Which modern country is the successor of the Roman Empire?

[buritobr]

The arguments for each country

Italy: Rome is the capital of Italy, the italian peninsula was the first area of roman dominance, the italian language is the living language most similar to latin

Vatican: The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Emperor Constantine, and the Vatican State is the home of the Roman Catholic Church

Turkey: The remaining Roman Empire after the fall of the western roman empire in 476 was the eastern roman empire, whose capital was Constantinople. The easter roman empire (or the byzantine empire) was conquered by the otoman turks in 1453

Greece: The language of the easter roman empire (or byzantine empire) was greek, the religion was the Orthodox Catholic Church. After the turk dominance of Constantinople, Greece remained the country whose language was greek and whose religion was the Orthodox Catholic Church

Germany: The ancestry of modern Germany was the Holy Roman German Empire

Russia: After the fall of Constantiniple, Russia became the home of the Orthoxos Catholic Church, the czar consider Moscow the "Third Rome", and the name "czar" comes from "caesar"

Finland: Finland was part of the Russian Empire and didn't become part of the USSR

USA: In the century I AD, China was the strongest empire of the eastern world, and the Roman Empire was the strongest empire of the western world. In the century XXI AD, China is the strongest empire of the eastern world, and the USA is the strongest empire of the western world. Many government palaces in the USA are built in classic style (columns)

[Meclazine for Israel]

England.

[RINO Tom]

Spain

[brucejoel99]

With regards to claims & legitimacy, understand that legitimacy is a negotiated communication of authority with those involved. If the restriction of this circle of communication is to the opinions of scholars & representatives of modern states, then no modern country is the successor of the Roman Empire.

If we decrease this circle of communication down to the Atlas Forum posters who choose to partake in this thread, though, then let's at least start with what it isn't.

It's not Italy. Having Rome doesn't make you the heir to the Roman Empire. If Italy would be able to claim that it was, then every Latin culture (e.g., France & Spain) would be able to claim it too.

It's not Germany, because the HRE was absolutely not Roman.

It's not Russia. Their claims to be the "Third Rome" are often highly exaggerated, based mostly on a single letter by Philotheus of Pskov to the Grand Duke of Moscovy. It was mostly a statement of perceived religious affinity in the first place, which probably shouldn't even be seen as a real claim to the Roman legacy in any case, but specifically to the position of leading Orthodox monarch, connected but far from synonymous. Such claims were, at least, accepted by most of Russia's Orthodox contemporaries, while the Russian monarchs never made any clear claims (which one could reject) to be the heirs of Rome.

It's not the Vatican, either, for that matter, when you consider that the Roman Catholic Church, like the Eastern Orthodox Church, is a splinter group which rebelled against the original imperial church of the Roman Empire; as such, their leaders are all rebels & traitors against the true imperial church, which would mean that leading Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't give Russia the right to be the successor to the Roman Empire & leading the Catholic Church doesn't give the Pope the right to be the successor to the Roman Empire.

And it's not Finland. If you claim it's the "legitimate" successor to the Roman state simply on the basis of descent from the Russian Empire, then why wouldn't Poland also be the legitimate successor to the Roman state? Both countries were only made independent at the end of WWI, within months of each other (both, mind you, after the end of the Russian Empire in 1917, so yeah, the Finns actually did become part of the USSR). And how do the Ukraine & the Baltic states somehow "lose legitimacy" by not having "become part of the USSR" (wow, aggressive nationalism much)? That's rather a silly thing to say.

Now, let's move on to what it could be, where we're really left with two options: Turkey or Greece.

I'd argue that, with regards to administrative succession, the line would presumably flow as follows: Rome --> Byzantines --> Ottomans --> Turkey, although I'd also argue that any claims to it died with the fall of Constantinople. I feel like there'd need to be some sort of administrative succession to really make a claim that they were Rome, & I don't think that being conquered & replaced ought to count.

Of course, modern Greece is the closest thing that we have to a cultural successor to Byzantium (&, consequently, the Romans & the Roman Empire) by far, but even there, you're stretching 500 years of change & foreign rule to make that connection.

So, in summation, Turkey & Greece could claim to be the heirs of Rome, with Turkey more able to claim administrative succession while Greece is more capable of claiming cultural succession.

[RINO Tom]

My actual answer is that nobody is.  The Byzantine Empire was a clear successor to the united Roman Empire, and when it fell, that was the end of *Rome*.  Any Latin culture has a decent say (Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, etc.), any Orthodox country has a say (Greece, Russia, Serbia, etc.), the "Christian West" as a vague concept is a very good extension of what the late Romans saw themselves as, Turkey has Constantinople and could be a successor on "right of conquest," but they never converted to Christianity (which, let's not forget, was THE deciding unifying factor in what *The Roman Empire* really meant in its twilight years, both as a united empire and as the Byzantine Empire).  Several nations have claimed it throughout history, and none of them have done so "just because" - they have all cited some type of lineage.  And they're all partially right (yes, even the HRE), but in the end there is no true heir to Rome.  However, as corny as it sounds, I would say that "Christian Europe" (and its ethnic descendants around the world) are heirs to Roman civilization.

[John Henry Eden]

Vatican City of course!

[buritobr]

Maiorianus discussed this topic in a short video today. He mentioned some of the options.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QZOc5zD1sr0

[TDAS04]

Liechtenstein.

[Storr]

Write-in: Romania

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honestly I'd have to agree that Turkey has the strongest case if you really had to pick one. But of course the actual, correct answer is that the Roman Empire has no successor. It was extinguished as a polity in 1453, by external conquest rather than internal transformation, and therefore there can be no such thing as a "successor state" to the Roman Empire.

Hell, if I wanted to be really spicy, I would argue that what we typically understand as "the Roman Empire", in a cultural and political sense, effectively ended with the 3rd century crisis, and what we've had since then have been increasingly different successor states.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Turkey has the best claim.

[Ragnaroni]

The Vatican or San Marino

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The last Roman successor state in the West (the Kingdom of Gwynedd: its boundaries always shifted about, but it covered most of North Wales most of the time) fell in 1283 and the last Roman successor state in the East (the Duchy of the Archipelago: essentially the Cyclades) fell in 1579. Some people would not count the Duchy of the Archipelago as it was created by Venetian adventurers/pirates during the general chaos following the Fourth Crusade, in which case the answer would be the Principality of Theodoro (a tiny Gothic-speaking slice of southern Crimea that was nominally attached to the equally tiny Empire of Trebizond) which fell in 1475. None of these places were fully sovereign all of the time by a modern understanding of the term, but that's not really important: what matters is that they were all clearly defined polities. Anyway, there's nothing afterwards.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hell, if I wanted to be really spicy, I would argue that what we typically understand as "the Roman Empire", in a cultural and political sense, effectively ended with the 3rd century crisis, and what we've had since then have been increasingly different successor states.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but even in the East there's pretty clearly only successor states after the cataclysm of 1204.

[Blue3]

I think the Vatican. It’s not a continuation of Roman government, but the Catholic Church did become an official state-sponsored religion, part of the state apparatus, and survived with continuity.

[TheReckoning]

The last Roman successor state in the West (the Kingdom of Gwynedd: its boundaries always shifted about, but it covered most of North Wales most of the time) fell in 1283 and the last Roman successor state in the East (the Duchy of the Archipelago: essentially the Cyclades) fell in 1579. Some people would not count the Duchy of the Archipelago as it was created by Venetian adventurers/pirates during the general chaos following the Fourth Crusade, in which case the answer would be the Principality of Theodoro (a tiny Gothic-speaking slice of southern Crimea that was nominally attached to the equally tiny Empire of Trebizond) which fell in 1475. None of these places were fully sovereign all of the time by a modern understanding of the term, but that's not really important: what matters is that they were all clearly defined polities. Anyway, there's nothing afterwards.

HRE could be considered a revival of the Western Roman Empire, just as the Russian Federation could be considered a revival of the Russian Empire, in my eyes.

[Хahar 🤔]

Hell, if I wanted to be really spicy, I would argue that what we typically understand as "the Roman Empire", in a cultural and political sense, effectively ended with the 3rd century crisis, and what we've had since then have been increasingly different successor states.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but even in the East there's pretty clearly only successor states after the cataclysm of 1204.

If you want to draw a relatively clear line, it seems to me that the loss of Egypt and the concurrent end of the grain dole is as good a marker as any.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you want to draw a relatively clear line, it seems to me that the loss of Egypt and the concurrent end of the grain dole is as good a marker as any.

In the way that you cannot really speak of 'the British Empire' after 1947, because without India it made no previously comprehensible sense and so was now clearly something different?

[gerritcole]

Hell, if I wanted to be really spicy, I would argue that what we typically understand as "the Roman Empire", in a cultural and political sense, effectively ended with the 3rd century crisis, and what we've had since then have been increasingly different successor states.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but even in the East there's pretty clearly only successor states after the cataclysm of 1204.

If you want to draw a relatively clear line, it seems to me that the loss of Egypt and the concurrent end of the grain dole is as good a marker as any.

yup the rise of islam and the loss of syria/egypt/etc were a hinge point of the byzantines

[Agonized-Statism]

Have to agree that after 1453, it was just a lot of states embracing the legacy of Rome without direct lineage. To say otherwise is almost to suggest that Europe is actually a civilization-state with a history of breaking apart but always eventually reuniting, like China- which clearly isn't the case IMO.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Have to agree that after 1453, it was just a lot of states embracing the legacy of Rome without direct lineage. To say otherwise is almost to suggest that Europe is actually a civilization-state with a history of breaking apart but always eventually reuniting, like China- which clearly isn't the case IMO.

It really isn't. In fact, "Europe" as a coherent geopolitical entity could only exist because the Roman Empire broke apart, and the Mediterranean went from being a point of convergence and instead became a dividing line. To the Classical civilizations, "Europe" as a concept had little meaning except as a vague geographic descriptor, and Italy and Greece had far more in common with North Africa and the Levant than with the North European plain.

[oldtimer]

No one is.
And hopefully no one will be.

Most of it's achievements where done by the roman republic, the empire itself was a horrible mess from start to finish that produces entertainment with it's failures even today.

[Blue3]

I sometimes wonder why Western Europe (and its own colonial “offspring”) revere the Roman Empire / Western Roman Empire so much instead of other civilizations?

It made political sense why the Pope and Charlemagne tried to say they were the successor. But aside from the Catholic Church connection, what’s the point of wanting that link?

Ancient Egypt is more impressive. Greek City-states gave more to think about, and Alexander’s conquest more to base ambitions on. The medieval kingdoms had some impressive feats. The colonial kingdoms changed the world even more than Alexander, even if they weren’t a one-person show as much. You could argue for the influence of the the cumulative successions of Persian empires, and definitely for those of the Fertile Crescent. There’s even the lasting cultural legacy of the Germanic tribes, and the Vikings who settled even into the Mediterranean, France, and into Russia. The Italian renaissance city-states for their own cultural heritage in shaping society’s arts and philosophies. There’s even the monumental French Revolution and Napoleon. Germany’s spread of Protestantism, and modern bureaucracy. The semi-Democratic Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth being as foundational to modern democracy as the UK and the Magna Carta. The might and influence of the Czars. Why Rome?

[palandio]

I sometimes wonder why Western Europe (and its own colonial “offspring”) revere the Roman Empire / Western Roman Empire so much instead of other civilizations?

It made political sense why the Pope and Charlemagne tried to say they were the successor. But aside from the Catholic Church connection, what’s the point of wanting that link?

Ancient Egypt is more impressive. Greek City-states gave more to think about, and Alexander’s conquest more to base ambitions on. The medieval kingdoms had some impressive feats. The colonial kingdoms changed the world even more than Alexander, even if they weren’t a one-person show as much. You could argue for the influence of the the cumulative successions of Persian empires, and definitely for those of the Fertile Crescent. There’s even the lasting cultural legacy of the Germanic tribes, and the Vikings who settled even into the Mediterranean, France, and into Russia. The Italian renaissance city-states for their own cultural heritage in shaping society’s arts and philosophies. There’s even the monumental French Revolution and Napoleon. Germany’s spread of Protestantism, and modern bureaucracy. The semi-Democratic Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth being as foundational to modern democracy as the UK and the Magna Carta. The might and influence of the Czars. Why Rome?

The Latin alphabet.
Latin as the primary language of science etc. until modernity.
The Vulgar Latin-derived Romance languages.
Roman law as the base of the more concrete French civil code and of the more abstract German BGB.
Rome and Latin as the transmitter of achievements from other civilizations (Greek and Israelitic and via Greece also Persian and Babylonian).
Roman art and architecture as the source of renaissance, classicism, etc.

Also most parts of Western Europe were at some point part of the Roman Empire, at least partially, whereas everything that came after can be clearly associated to certain nations. The point is that the Roman Empire comes closest to the idea of an ancient pan-European superpower before everything disintegrated into the predecessors of modern nations. (A concept that is of course not true in the same sense as for e.g. China.) You don't revere another country that still exists in the same way as you revere the entity that brought civilization to you.

The Catholic Church connection is very important because the Catholic Church played a key role in most aspects of public life and civilization until modern times.

The proposals you name:
Ancient Egypt: Impressive, but what does it have to do with us?
Greek Philosophy: Certainly, but historically a lot of it came to us via Rome.
Alexander's conquest: He didn't conquer Western Europe. His importance for us lies more in the spread of Greek language and civilization and thereby ultimately laying the foundation of Eastern Rome.
The medieval kingdoms after Charlemagne are more associated to single nations and not to (Western) Europe as a whole.
Colonial empires: same.
Persia, Babylon, Assur, etc.: The same that holds for Greece but even more extreme, because the transmission chain is even longer.
At least in Western Europe it is generally perceived that the Romans brought civilization, whereas the image of Germanic tribes and Vikings as uncultured Barbarians is probably not entirely fair, but still their legacy is rather the transformation, adaption and sometimes reinvigoration of existing civilizational achievements.
Italian Renaissance: First, it's distinctly Italian and second, part of its historical achievement is exactly the rediscovery of Roman and Ancient Greek civilization.
French Revolution and Napoleon: Extraordinarily important and with a lasting effect on the whole continent, and at least in Germany it takes a very prominent place e.g. in school curricula, more prominent than e.g. the preceding American Revolution. At the same time it's clearly not supra-national in origin, but very French, too recent and too French for most outside France, not only nationalists and anti-liberals.
Similar for Germany, but even more pronounced.
Protestantism: The Catholic Church connection is already in the name.
Poland: Very Polish and underrated in current Western-centric historical ideographies.
UK: Well, there are reasons why they speak of the continent and don't include themselves and we reciprocate.
The Czars: For modern Western European history mostly important as a prelude/sideshow.

[Skill and Chance]

Turkey has the best claim.

Not buying this.  Totally different culture imposed by conquest.  Is modern St. Louis the successor of Native American Cahokia?


Italy runs into the same problem to only a slightly lesser degree.

I'm inclined to say no modern state is, but the strongest case would be modern Greece as the successor of Eastern Rome.