Talk:List of Roman emperors

The Nicaean Empire did not exist...probably
Why in the notes does it say,

"the four emperors of Nicaea, who are often seen as the "legitimate" emperors during the interregnum of 1204–1261)"

The Roman Empire had, after the Fourth Crusade attack, lost some territory. That's it. As far as there being a Roman Empire, I can't imagine they called themselves Nicaean Empire ever, just Roman Empire/Romania from Augustus to Constantine XI. I'm not saying we should stop using Nicaean, we should think about whether we need to use the word, use it if we need to, but as far as legitimateness, those Roman Emperors were 100% legitimate (putting aside things like usurping/inheriting). Middle More Rider (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The term "Nicene Empire" is not used to delegitimize the emperors ruling from Nicaea, it is used because the #1 key to legitimacy as a Byzantine emperor was the control of Constantinople, which the Nicene emperors did not have. They are retroactively seen as legitimate by most historians today because their successor state retook the city but the rulers in Thessalonica and Trebizond had claims just as valid 1204–1261. All the successor states considered themselves to be the legitimate government of the Roman Empire and would have referred to themselves as such.
 * You could consider the Latin emperors as having the superior claim 1204–1261 but they are universally rejected as such today because of Catholicism and because their "empire" was effectively a foreign military occupation. Rheskouporis (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is not used to delegitimise them, but when the Latin occupation happened, those leaders of the unoccupied parts were all legitimate Roman Emperors, as you mentioned, so legitimate is a meaningless term, which if only refering to the Romans at Nicaea would be biased. Until it was sorted out after someone from the Empire took back Constantinople, that someone could have potentially been the Romans from Trebizond beating the Romans from Nicaea, and if anyone was most legitimate it could be claimed to be the Komnenos family at Trebizond, as they were descendants of Alexios I and the emperors down to Andronikos I in whose reign the throne was stolen from the family, but inheriting and usurping were both normal forms of gaining the throne, so not historically more legitimate. In the east before Constantinople the capital was Nicomedia, but no one was called a Nicomedian Emperor of the Nicomedian Empire, or legitimate Nicomedian Emperor. Nor in the west did anyone ruling from Ravenna have to be called legitimate or Ravennan Emperor.
 * Also, Constantinople itself, before it had built up any history, no one had define Constantine as legitimate, because he was not ruling from Rome, he is just considered as legitimate. That's a long answer for a small point! But, they just were, so no need to mention it.
 * Middle More Rider (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would personally not include the emperors in Nicaea at all, because they (and their rivals) don't really qualify for any of the criteria established to determine "legitimacy". As mentioned before, any of them could have potentially recovered Constantionple, and had it not been for the fact that the city was recovered, all of them would be seen as mere claimants. Tintero21 (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you would say that, Theodore I of Nicaea, Alexios I of Trebizond and Michael I of Epirus were all related to ancester Alexios I of Constantinople, all in that royal family, and Theodore I was married into the Angelos family of Constantinople and was an actual definite heir to the throne.
 * Middle More Rider (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, they all had valid claims to the throne, but that’s not my point. They lacked control of Constantinople, which is really the only factor that distinguishes “usurpers” from “legitimate” emperors. Tintero21 (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"Laskaris dynasty (1205–1261)" section
The small-print "note" for the section "Laskaris dynasty (1205–1261)" currently says that "modern historians recognize the line of emperors of the Laskaris dynasty, reigning in Nicaea, as the legitimate Roman emperors during this period". This is ostensibly sourced to Treadgold (1997: 734). However, the statement is not supported by the source at all. What Treadgold is saying is that the emperors after the reconquest of Constantinople used regnal numbers implying that they considered their Nicaean ancestors as part of the line of Roman emperors, and that modern historians have "followed this tidy practice" as far as the naming of emperors is concerned. He is not saying anything about what modern historians consider as constituting a "legitimate" claim to succession, and he himself quite explicitly says that this naming practice "tends to distort events through hindsight" and that the Laskaris rulers as Nicaea were factually *not* successors of the pre-1205 emperors.

In any case, I'd be rather surprised if any modern historian considered it their business to make pronouncements about "legitimacy" of succession regarding historic rulers like this. "Legitimacy" was hardly a meaningful category for the contemporary Byzantines themselves, much less so for modern historiography.

This is independent of the question of whether nor not we want to include these names in the list – I'd probably tend towards removing them, as per Tintero21's arguments above, but if we keep the section, the note clearly needs to be changed, or we need a better source for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Page 911-923 of the new Kaldellis history. No mention of legitimacy, just a list that includes them as the senior emperors.
 * Biz (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Biz (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)