Talk:Last of the Romans

Gregory the Great
I believe I have seen him referred to as "the last of the Romans". Can anyone verify? Srnec 04:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Iunius Brutus
I've changed the reference in the introduction from Marcus Junius Brutus to Marcus Junius Brutus the Elder as this is clearly the person Caesar was referring to. 87.66.182.254 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"In a more literal sense ...."
The article includes a section listing persons who, while not designated historically as "the Last of the Romans," could be argued to meet the literal meaning of the term because they were the last rulers of successor states to the Roman Empire. The persons listed until a few days ago, in chronological order, were the following:

"Romulus Augustulus, the last de facto Western Roman Emperor.

Julius Nepos, the last de jure Western Roman Emperor.

Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, the last Prince of the Kingdom of Gwynedd, the last post-Roman (Romano-British) successor state to fall in the West.

Baldwin II, Latin Emperor, the last monarch of the Latin Empire.

Constantine XI Paleologus, the last Eastern Roman Emperor.

David II Komnenos, final emperor of Trebizond and de facto final Roman Emperor after Constantine XI.

Andreas Palaiologos, the last de jure Eastern Roman Emperor

Mehmed VI, the last Ottoman sultan, one of whose titles was Caesar of Rome after the Conquest of Constantinople by Mehmed the Conqueror."

There are numerous scholarly sources arguing for the proposition these persons were rulers of successor states of the Roman Empire (including the Kingdom of Gwynedd and the Latin Empire of Constantinople), and it by no means constitutes "original research" to include such rulers in this section of the article. I am going to undo the change that removed Llywelyn ap Gruffudd and Baldwin II from the list in order to reinstate the staus quo ante, and invite editors who disagree with the inclusion of such rulers (or any others on the list) to state their arguments in this talk page so that we can reach a consensus rather than engage in an edit war. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "There are numerous scholarly sources arguing for the proposition" where? The whose section is in reality an exercise in WP:OR, but the Eastern and Western Roman emperors are self-explanatory. Mehmed and Baldwin on the other hand are very much a stretch, since the former actually ended the lats remnants of the Roman Empire and the latter was effectively a foreign invader and usurper, while Llewellyn's connection to Rome is so remote and tenuous as to be absurd. Andreas Palaiologos likewise was a claimant in exile, so the "last de jure Eastern Emperor" is wrong. This falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and I don't see any sources supporting anything of the above. Constantine  ✍  08:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @Constantine, are you disputing the fact that the Kingdom of Gwynedd was a successor state to the Roman Empire, or that it survived until King Edward I of England's conquest of Wales in 1283? If so, you should rewrite the entire article on the Kingdom of Gwynedd.  It is not "original research" to point out that 1283 is a later date than the date in which other parts of the Roman Empire fell to "barbarians," thus making the Kingdom of Gwynedd the last successor state to the Roman Empire to fall.  That this would make the last King of Gwynedd the "Last of the Romans" in a literal sense is as "self-explanatory" as saying that the last de jure Eastern Roman Emperor or the last Ottoman sultan could be characterized as the "Last of the Romans" in a literal sense (not that any of the rulers in this particular subsection ever were referred to as "the Last of the Romans" the way that, say, Emperor Majorian was).  If there's going to be an "in a more literal sense ..." subsection, then Llywelyn ap Gruffudd should be included.


 * With respect to the Latin Empire of Constantinople, I will grant you that it is not as clear that its final ruler could be called the "Last of the Romans." The Latin Empire of Constantinople supplanted the Byzantine Empire (a successor state to the Roman Empire) and later was overthrown by the Byzantine emperor, making the claim that King Baldwin II being the "last" of anything historically dubious.  I assume that King Baldwin II was included here because the rulers of the Latin Empire of Constantinople were Roman Catholic (as opposed to the Greek Orthodox Byzantine rulers), and thus spoke Latin instead of Greek as their liturgical language, but that does not give the kings of the Latin Empire of Constantinople a greater claim to be deemed the successors to the Emperor of the Roman Empire than that held by the emperors of the Byzantine Empire.  So, if the consensus is that King Baldwin II should be removed, I will not object. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between being a "successor state to the Roman Empire" and being "Roman". I have yet to see a credible source that would have Gwynedd generally, and Llewellyn specifically claim a "Roman" identity, or being attributed it by outsiders, whether contemporaries or modern historians. That makes it OR, period. Let us assume that in 1000 years, all post-Soviet states except Azerbaijan have vanished. Would Azerbaijan then be the "last Russians", simply because they were under Russian rule for 200 years and are a "successor state" of the "Russian Empire"? By the same token, the Franks and the Visigoths, as foederati of the empire, were also "successor states", and retained a far more romanized population and culture to boot. Furthermore, "supplanted the Byzantine Empire (a successor state to the Roman Empire)" which is exactly why the rest is wrong: the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire; there was no break in political continuity, "Byzantine" is just a modern convention and a civilizational label to distinguish the medieval Romans from the classical Roman state. The Latin Emperors were French Crusaders, failed completely to gain allegiance locally, and became an irrelevance within fifteen years after their establishment. The Latin Empire was no more "Roman" at the time it was established than the Kingdom of Jerusalem was the successor to the Roman governors of Judea. Mehmed II as the "last Roman" is even more OR because it confuses a mere rhetoric claim to the title "Caesar of the Romans" by a ruler with him actually ruling over a "Roman" state, which the Ottomans clearly were not. Constantine   ✍  07:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The Kingdom of Gwynedd remained "Roman" long after the rest of the Roman Empire fell to the barbarians. Once again, please reference the Kingdom of Gwynedd article and the sources cited therein.  In particular, please note the following:


 * "The Welsh of Gwynedd remained conscious of their Romano-British heritage and an affinity with Rome survived long after the Empire retreated from Britain, particularly with the use of Latin in writing and sustaining the Christian religion.[5][14] The Welsh ruling classes continued to emphasize Roman ancestors within their pedigrees as a way to link their rule with the old imperial Roman order, suggesting stability and continuity with that old order.[5][14] According to Professor John Davies, "[T]here is a determinedly Brythonic, and indeed Roman, air to early Gwynedd."[5] So palpable was the Roman heritage felt that Professor Bryan Ward-Perkins of Trinity College, Oxford, wrote "It took until 1282, when Edward I conquered Gwynedd, for the last part of Roman Britain to fall [and] a strong case can be made for Gwynedd as the very last part of the entire Roman Empire, east and west, to fall to the barbarians."[14][15]"


 * Thus, saying that the Kingdom of Gwynedd was the last part of the Roman Empire to fall to the barbarians does not constitute "original research"; such research was undertaken and published by Professor Bryan Ward-Perkins of Trinity College, Oxford. It is inapposite to compare the 13th-century Kingdom of Gwynedd vis-à-vis the Roman Empire with a hypothetical 29th-century Republic of Armenia vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, given that the Kingdom of Gwynedd preserved Romano-British culture and institutions while the Republic of Armenia already rejected the government institutions of the former Soviet Union.


 * As for the Franks and Visigoths, they invaded portions of the Roman Empire (or former Roman Empire), but their cultural and political institutions were wholly different from those of the Roman Empire. Yes, Charlemagne was crowned Emperor by the Pope in Rome, and, yes, the Visigoths began speaking the Vulgar Latin dialect that eventually became Spanish after invading the Roman province of Hispania, but they, and their institutions, were barbarian, not Roman.


 * I have rather grave doubts how "Roman" the institutions of 13th-century Gwynedd were, and suspect that there is an element of exaggeration for effect in the statement, but since this is a published opinion by an expert, I won't argue. Mehmed II on the other hand, and Andreas, are off; Mehmed did not rule as a Roman ruler (the title was for effect only) and Andreas's being "de jure" the last Roman emperor is nonsense. Either we recognize that the Roman imperial title became extinct in 1453, in which case Andreas had a claim to it, but was "de jure" only Despot (which is actually the title he bears in the seal he made once in Italy), or we consider that it became a titular title (a concept unknown in Roman/Byzantine practice), in which case after he sold it to the King of France and the Catholic Monarchs, the "Last of the Romans" is actually Philip IV of Spain. Constantine  ✍  17:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I see your point about the Ottoman emperors using "Caesar of Rome" as a mere title without actually being successors to the Roman institutional regime. And, yes, I agree that it would be silly to give much credence to titles used by rulers to pad their résumés, any more than we should consider the monarch of Spain or of Great Britain as the ruler of Jerusalem.


 * As for Andreas, you are correct that he was a mere pretender to the Byzantine throne after the Byzantine Empire had ceased to exist, and thus should be excluded from the list for the same reason as Mehmed VI. A mere title does not signify that the person is an institutional successor to the Roman Emperor.


 * Constantine, thank you for your thoughtful comments, open-mindedness and patience. I will delete Andreas and Mehmed VI from the list of rulers who could be described, in a more literal sense, as the "Last of the Romans."


 * I implore those with comments on these exclusions, and on any other possible exclusions or inclusions, to post their thoughts on this talk page so that the editing community can come to a consensus on such proposed changes.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you AuH2ORepublican and take care. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  19:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

In a more literal sense
Francis II and Charles V should be added b/c the former was the last Holy Roman Emperor at all, and the latter the last to be crowned as pope. They were the last to hold the title of Roman Emperor, no matter how formal, and recognized as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.128.86 (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The "Holy Roman Empire" was neither a continuation of, nor a successor state to, the Roman Empire.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of historical evidence for the Holy Roman Empire being seen as a continuation or successor to the Roman Empire, by at least some of its contemporaries. However, a citation would be needed to support the idea that Charles V or Francis II are "Last of the Romans", as this is a rather specific title. Rauisuchian (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)