um, historians acknowledge that teh byzantine empire was roman.  for historians the fact that rome was used for the whole of the empire meant that they could not use the term again because then it would get confusing.

thats what i think of it.

and the holy roman empire was not roman at all, nor were they the heirs. so i go with byzantine.

Read my old post here:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8671&PN=2 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8671& ;PN=2

I don't quite get what your saying. Roman republican values had died out three centuries before the Christianization of the Empire under Constantine and his successors. Roman imperial values continued under the Byzantines. Many scholars date the end of a truly "Roman" empire to Heraclius.

After the Christianization of the Empire the Church was structured according to a policy of accomodation, wherein the Church organized itself according to the political structure of the Empire (Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, 29). Thus, the development of the papal primacy represents a break from the tradition of "Roman" ecclesiastical government, not a continuation. Don't see how it matters much, though, as Christian values were not traditional Roman values, as Julian the Apostate often lamented.

-Akolouthos

The Roman see did, indeed, base its structure according to certain Roman principles of government, both political and ecclesiastical. The eastern patriarchs did as well. The difference between the two is that in the East the sacerdotium and the regnum were divided, while in the West the Roman Church gradually united them in the person of the Bishop of Rome. This evolution was gradual, and wasn't fully realized until the 8th-11th centuries, at which point the papacy began trying to enforce claims of universal ecclesiastical jurisdiction on its sister Patriarchal sees.

Though many organizations and states claimed to be continuations of the Roman era, the only political descendant of Rome that could claim an unbroken link was the Byzantine Empire. Thus, Herschel is correct in stating

-Akolouthos

I guess you don't see the Catholic Church as a political entity...

A point . Alexander Borgia and Julius II definitely did.

-Akolouthos

So did Constantine The Great. And Gregory I. And VII. And Urban II. And Innocent III... And so on....

How could such a good-general--Nicephorus Phocas--be such a bad diplomat .

-Akolouthos

Only the Byzantine empire. The "Holy Roman Empire" was one German Empire and this empire is founded many years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The western state fall, but the eastern state survive. And the Eastern Roman empire was found of the romans themselves! And moreover - in the first centuries of the existing of the Byzantine empire the official language of the imperator court and of the empire was the latin language. The early byzantine law was the law of the Ancient Roman empire, but with a christian influence.

And this is interesting to me: When the Byzantine empire(the imperator court) becomes more greek than latin - after the arab-muslim invasion or before this invasion? When the greek language become an official language in the Byzantine empire?

What makes them able to claim political inheritance? Greeks can only claim cultural and religious inheritance from Byzanthines, but political is definately for Turks, not others...

Originally posted by Bashibozuk What makes them able to claim political inheritance? Greeks can only claim cultural and religious inheritance from Byzanthines, but political is definately for Turks, not others...

Come on. Though it is debatable who "inherited" the traditions of the Romans, one group who demonstrably did not is the Turks.

-Akolouthos

Yes, that`s right.

Charles couldn't prevent it from happening.  The troops were unpaid, and that was starting to be the biggest early modern problem.  Wars became lengthy and destructive; ways to pay for them became the largest problem of the sixteenth century, other than the Reformation.

For several reasons, I think the Sack of Rome was one of the most important events since 1500.  It was not a "decisive" battle, and there were no great documents or historic noble intentions, but it was a big determining event in how the sixteenth century developed.

The Reformation was the largest social/intellectual factor of the century, but close behind was the way in which war changed...and how that shaped Europe.

The Easterh Roman Empire have been founded by the romans themselves. And not just "founded" - it was the eastern half of the ancient Roman Empire. The Western half fall in 4th september 476 year. The Eastern half fall in 1453 year. In 29 may 1453 year Constantinople was captured and the last byzantine emperor was killed.  That`s all.

The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation(Latin -  Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicae) have been founded in 962 year. This was one political state with very different SOCIETY than the ancient Roman Empire. I think that it will be similar, if someone found today some empire with a title like: "Great Roman Empire of some Nation" or other title of that sort...

2. It was quite general that a medieval country used Latin as official language.

2. You are right, but being a catholic country is far from being the new Roman Empire.

I have never speak about the hellenistic east, I spoke about the Byzantine Empire as a state, a structure of power and political traditions.

By the way ancient Rome was also greatly influenced by Greek culture.

This is a good point. Infact in the East they considered themselves as Romans even after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. In the West not even in Italy from the Middle Ages on they considered themselves as "Romans" but as Italians or "Latins" in the sense of "(Neo)latin-speaking" people, with the exceptions of the inhabitants of the region "Romagna" (near Ravenna) and, of course, of the city of Rome.