It is (in my personal opinion) very interesting matter. Many emperors of Holy Roman Empire wanted to rebulid the power of old, ancient empire.  This dream ended on Germany (of course this german empire still was called "Holy Roman Empire", and had also parts of France and Italy) But there was so many chances - during the regin of Charlemagne, or Byzantine emperor Justinian... why the popes done nothing?

What do you think - there was really chance to ressurect the Roman empire in middle ages? Even if, how it will "look"? I wait for your comments.

PS. Sorry, if my english isn't perfect.

Perhaps you're right. But I think, that many of medival monarchs had such ambition.

Yes, but anyway Charlemagne bacame a somebody like western emperor. There was big conflict after that - who is the truly roman emperor? Byzantine, or Holy Roman?

I heard about planned marriage of Charlemagne and daughter of Byzantine emperor - but pope stopped this marriage, because he affraid, that emperor of new empire will be too strong.

Originally posted by Degredado The Catholic Church is the Roman Empire. And that is a fact!

I completely agree, but unfortunately the both of us are the only ones that know this secret!

Originally posted by Temujin Originally posted by Degredado The Catholic Church is the Roman Empire. And that is a fact! I completely agree, but unfortunately the both of us are the only ones that know this secret!

Wait, according to the Turks, wasn't the Eastern Orthodox Church the Roman Empire (i.e. Rum)?  To be more specific, the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople?

Hmmmmmm, Byzantium had a single continuous inheritance of Emperorship dating back to Augustus, not something the Franks could ever equal. The Pope arrogated the right to bestow the title with the aid of a shameless forgery (The Donation of Constantine). The move to crown C. Roman Emperor was the Pope's way of bringing into Italy a stabilising force who, or so he very much hoped, would faithfully serve him in gratitude for receiving the title. The tradition of Emperorship continued uninterrupted and in its ancient form until as late as 1461 for the Byzantines, the concept died and was resurrected in a bizarre chronology first in France and then in Germany without a great deal of consistency.

But basically the question you are asking is whether the Roman Empire could have been resurrected in its ancient territorial form. Historians often look down on Byzantium while praising the earlier Roman Empire for the territorial limitations of the two. Quite simply this is unfair, early Imperial Rome existed in a very different world from Byzantium. The fact that Byzantium managed to exist as a state as long as it did and typically maintain such high sophistication compared to its neighbours is very praiseworthy in such an unstable and violent age of history. Personally I believe that had Byzantium instituted something similar to the theme system it could have recaptured areas such as North Africa and Italy and held them. But as I said the world was very different for Byzantium compared to earlier, they no longer possessed such a massive technological and organisational advantage over their enemies as the ancient Romans and had to be more pragmatic. If you are thinking of Byzantium expanding all the way back to Britain then that is getting too ambitious, the inability of any one state to rule an area as large as the ancient Roman Empire is proven well enough by the fact that up until Napoleon no one ever managed to even come close to reigning over so many former territories.

Good observation, I agree.  However, would you consider the Pronoia system that was instituted in the late period an extension of the Theme System of the 8th century, or was Pronoia a way for the later emperors to  keep some kind of standing army in the face of a faltering economy?

While the Catholic Church is theoretically the continued Roman Empire because of its ruling seat in Rome, the Roman Empire as a political entity has not had a chance to be resurrected since the fall of Constantinople. The Byzantines actually had several chances to resurrect Rome as a political entity. Justinian tried to do it by conquest, Basil II tried to do it through marriage and politics, but all ultimately failed.

To a smaller extent, the Abbasid caliphate, having in their possession many former Roman provinces, also saw themselves as an heir to the Greco-Roman legacy.

Originally posted by Degredado The Catholic Church is the Roman Empire. And that is a fact!

 WAS APART OF the Roman Empire. Today it is a dying legacy with little substance to even survive let alone expand.

 Thank god for  Napoleon !

 The Holy Roman Empire Napoleon encountered was a shambles, to quote somebody whos name escapes me "it was nor roman nor holy nor an empire" or something like that.

 The empire after the fall of Constantinople is alive in Russia, its heritage is anyway, Moscow the third Rome continued the legacy.

i dont think they by any means Saw themselves as an heir to the Greco-Roman lagacy

The Umayyad are the once who completed the conquer of north Africa but the main Attacks against the Roman empire was before the Umayyad it was at the time of the 3rd Caliph.

even so they didnt consider them selfs as as hier to others Legacy as far as i know.

and about the topic which Roman Empire you are talking about? at which period? Eastern or Western or when they used to be one empire? i think it was largest in 300 AD?

Rome was alive in Russia until 1917, when the emperor and his family were killed.  Today it lives on only in poetic references regarding the EU, which is undergoing a bit of a "fall" of its own.

Rome was a cultural inheritance of centuries. It wasnt related with ethnicities, religions (pagan, Christian, Muslim) etc.

Byzanthine Empire was the second Rome, Ottoman Empire (Kayser-i Rums, Roman Caesars) was the third. Russian Empire (Tzsars- Caesars) was the fourth Rome, and USA is the final one.

here we go again!

Byzantine empire was considered to be "second Rome" because it has maintained Roman structures to an extended degree and because it was seen as the continuation or Rome in it's line of Emperors. Ottoman empire had nothing to do with Roman admin and Law structures, so I won't even comment on this unfounded viewpoint. Russia was called (by the Russians themselves) as "Third Rome" only to emphasize their claims to Constantinople and ultimatelly to ensure exit to the Mediterranean. Plus they had the same religion as the Byzantines. USA, the final one? No comment on that either...

To claim the Ottoman empire is the 3rd Rome is frankly laughable, and really deserves to to be ignored. Not to menion America, Ill never know where you got that one from.

 Moscow is the Third Rome because Byzantine survivors from Constantinople etc fled to the Orthodox Russians tot he north and brought their culture and art with them. Not to mention the niece (I believe it was his neice anyway) of Constantine XI married the Russian leader.

I didn't mean to imply that Russia was in fact a "third Rome," only that the Czar's adopted much of what they could from Constantinople including religion, architecture, and of course the title of Caesar.  However, Russia, at the time, lacked the sophistication, education, technological prowess, social structures, and culturual development of the Byzantines.  The Ottomans, or at least their conquered subjects, managed these issues much better, but I agree that they in no way represented an extension of Rome. 

In any case, names and titles aside, Rome fell in the 5th century, although much of what was "Rome" ceased to be long before that.  The Byzantines became more Greek than Roman as the years passed.  The German-Roman kingdoms of the early medieval period developed along their own lines as well. 

Regarding the United States: It is fashionable to name any current power as the new Rome simply because it dominates other nations.  But Rome was a civilization and culture of its own.  Was Spain in the 16th century the new Rome?  What about France in the 17th or Britain in the 18th and 19th?  Was Hitler a Caeasar? Or Stalin?  These are just examples of states that were seeking hegemony and the U.S. is no more the new Rome than they were.  I guess Rome will just have to live on in Russel Crowe movies and the occasional article in the Economist.

In fact, the Ottoman Empire adopted many administrative things from the Byzantine Empire including the land regime and ruled on its lands; however depending on a different religious system. Calling it a third Roman Empire is up to you...

Land regime? Care to elaborate?

What are the similarities in Byzantine & Ottoman agricultural policies?

In my mind, in Ottoman times, all land belonged to the Sultan and not to individuals.

Yes, and during the Byzanthine times, everything belonged to the citizens. Or would I say the heaven of Byzanthine? Com'on, the princes owned until the boxers of the villagers, that is why central authority was weak.

So the first Romans arent Romans at all since they were pagans. Roman heritage wasnt related with religion. It was a capture the flag race.

The Byzanthines' official language wasnt Roman, so they werent the successors of the Romans at all. Plus they werent pagans. Is this sensible?

I'm sorry since the U.S. was mentioned in this discussion I had to chime in.

The beginning of Rome, it was ruled by kings who where subordinate to Etruscan kings

The beginning of U.S., it was ruled by governors who where subordinate to English Kings

The Romans over throw the reign of these Etruscan Kings and established a democratic republic

The U.S. over throw the reign of these English kings and established a democratic republic.

The Romans, though they established a democracy, only allowed the wealthy land owners to rule in their senate. Less than about fifty men.

The U.S., though they established a democracy, it was generally the wealthy land owners who rule in their senate. Twenty six men to be exact at first.

Rome did establish a voice for its people called the comitia centuriata, but its decisions all needed the approval of the Senate and the Consuls.  

U.S. did establish a voice for its people called the House of Representatives, but its decisions all needed the approval of the Senate and the President.

The Roman republic was led by two Consuls who were joint heads of the Roman state and commanders-in-chief of the army. They were elected only for one year and thereafter could not be re-elected again for 10 years, in order to prevent any form of tyranny. 

The U.S. is led by one President who is Head of State and commander-in-chief of the Army. They are elected for four years and can be elected for another four years. But after that they can not be elected again in order to prevent any form of tyranny.

The Romans established an office of Praetor who had authority over the laws this eventually turned into a six man consol in charge of the judiciary of Rome. They where the chief law officer. They acted as the chief judges. The U.S. established an office called the Judiciary consisting of a Supreme Justice and associate Justices. They are the chief law officers. They act as the chief judges.

Rome quickly expanded its territory by conquering weaker local tribes and inhabitants in the area such as the Latins

U.S. quickly expanded its territory by conquering weaker local tribes and inhabitants in the area such as the Indians.

Eventually Rome established a strong military and navy and became a very formidable power in the world 

Eventually the U.S. established a strong military and navy and became a very formidable power in the world.

Rome’s expansion and spread of ideas was kept in check by the very strong Persian Empire that dominated the east.

U.S.’s expansion and spread of ideas was kept in check by the very strong Soviet Empire that dominated the east.

Rome eventually became ruled by an Emperor who was extreme authority over all. The empire stretched of a large portion of the known world 

U.S. eventually became rule by………

We shall see

As Tsar said: "Don't get so worked up about this"

 Similarities between Rome can be drawn to just about every major nation in the world, but similarities are irrelevant its legacy and heritage that is important, and America for all its similarities has no relation to the Roman empire therefore cannot be its successor or a continuation of it.

 Just as much as the British empire couldnt be and that was far larger and greater than Romes.

with "he" i was not referign to Voltaire but miniechick, because it would make no sense otherwise and she also posted it after the comments about the catholic church, no one was talking about the HRE in the last few posts.

Yes that was very controversial but an excellent observation.

But the post started as:

"What do you think - there was really chance to ressurect the Roman empire in middle ages? Even if, how it will "look"? I wait for your comments."

I think it wasn't possible because of the way it was tried. The people as a nation formed Rome not a single individual. With all its good and bad it was the people who kept Rome alive. Where as during the middle ages it was individuals that tried to re-instate the Glory of Rome.

Attila's empire, with all his greatness and expansion fell apart after his death. The nations he had under his sway did not want their empire after he was gone.

So I'm thinking that if an empire wants to be perpetually successful the people of the empire must be willing subjects.

But as to the actual heir of the Roman/Byzantine empire, someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Archduke Otto of Hungary is heir to the Holy Roman Empire, and since we know the Franks and the Byzantines did allow royal marriages between these two empires. One can assume that the royal blood of the Byzantines mixed with the royal blood of the Franks Holy Roman empire. Giving a claim of the Byzantine Empire to the Holy Roman Empire. And since the Byzantine Empire has the right to claim the Roman empire, well Archduke Otto can claim it all I guess.

Now I'm sure lots of other royal families can claim the rights to the Byzanetine Empire also.

 I live in the US and i couldnt agree with you more except the US doesnt deserve to be associated with the "Roman Empire" because the US hasnt done anything "great"!

 I wave my Hungarian flag because THAT i am proud of.

Yes you are right. Neal Armstrong walking on the moon is shadowed by Trajan’s great feat of building a bridge across the Danube and invading Dacia. We could never even light a candle to them.

Unfortunately for Trajan he was born nearly 1900 years before travel to the moon was possible, such a comparison of achievements is absurd at best.

first, its Otto von Habsburg, he isn't archduke as royal titles have been completely abolished in Austria, and he's not "of Hungary" it was part of his titles but not his primary one. second, Holy Roman emperors often intermarried with byzantine princesses, like Otto the Great and at least one other, but the real legal heir to the Roman empire was the pope in Rome, but still the rulers of teh RHe wanted to give themselves mroe legitimacy by intermarry with the byzantine royal house as they did still regard themselves as Romans.