Talk:Succession of the Roman Empire

nonsense
what's this noncence? "Ivan III, Grand Duke of St. Petersburg" ????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.160.158.67 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading:

"Since Roman princesses had married Tsars of Moscow, and, since Russia had become, with the fall of Byzantium, the most powerful Orthodox Christian state, the Tsars were thought of as succeeding the Byzantine Emperor as the rightful ruler of the (Christian) world. The word "tsar," like kaiser, is derived from the word "caesar".

Grand Duke Ivan IV was proclaimed the first Russian Tsar on 16 January 1547."

I understand that, until the fall of Byzantium, Moscow rulers weren't named Tsars, so the former paragraph needs a couple of changes. How were they named before "tsar"? --euyyn 18:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Grand Prince of Moscow" 201.1.184.57 06:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Very very much in this entry can easily be disputed. Please add the dubious content label.
 * Please sign your posts by adding four ~s at the end, so everybody knows when they are added. I don't know a single word about this subject, so I can only ask you to be more specific about which parts are disputed and why they are. It would be even better if you corrected the article to reflect both trends (you don't have to be registered to do it). --euyyn 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

whose son?
I'm wondering why this says "their" son. Philoteus and who else? Grand Duke Ivan III and Sophie Paleologue.Aranelle (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The idea crystallized with a panegyric letter composed by the Russian monk Philoteus (Filofey) in 1510 to their son Grand Duke Vasili III Iranon95822 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian Claims
"Filofey explicitly identifies Third Rome with Russia (the country) rather than with St.Petersburg (the city)"

I've replaced St.Petersburg by Moscow because there is really nonsence! See my footnote on the main page. To mention here St.Petersburg is out of question! It didn't even exist at that time! St.Petersburg is about 300 years old. The point of this story is Moscow. Silva2times (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relax. It was unnoticed vandalism. The article was neglected for quite some time. - Altenmann >t 18:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't make personal footnotes in the article text. Various wikipedians' comments belong to talk pages. Wikipedia article may contain text only based on cited sources. - Altenmann >t 18:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for attention and patience. Sorry for footnote, I'm not yet experienced Wiki-user, so I made it firstly and then found out how to mark it here, in "Discussion". Silva2times (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Origins of Tsar
The article says Ivan IV was the first "Tsar of Russia," but I remember learning that Ivan III was actually the first "Tsar," though he disliked the term and so chose not to use it himself. So while Ivan IV was the first to regularly refer to himself as the Tsar, I believe Ivan III was actually the first Tsar. Can anyone confirm this?--JaymzRR 03:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just checked and the article Tsar does credit Ivan the III as the first Tsar, though they mention an earlier name (or two) that used the title in the past. Unless anyone objects I'll change this article as soon as I get a chance.--JaymzRR 03:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately Moscow had never been a real heir to Rome, and there is nothing really to support this claim except some Grand Prince marrying a member of the last Byzantine Emperor's family.

If anything the HRE was around anyways and they carried the real claim, and had the Translatio imperii. Besides the Byzantine's did reconize the Holy Roman Empire i.e Wikipedia's Otto the Great "In 972, the Byzantine emperor John I Tzimisces recognized Otto's imperial title and agreed to a marriage between Otto's son and heir Otto II and his niece Theophano."

So basically Moscow's claims are just as ridiculous as the Ottoman Sultan's claim of being Roman Emperor. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio 07:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I rather like the formulation, "...except some Grand Prince marrying a member of the last Byzantine Emperor's family". Well, apparently, you simply don't seem to recognize Byzantium as the Second Rome. Oh, and if anything, one can say the claims of the Germanics are about as preposterous as those of the Ottomans, since both basically came and kicked the Romans' teeth in. I'm not going to sink so low as to compare fellow Christians to the Turks, however. Humanophage 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not right. The origin of tsar comes long ago before Rusia ever existed. The Bulgarian monarchs were called "cesar" and after this - tsar. "Tsar" was the official title of the supreme ruler in the following states:

Bulgaria in 913–1018, in 1185–1422 and in 1908–1946 Serbia in 1346–1371 Russia from about 1547 until 1721 (after 1721 and until 1917, the title was used officially only in reference to the Russian emperor's sovereignty over certain formerly independent states such as Poland and Georgia).

So please change the article about the origin of tsar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.73.226 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the origin of the name royal Russian name "Romanov" also rooted in desire for Roman symbolism? Fig (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. There is no connection between the last name Romanov and the story of the third Rome! Romanovs as a dynasty became Tsars only during the 17th century, the first one was Michail Fedorovich Romanov (1596-1645). Romanov is nothing more than a last name composed from the male name Roman, rather widespread in Russia, that's all. And Ivan III (figurant of this article) was Rurikovich - he belongs to the previous, old dynasty of Russian rulers.


 * 2. Concerning the origins of the word "Tsar", initially it was just some kind of slavonic title, deriving from "ceasar", spread among different slavonic folks.


 * 3. And I'm sorry, but there is nothing ridiculous (as said above) in the case of Russian's claiming on this status "third Rome" - it was rather popular idea in Europe for centuries, some sort of philosophical, political and missionary idea, it's all about religion. And that strange comparison to Ottoman Sulatns is unacceptable, there is no connection. Silva2times (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The first mention and ONLY mention of the title "tsar" till the XIVth century is in Bulgaria. It's origins are Bulgarian, used until the XIV only by Bulgarians. It is not a slavonic title, it's a Bulgarian title, most likely derived from Shar/Sar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotaro97 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Third Reich analogy
Surely the comparison with The Third Reich should be made, as the symbolism of the third great empire of a race was significant to the Nazis?... Fig (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Did add at least as a "see also" the other day, but it would be good to elaborate a little in the article itself.


 * i strongly disagree. the third reich was the third german empire, which really has little to do with the third rome. however, i am going to suggest several other contenders in the discussion page and hope somebody picks up on them.

JosiahHenderson (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous. The first Reich was the HRE, the second Reich was proclaimed in 1870 in Versailles, and Hitler's was the third Reich. It has nothing in the world to do with the Roman Empire or any notion of a "Third Rome." 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The old saying that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire suggests a hollowed-out relic of the strange union of Germans and Gallic peoples under Charlemagne,arguably the founder of both Germany and France. Someone had the title of Emperor.

The Romans did not have 'race' as a concept for dividing people into masters and slaves. People not of Latin origin were routinely assimilated into Roman society and culture. Etruscan and Greek influence upon Roman life was well known, recognized, and cherished. Racism was the cornerstone of Nazi ideology.

The united German empire in which the Hohenzollern monarchy dominated a federation of German principalities was unabashedly and proudly German. It sought to obliterate the cultures of non-Germans (largely Poles in the east and the French in the Alsace-Lorraine). The Romans had no desire to establish a Latin culture upon Greeks, Syrians, Copts, or Berbers. Nazi Germany, of course, was racist madness and reckless expansionism. It is telling that the German Federal Republic still keeps Charlemagne's eagle as a national symbol.

More relevant? The Spanish conquest of most of the New World suggests that Spain had its own imperial legacy derived from Roman times. Napoleon Bonaparte derived much of his style from Roman inspiration.

As heirs of ancient Christianity, Russia claimed to be the Third Rome and that there would be no Fourth Rome. The Soviet Union inherited that.

The United States of America has too many contenders as a Third Rome as predecessors by time... so if anything it is a "Fourth Rome". It has been a Great Power from its inception, and its scale from the Louisiana Purchase on has been comparable to the Roman Empire. Even if its politics are republican (its analogue is more the Roman Republic than the decadent Empire) and it never adopted Latin (although the English language in use has a huge number of words of Latin origin or Greek origin made to fit Latin norms) it has its analogies. It is multi-ethnic and multi-racial. It has had, at least since 1940, a huge military establishment. It has often aped Roman architecture. Americans do things on a big scale, as did the Romans. To be sure, the legal system is based heavily upon English common law, which is not Roman in origin.

Is it a coincidence that America has an eagle as its national symbol? It could as easily have chosen a bear or a cougar.

In the Star Trek universe, one episode postulates a world in which a social order analogous to the Roman Empire has survived long enough to achieve 20th-century technology while still having architectural styles much like those of Imperial Rome (cuts to American buildings are shown), but it still has pagan worship, slavery, and gladiatorial games... and it persecutes people with a religious belief analogous to Christianity. Imagine the United States of America still pagan, with slavery (it did until the 1860s), gladiatorial games, and persecution of Christians, and you have that scenario. Pbrower2a (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The USA is no republic. USA has a mixed constitution with only a little real democracy where the people directly vote laws, as when states have referendums or there are town hall meetings in New England. Federal government has no such democracy. (& it may be noted that the Oligarch judges struck down a CA referendum defining marriage; illustrating how USA is in final analysis an oligarchy). US has mixed constitution of Monarch (president), Republic element in the Congress, & a triple Oligarchy on top of that. The branch which claims absolute power over the other is the judiciary, for the judiciary claims to be able to say just what the Constitution means, & thus strike down laws at will & write its own laws. The federal judiciary is life-time appointed, not elected, a small group of Oligarchs. The SCOTUS of 9 oligarchs has more voting power than 200,000,000 We The Peoples. The two other unelected oligarchies of US govt are 1) the bureaucracy which churns out law like by the millions, and the FED, which controls the money. On top of all that, the USA is a federation with state & local governments.(PeacePeace (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC))
 * While I do agree that the United States are an oligarchy with an unelected power elite, they are still a Republic. Republics are not democracies or democrratic regimes.:


 * "The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch."
 * See List of republics, and pay attention to how many of them were oligarchies. Dimadick (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Kayser-i Rum
Just thought it might be good to point out that "Rum" is just the (Classical) Persian word for Anatolia. "Kayser", on the other hand, is unambiguously Roman. WikiMarshall (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

other claims
a third rome should not exist in an area that was previously controlled by roman civilization. byzantium/istanbul/constantinople/whatever was a greek city and it's creation as the second rome in some way represented the merging of greek and roman civilization. the greek world at that time of course included most of the middle east.

a third rome would have to represent the merging of greco-roman civilization with another civilization. moscow is consequently a valid choice, whereas istanbul cannot be because it is the second rome. while the idea of allowing the third rome to be islamic is reasonable, mecca or even baghdad would constitute a better third rome than istanbul.

the following have some claim to being a third rome:

1) holy roman empire, i.e. the first reich. this represents the merging of german and roman culture and did indeed consider itself as a legitimate lineal descendant of rome. it's difficult to come up with a capital; aachen is the obvious choice, but this is anachronistic relative to the second rome. vienna? something about the holy roman empire should be in the article.

2) london. as the center of a massive empire that spread german-roman civilization around the world...

3) brussels & the european union, although this opens up five hundred years without a leading rome.

4) washington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.121.196 (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, i was randomly thinking about this and have an argument as to the existence of third, fourth and fifth romes. i think it's fairly balanced. feel free to agree or disagree. now, note that when i talk about assimilating cultures i'm talking in the long run. when a new belief system takes root in an old culture, it often initially dominates in terms of power but not necessarily in terms of adherence. it is often only a powerful minority that accepts the new ideas and feels obligated to force them on us all (thatcher? murdoch? trudeau?). overtime, two things happen: (1) the masses are slowly converted and (2) ancient traditions eventually dominate. this is why we have santa claus in england and codified law in france.


 * archetypal rome: persepolis. imperial center, roughly (-800)-(400). rise to power began in the period (-1200)-(-800). sort of. assimilation of iranian culture.


 * precursor to rome: athens. cultural dominance, roughly (-400)-0. rise to power began in the period (-800)-(-400). assimilation of greek culture.


 * first rome: rome. obviously. imperial center, roughly 0-400. rise to power began in the period -400-0. assimilation of italian culture.


 * second rome: constantinople. obviously. period of dominance was roughly 400-800; rise to power began in the period 0-400. assimilation of the black sea economic sphere (from the caucasian mountains north to moscow).


 * third rome: baghdad. period of dominance was roughly 800-1200; rise to power began in the period 400-800. assimilation of arab culture.


 * fourth rome: vienna. period of dominance was roughly 1200-1600 and associated with hapsburg rule of the "holy roman empire"; rise to power began in the period 800-1200. assimilation of german culture.


 * fifth rome: london. period of dominance was roughly 1600-2000; rise to power began in the period 1200-1600. assimilation of english culture.


 * sixth rome: washington. period of dominance will be roughly 2000-2400; rise to power began in the period 1600-2000. eventual assimilation of american culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.121.196 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll remind the principle of wikipedia NOR, besides the fact that it's bad even as historiography. Snapdragonfly (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation from Ortaylı ref
If citation needed, here: "“Büyük Constantin”in 11 Mayıs 330’da kurduğu şehrimiz, 1123 sene sonra 29 Mayıs’ta bir başka büyük imparator tarafından fethedildi. Ateşli silahlar devrinin mareşali, en azından Constantin kadar klasik kültüre ve dillere vakıftı. İlaveten şark dillerinin kalem ustasıydı. 15’inci yüzyılın tipik ve mükemmel hümanisti olan Fatih Sultan Mehmed’den bahsediyoruz. Şehri fethetti ve hakkıyla “Roma Caesarı - Kayzer-i Rum” unvanını üstlendi." İlber Ortaylı, "Büyük Constantin ve İstanbul", Milliyet, 28 May 2011. --E4024 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Carolingiea, Germanic-led?!
"The Germanic-led Carolingian Empire" This is utter nonsense. Carolingia was entirely Frankish.

It it true that Moscow is the third Rome 91.134.65.79 (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But the Franks were Germans. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

European Union as Rome
This whole section seems like conjecture. There are bibliographical references to some of the shared symbolism, but not a single authoritative source making this claim, outside this wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.229.176 (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, very much so. There are also some non-factual claims that I will try to edit out, i.e. "Roman laws, philosophy and cultural institutions have largely survived in Europe and the territories that make up the European Union, whereas they have been close to completely lost in the non-European parts of the Empire post the Islamic Expansion" Greek philosophy, which heavily influenced Roman philosophy continued in the Islamic world. I don't know what 'cultural institutions' could mean. It's also wrong to say laws have survived, when the political institutions of Rome disappeared until at least the 18th century when they came back in a completely reformed way. The citation given is "f", I will try to see if a real citation was given before and correct it, if not I will delete this sentence. - 37.164.21.191 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The original reference seems to have been the WP page 'Early Muslim Conquests' so I deleted it, I also removed a lot of unrelated material. Frankly, the entire section is mostly unrelated, making conjectural, unsourced claims or just being irrelevant. The section should just have a few citations of people who claimed that the EU was a Third Rome and leave it at that, we don't a history of one person's interpretation of 'European Civilisation'. I won't go at it more so as not to make too big a change in one go, but I may come back to it later. - 37.164.21.191 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Eagle
So I suggest it wirde:


 * What do you mean by "wirde"? Wirde is weird. Is there such a word? Is this a typo? And how is it that you have 4 coats of arms pictured & then say "both." Both means 2. Can somebody fix this so it makes sense? (PeacePeace (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC))

She-wolf with Romulus and Remus
Twice user has removed the image with the she-wolf and Romulus and Remus, first because the image had a alleged "weird caption" (where Altenmann probably meant a weird filename), and a second time because the symbol was alledgedly not "regenerated" in Third Rome. I have restored the image with a new caption and a proper source:. Note that the source also directly supports the filename, and that the image is used in many Rome-related articles. - DVdm (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Third Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.ksk.edu.ee/file.php?ID=1604
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204065057/http://students.washington.edu/ageparke/rome.htm to http://students.washington.edu/ageparke/rome.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Third Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131800060600/http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-the-800-martyrs-of-otranto-saved-rome to http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-the-800-martyrs-of-otranto-saved-rome

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A guest who guested a guest? Obtuse sentence
Can somebody clarify an obtuse sentence in this fascinating article?
 * "The guest tried to suggest to the guest that he could be held harmless in the Papal States.:

A guest to the guest??? Can somebody clarify this? Whose guests? (PeacePeace (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC))

This article creates confusion between successor to Rome and successor to the Roman Empire.
The term "Third Rome" is related to the city. (Example: Moscow is the third Rome). Nothing to do with the Roman Empire. Papal Rome never claimed to be Second Rome. They claimed to be Rome, period. Same for Mazzini's quote for Italy. He does not claim Italy as third Rome. He simply claims that Rome (the capital of Italy, not Byzantium or Moscow) had three roles in history (Emperors, Popes, People).

This article is a mess.

Barjimoa (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * A claim that Rome has nothing to do with the Roman Empire is strange, as is an attempt to say that "Third Rome" has nothing to do with the concept of a 3rd Roman Empire. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC))

What I am saying is that "Rome" as "Third Roman Empire" is one thing. "Rome" as "third city of Rome" is another. Barjimoa (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The Right of Succession
Article says,


 * "but the Roman traditions of the empire had never recognized automatic inheritance of the Imperial office.[7] It was also Sophia's brother, Andreas Palaiologos, who held the rights of succession to the Byzantine throne." Are these 2 statements mutually contradictory? (PeacePeace (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC))


 * @PeacePeace 208.87.147.89 (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Catholic Church as successor
From Europe and the Faith, by Hilaire Belloc:
 * My object in writing it is to show that the Roman Empire never perished but was only transformed; that the Catholic Church, which, in its maturity, it accepted, caused it to survive and was, in that origin of Europe, and has since remained, the soul of one Western civilization.

jnestorius(talk) 14:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Italy section
This section is all over the place and total bs for what concerns Mazzini — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.212.138 (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost every sentence in that section as it stands has a supporting citation: your assertion above is not a good enough reason to tag it as not neutral. You are very welcome to identify and correct factual errors provided that you can produce supporting evidence for them. Unfortunately, it.wikipedia does not have an article on this subject, which might have made the task easier. Regarding Mazzini, the relevant section of his en.Wikipedia article is not really detailed enough to help resolve the question. Maybe his article on Italian wikipedia has more?
 * In a nutshell, if you consider that the current text to be "all over the place", you have to propose a draft to replace it. We are all volunteers here, you are most welcome to become another. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon
Should Napoleon really be placed with the Austrian and German Empires? Austria and Germany simply inherited the symbols of the Holy Roman Empire and associated themselves very weakly with the Roman Empire, and I don't think this can really be compared to Napoleon's regime. The French Revolution, in general, was marked by a great rebirth of interest in classical history and many of Napoleon's actions reflect a desire of association with Rome that is not really reflected in this article.

- Napoleon selected a Roman aquila as his symbol and used eagle standards in his military (the fact that this was selected and not inherited, as was the case for the Germans, increases the connection between Napoleon and an evident desire for Roman continuity).

- Napoleon styled himself as literally "Emperor" after his position as "Consul" (both positions that reference the classical Roman civilization).

- His regime's art and architecture was stylized after Rome as in l'Arc de Triomphe, and other triumphal arches, which imitated Emperor Constantine’s arch in Rome.

- Napoleon is quoted as saying “I am a true Roman Emperor; I am of the best race of the Caesars – those who are founders.” – Napoleon Bonaparte, 1812.

- He gave his son the title "King of Rome", which was previously used exclusively by the heir of the Holy Roman Emperor.

These elements of the Napoleonic Empire should probably find their way into this article and we should reconsider the section that the regime is listed under. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.104.4 (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)