général of the empire, so your comparison have no sens, plus he his one of the greatest treacherous to the fatherland. Napoléon is just a french

What a great itaian he would be hahaha He despised italians en saw them as weak and feminine

Indeed!

The Italians more so. 100%, even. They can literally change their name back to Rome, and it would be legitimate. We never founded Rome, however. We were conquered by it, but we ended up ruling it for over a thousand years. So, it's debatable that we are the heirs of Rome. I can go either way on that subject.

@UCbVrOO6dGsFg5NQTexZ61_Q we founded new rome. Ferthermore Greeks was only different ethnicity that had right to use the rome titles even in classical rome.

Okay clearly you didnt hear the arguments used and you are discrediting this good video Rome used to be pagan it changed its religion once it could so twice not that i believe the ottomans are heirs neither do i believe the greeks , Italians on the other hand with the Visigothic, Lombar and Frankish invasions and even prior germanic settlement is 100000% roman you are correct and i remeber how Caesar and Augustus said if they are not christians then they are not romans 100% fact . Rome was an idea take your genetic and Christian purity ideas and burn them just like the romans did btw. Rome is an Idea not a nationality but having said that Byzantium was the only true successor but after that so many things changed that claiming a single state 2000 years later is a true claimant is silly even the greeks can agree that in 600 years since they were conquered so much changed that its almost impossible to claim successorship to Rome.it is an immortal idea that lives everywhere in the world

@@ismailsafavi1611 Rome wasn't idia Rome was the result of of Hellenic and Italian tribes and their way of life.( Genetical are almost the same). Way of life of Science and high Culture. Even under 200-600 years (dipens the area) under ottoman empire the most of Greeks never lose their traditions their religion and their culture. Modern Greek have the same religion the same costumes the same tradition the same Names and they live almost in the same area with Byzantine Romans. T the same exist olso for western rome. The empire failed but the people are the same and they keep their tradition . At greek revolution war of 1821 , French generals ask Greek General Kolokotronis to make capitulation with Ottoman Sultan. He answer : my king (K.Paleologos 1453) never surrendered . He did not surrend the nation to anyone. I do not have the right to do that either This is an example of continuation.

Yeah, but andreas palailogos also sold the title to France, so it's not that valid

This comment Doesnt make any damn sense lol that's not how you decide who's something's heir. Ps: the heir of the roman Empire Is the whole west, but if you want to appoint a nation to be it that would be Italy for geographic/cultural reasons

Italy merged from the barbaric invasion (ostrogoths,langobards etc) and is on some sense germanic. So why it is italy? That make no sense. Greeks otherwise called themselves before 100 years as romans and "Romios" was the term of the ethnic greek. Greece has by the far the biggest claim

@@Sendo664 yeah lets ignore the 500+ years of ottoman domination of Greece lol seriously how could be Greece, Just look at their language, modern greek Is the son of ancient greek, It has nothing to do with latin. Of course greek called themselves romans, they were romans de iure After the third century ad as well as gallic/britannic tribes inside the limes of the empire. The fact that the greek province Just survived more centuries Doesnt make It the heir. Romans called Italy "rectrix mundi", It wasnt a province, It was the domina of all provinces. Ostrogothic and longobardic Kingdom are called roman-barbaric kingdom. If Italy Is germanic (and It Is in a certain %) because of barbaric domination, then greek Is ottoman

@@danielemenichini3930 i like to compare the roman empire with canada on this case. Canada isnt full english according to culture and language but also french. Lets say the english part of canada will not exist anymore in the future for whatever reason but the french part of it survive and speak only french. Will french canadians not be canadians because the main english part dont exist anymore? Thats the case with the roman empire. The roman empire was divided linguisticly and cultural in 2 parts. The latin west and the greek east. The west felt and the east survived. It doesnt matter how the roman empire started but i understand your argumentation and i dont say its fully nonesense. I think italy could be claimant from the western roman empire while greece from the eastern part. I think thats the most reasonable solution. But yeah. I dont say it to disrespect italy or italians. But western european countries emerged from the barbarian invasion. Its a historical fact

@@Sendo664 nice point but latin kept to be the official language of the pars orientis for 2 centuries After the fall of the west, at that days greek was like nowadays english, the language that everyone (more or less) could understand and speak. The official language change was a (tipical) pragmatic Roman choice. For exemple lets look at the religion, when you think about the roman one you think at the christians or at the olimpic gods? Rome officially changed religion in the IV century but at his summit It was italic and pagan. I see greeks more as the heirs of the glorious city state and makedonians

Romania the funny wannabe. It doesnt deserve to be called after Rome. It never deserved.

@@ivokantarski6220 Russia is the actual wannabe, since it has no ties to Rome. Romania has linguistic, historical and cultural ties to both Rome and Byzantium.

@@vranceanknight4212 Russian rulers did have dynastic connection to Roman emperors. Meanwhile Romania was backyard of Turks lol. If not for Russia, Romania never exist as independent state from Turkey.

@@duxromanorum9861 as a Bulgarian what I know is the Russian army didnt manage to conquer that rectangular shaped defence in south Dobrugea. I dunno. It wouldve been ugly if they were the 1s who took it. Technically its them who helped us get free but once we heared of the San Stefano map that instantly became the big dream. Other than that area the Russian army was enjoying much freedom. The local Bulgarian population was on their side. Russia was a bit greedy tbh. So big and wanted more. They shouldve given you Moldova and let us have Dobrugea. After all we are the 1s to border the Ottomans for the future. A few hundred thousand inhabitants more wouldnt be bad. Through Romanian situation against the third most populated European based power A&H wasnt good either. The Balkan league dude if only we didnt had these German kings. Tf full of them in our area. Imagine even Romania in Balkan union. By 1916 the first world war be over. The Ottomans be lucky to capture Odrin. In order to make large offences there they would need to leave other regions which would get flooded by Russian hordes or the British hordes in the middle east. A&H barely pushed Serbia until Bulgaria and Germamy steped in. Bulgaria specially flanking and completely screwing up the Serb efforts. Imagine if Serbia instead of being flanked could receive half a million entente soldiers even earlier.

@@duxromanorum9861 did u just call Bulgarians Tatars? Tho that area definately had more Turks than Bulgarians. Some regions gotta be fair the Turks managed to outnumber us. I think if the Russians tried to make us both bigger then we could both strike better at their opponents. Giving Romania the Dobrugean land was a mistake. Truth be told I understand the logic that they have to earn something directly for themselves in this war. Cant just free some1 and make another 1 bigger and that's it. Through in the long terms it couldve paid well. Russia did bet on Serbia too much. Shouldve bet on Bulgaria as Bulgarians were far more likely to be useful. Serbia is on the other side of geography. We are closer to the Ottoman capital so if we allied then big army can turn up to the Ottoman capital and that be the end of that stupid struggle we all experienced. The best thing was to not start a second Balkan war. Our German king ordered the army to go. Romania interfered and then got schooled in 1916 by less numerous Bulgarian force. Shouldnt have been that way. The Danude shouldve been the fine border between us. Simple as that. Again. If Balkan union was together in ww1 the war be ending 2 years earlier. The Ottoman state falls in a year due to lack of man power and defences collapsing and large army turns into A&H along with the Romanian army not being over run like in real history. So A&H be facing a lot of soldiers by 1916. It definitely was a relief it didnt had to bother with Serbia. That area wouldve become full of Entente troops. A&H was the underbelly of Germany. It was a push over and that proven since Russia itself managed to best it in occasions.

And from there on, Romans slowly started calling themselfs what they really were : Hellenes

What bloodline? Heraclius was a usurper.

@@Epicrandomness1111 yes he was however his usurping reason was to save the empire from the more worster usurper:phocas usually after he defeated the sassanids and his ass beaten down by rashidun invasions he changed it to a new religion and reformed the eastern roman empire into a hellenic empire which made it worst also the bloodlines are too many

@@nestormakepontos9700 True, Romans called themselves Italians again.

True. Normally bosnia is just drawed as annexed by the serbian empire which is wrong.

Lol serbian empire xD

@@Bleilock1 it is called the serbian empire. It is a historic fact

@@bosanski_Cevap just by serbs xD

@Skanderbeg LMFAO you're a living joke 😂

Spain: The critically claimed sequel

No. Mongols cannot be Rome

How? Tell me right how Charlemagne marrying Irene would reunite the Empires? •Irene was too old to have kids, •unpopular and would be deposed within a couple years, •Charlemagne already had heirs and Gavelkind inheritance. •The Franks lost against the Byzantines at Venice, they have no way to project power in Constantinople or guarantee Irene’s control on the throne. • The Byzantines would never recognize him as Emperor Etc etc worst Alternate history scenario for reunited Rome. Otto III having kids with Zoe(Basil IIs niece) before he dies would mean more than that scenario.

@@tylerellis9097 Calm down bro, it didn't say it could have happened, I said Charlemagne and some Eastern Romans considered this to be an option for a time. And yes , it would have reunited the Empire, at least for a moment. If it didn't happen in the end, there's a reason

@@ophis181 Irene considered it, her courtiers stopped it from happening. Ask yourself right now how a marriage would work, how would he get to Constantinople or vice versa? How does a marriage equal a reunited empire? You post this meme alternate history scenario without actually knowing the history and it’s cringe bro.

@@ophis181 the Frankish Empire wasn't even a legitimate succesor to the Western Roman Empire. Just like Voltaire noted on the HRE: it wasn't Holy, it wasn't Roman, it wasn't even an Empire.

@@themysteriousstranger798 Indeed, and that's why they never reunited the Empire.

The Eastern Roman Empire had already fallen at that point, the position of emperor was defunct.

A sold title doesnt mean shit

The Byzantines wanted to prevent the Ottomans from taking their place. And France has always been jealous of the Habsburg emperors.

That would be almost as big pile of mess as the original one was

Disagree. How about Bulgaria taking its land back and all else shut up? Gosh if the leo wakes up again next time neighbours be receiving the ars whopping of their life.

Its like you took every bad alt history idea and mix it into one thing

Nobody seems to understand your sarcasm

have you read the comics? none of the rulers of the so-called Spanish Empire was Roman, go and look at their origins .. and the Spaniards have never been Romans but Iberians .. Romans are Italic

Not only that, but Spain also had the strongest legal argument as well. If there was one thing that Romans valued most, it was law and order.

@bryanvillafuerte765 so ? Spanish have nothing in commoun whit romans-italics

What do you expect from a Bulgarian mapper?

@@kasadam85 lmao yeah my boys Ottomans get a lot of hate especially from the Balkans but they were as imperial as it gets. Mehmed was an enlightened man and a true Ceasar. It's a shame that the so-called Suleiman the Magnificent couldn't live up to his ancestors' might and wisdom.

@handri i emperorship is something that can be conquered. this happened numerous times throughout history. emperors can be deposed and coups had been made. the right to role, imperium as it was known, was acquired through conquest and blade right. mehmet controlled constantinople (aka nova roma aka new rome) and had every right to proclaim himself caesar and he did just that

Turkey like to rpetend to be suessor of eveyrone, from Rome, Caliphate to Huns, but they ignore their Anatolian ancestor Hittite Empire,

I mean like, as far as claims go my opinion is that theirs is the best one. Not a good one, but the best one

Catholics just destroyed Constantinople while the Ottomans have completely rebuild it in better

@@haouuu4996 yeah, the ottomans were 102928219% not barbarians with horses and bows. you were a steppe tribe. there is no way in hell you could build walls better than romans. (Specifically latins, not greeks)

@@machtvonhre8979 We can see that the wall was very useful ;)

Yes orhan bey had married a Byzantine princess Theodora and her son sultan Murad became the next ruler after him

And he was crowned by the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, who had the authority and crowned all the previous Roman Emperors.

@@user-jf6yv8rj2s the patriarch was and had always had been an imperial puppet..... well another point for the ottomans!

@@Boretheory I don't think he was a puppet. He was given the title of the "chief" of Rum-Millet. Which I think was something like, he had the high authority over all the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire.

@@Oscar-us6sv yeah true, central asian oghuz Turks look like Atatürk a man with blue eyes and blond hair.

@Tom K That's correct, at least in English. In Turkish we don't even make that distinction because until the 19th century Türk meant specifically Turkic, and the urban Turkish speakers of Anatolia and the Balkans simply called themselves Muslims. So, after the nationalization process that whole business of who is Turkish has gotten very confusing.

@Tom K No. At least not exactly. Greeks have this partially misinformed understanding that the coastal Anatolia, or "western Turkey" as they often refer to it, is culturally and demographically similar to Greece and the eastern regions of Anatolia are alien and strange, to make sense of an already confusing and intricate situation. But that's not the case. The entire peninsula was equally Hellenized before the fall of Rome and in fact, most of the Turkic tribes who migrated to Anatolia settled in the Inner Aegean as it best fit their pastoral lifestyle. So if anything the western Turks are more Turkic. This confusion is reinforced by the fact that most Balkan refugees during the collapse of the Ottomans were settled in the Aegean, and they look much more European naturally. But not because theyre Greeks. (Mind you, I say this not to refute that the genetics of modern Turkey are heavily Roman/Greek, but the myth of Western Turkey and so on) If you are very interested, you can check out a video I've posted a while ago of my genetics. I'm half Macedonian immigrant, half from Kemah, Erzincan, right on the eastern border of Anatolia. Today the lands beyond it are also falsely referred to as Anatolia, but I try to use the term in its proper historical and geographical meaning.

@ That's right. You are half Macedonian immigrant. In Western or coastal Turkey, in 1923 after the population exchange, between Greece and Turkey, the immigrants have settled mostly in this area. For my opinion, the ancestors of all these people, had diverted to Muslim, probably centuries ago. But religion of course can't diverse the blood line. That is another reason for my opinion, why people of Western Turkey are more close to Greeks.

It wasn't a cultural successor. Much of the "arguments" are rooted in old tales and mysticism, not in factual, historical information. All Ivan the 3rd did was to marry a niece of the former Byzantine Emperor, and just that. Years after the death of Ivan, his son would die childless, marking the end of the Rurik Dynasty.

EU4 simp lol

It had literally zero Connection to Roman Empire except its ruler marriage with exiled illegitimate head of Paliologoi family

Bro Russia Just claming Rome because they are Orrhodox. But being an Orthodox doesnt make Russia successor of Rome.

@@jonijoestar6871 cyrillic vestiment infreastructure headed eagle dinasty paliologos incons virgin marie originally constantinople traslation in moskva kremlin vladimir the great contact constantinople sons and ivan iii y zoe 😊

A someone who has studied roman history for years, I feel like Greece does have its own claim. Eastern Rome literally lasted a millennium. Constantinople had long been the capital of the Roman world. The multicultural empire that Rome became shifted east throughout it's existence. This started as early as Mark Antony who seized the East knowing its potential. The only reason people distance Greece or Istanbul from the Roman legacy is the events of the 20th century. After Greece's defeat in the Greco-Turkish war, ideas of restoring "Basileía Rhōmaíōn" died out and there was a concerted effort to look at Greece as an Athenian style "Hellenic Republic" The fact that the west discounts a thousand years of of Roman rule in the middle ages (which is frankly the only reason western civilization survived to become what it is) is honestly a travesty and the fact that it took video games to introduce me to the "Byzantines" is just wild.

Rome influenced Europe as much as the Greeks influenced the Romans

Finally someone gets it you don't have nothing roman only Istanbul i must respect you

Yeah I've heard that a Paleologian exile sold the title

@@historyrhymes1701 He also sold it to the french

wrong

@@МихаилъДроздовскій gr*eks can argue how much they want about “heir of rome” but the romans weren’t greek. They were latin. modern italians have latin descendants, so they are romans. Go cry about turks taking your precious constantinople somewhere else

@@machtvonhre8979 oh Greeks can claim since Italy belonged to Greeks centuries before romans arrived to Italy Greeks had magna Grecia also romans were Greeks mix etruscans also rome was not longer the capital of Roman empire Constantinople was the official capital and Greeks were present in the western Anatolia for thousands of years since the ancient ionia so romans barely had any influence over there

🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷

@Tom K Mehmet II. didn't change the name of the city. It was still called Constantinople or Konstantiniyye (in Turkish) those days. The city's name was changed to İstanbul by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk a whopping 5 centuries later in 1930. Please learn your history before you spew out false information.

@Tom K And the word İstanbul is a Greek word too. The name was changed because more people referred the city as İstanbul as opposed to Constantinopolis in the 20th century and people are the most important part of the city so using what they refer to it as the official name is logical.

👏👏👏

@Tom K Most of the time its about nationalism. Turks think calling city as Constantinople is accepting superiorty of Greece. Greeks thing calling them as the names Turks use(which is also Greek) is a accepting of Turkish superiorty. Honestly as a Turkish its dont matter for me calling cities. Edirne/Adrianapol , İzmir/Smyrni etc... Also Fun fact: First football team created in Turkey was from İzmir and its name was Smyrni F.C. .

@bryanvillafuerte765 how, that title ended in 475 ad

You gotta topple who's on top to take his place you know

face the truth, GREEK IS NOT ROMAN. IN ANYWAY SHAPE OR FORM.

@@machtvonhre8979 too sad my ancestors byzantine called themselves Romans

@@machtvonhre8979 "Holy Roman Empire" 🤣🤣, fastest joke ever said.

@@OLYMPIANgreek If a Nigerian calls himself Hans, does it make him German?

True

🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷

@@haouuu4996 Turkey is the thing I eat at Thanksgiving.

@@thetrolluminati9714 this joke will never be funny, as a matter of fact the doer often embarrasses himself.

Actually, since the ancestry of the ottoman dynasty was byzantine, the second sultan of the ottoman, Orhan Gazi was married to the Bisan princess Thedore, so in fact, all the sultans from Orhan Gazi had a Byzantine ancestry

Byzantine Empire is inable to claim the whole legacy of Roman Empire, especially when they lose Italy and Rome, and have other concurrent like Frank Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Rus, Ottomans... Byzantine Empire is just like the Shu Han factionof Liu bei in Chinese Three kingdom period,

@@Emilechen nobody thinks of Frankish Empire or holy Roman Empire as anything related to roman empire. After western roman empire fell, the eastern roman emperor abolished the division of the empire and unified the empire again and legitimised under Justinian after which then held Rome for 2 centuries. There was nothing called Byzantine Empire. It is just a lame attempt by Western historians to discredit the Roman empire

@@southpole4776 i think that we don't need to be so obsessed with the fact that who is the real sucessor of Roman Empire, because after th fall of Western Roman Empire, there are no anymore Empire able to reunited all the West, today, the Western World is divided in 3 powerhouses: US, EU and USSR/Russia, if one day, a country or an organization able to reunite Western and Eastern Europe, even Amercias, reunite Germanic, Latin, Greek and Slaic peoples, Catholicism and Orthidox, we can qualify it as the real successor of Roman Empire, in China, they dont care which of the Three kingdoms is the real sucessor of Han Empire, as long as you are inable to reunite China and make it as stong as the past, this kind of claim makes non sense, so finally, the Dynasty considered as legitimate suessor of Han Empire is not Cao Wei or Shu Han, but Tang Dynasty, so even Frankish Empire is not qualified to be successor of Roman Empire, as long as Eastern Roman Empire is inable to subjugate the Franks and take back the control of Rome, neither of the are qualified,

@@Emilechen doesn't change the reality that roman empire was in one piece until 1453.

@@southpole4776 in my opinion, Byzantine Empire is like later Ommeyade Caliohate in Spain or Republic of China in Taiwan,

Slovenians were a small population, the majority of Slavic populace in HRE was in modern East Germany and also Czechs

The Ottoman Empire did include the Romans and the Rum Millet and the ultimate ruler of all the subjects was the Sultan so in a sense the Sultan was the ruler of the Romans, though I wouldn't call him a Roman Emperor

@@Geo07ism Thats your christian bias speaking, the first Roman empire was pagan the second was christian why can't the third be muslim? even then, the ottoman empire resembled the byzantines in some regards, court intrigue, powerful elite military forces who were king-makers(janissaries/Varangians). Sure, their origin was "alien" , being a turkic beylik with a semi-nomadic past. but they eventually resembled the byzantines more than their turkic cousins in central asia.

@@Chachy1337 I'm not Christian and the only reason the Ottoman Empire resembled the Byzantine is because it drew from its culture as it conquered its land and people. The Ottomans started off as nomads, they obviously didn't have city culture.

@@Geo07ism ottoman Empire was heavily hellenised.

@@Chachy1337 I dont know maybe because the real and actual legit ruler that have claim to Roman throne that is Roman Emperor Theodosius was actually really officially declared christianity to be the state religion and not conquer kingdom declared their religion to be the state religion just because they conquer the land, by the logic that Ottoman have right because they rule the land of Eastern Roman is just like saying Visigoth and Charlemagne to be the successor because their conquer and rule Western Roman land the land where all of Roman history begun. So there are not no one that actually a real succesor of Roman Empire, it not Holy Roman Empire, not Spain, not Ottoman, not Tsar, and also not French because there are no legit Roman Emperor that ever proclaimed them to be the succesor. But if Ottoman have made Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos to proclaim them to be his succesor that will be different story because thats mean Ottoman really under a legit official ruler of Roman empire being proclaim as it succesor but as far we know thats never happen.

@Koda lmao yes

So Hungary falls?

Not true only Italian's

No. Only Latins and Greeks.

@@gurcuball6193 ethnically yes Culturally not only them ( I meant Central and West Europe) Scandinavia and East Europe (Ukraine, Belearus and Russia) ain't tho

Yes, if the question were: who has the lowest demands.

but the Greeks know that they no longer have anything to do with the descendants of the Byzantines or Romans, by now you are more Turks, in any case you have worse problems to think about, such as disruptive debt, at most you can represent the Roman Empire in the last years of decline lol, especially after Constantinople is still in Turkish hands by the way

@@carlvonclausewitz3027 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rNUsOaB5V2c.html 💕

Huh?

@@chickenman6308 hmm the comment glitched or something but I just fixed it

Bunch of bullshit: written ✅

you are latin, purely latin. do not be tricked by these germanic, greek, and turkic usurper. You are italian. The blood of rome flows through your vein. You are roman.

@@machtvonhre8979 lmao, yea right

@Kool Koala You didn’t call yourself Roman you called yourself ottomans, because the patriarch(which you threaten) named your barbar leader emperors of the Roman’s that doesn’t make you Roman, that the same as the Germans and their “Holy Roman Empire” with the pope

Destroyer Of Rome is a better title because it sounds more cool.

@@birisi916 Makes more sense. Plus then Britain and Russia could claim the titles of the Avengers of Rome.

@@TheZombiesReanimated Russia I understand, but why Britain also?

@@NovaAstartes Because Britain and Russia among other european nations contributed to destroying the Ottoman Empire, who destroyed the Byzantine Empire, IE: the Roman Empire.

Define what qualifies at "Roman" in your eyes first. What does "De-romanize" mean? Are you confusing Roman-ness with christian-ness ?

Hot take but kinda maybe could make sense

they have germany, and sweden. Rome didnt have them. EU is not rome.

Actually, the capital wasn't 'moved' to constantinople He simply created a whole other senate and Constantinople functioned as a co-capitol When justinian reclaimed Rome he established this co-capitol system again, until he lost rome.

Political tokens don't hold a candle to national and cultural legitimacy.

No Byzantine is also garanda belong us Byzantine empire

Yeah, it's kinda funny if you look at it All Ivan the 3rd did was to marry a niece of the last Byzantine emperor. His son would eventually die without any children, marking the end of the 700 year old Rurik Dynasty, of which Ivan was a member. And with Turkey? Wellll, even after the fall of Constantinople, there were small states that formally succeded the Byzantine Empire. Many of these states were led by relatives of the last emperor 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 The last important small state would fall in 1475.

@@themysteriousstranger798 epyrus :"(

@@themysteriousstranger798 I mean. Yeah Turkey was not successor of Rome But definitely has more connection with Rome than Russia ,Germany or Slavs.