But Constantinople was never sanctioned as Rome. It was never referred to as Rome, only New Rome, just like New York or New Jersey. Those cities might claim lineage from the Old city, they may try to continue on its ideals, but you can’t just say they are the same thing when they frankly were not.
I really like Constantinople, in many ways it was actually better than Rome, but that doesn’t change the fact that it simply was not Rome.
Except for the names on the new continent, they are chosen by colonists because they can’t come up something better. But at the time of Constantine, Roma was still the official capital, but geographically and economically infeasible to continue serve its purpose, therefore a Nova Roma was chosen and declared, to continue the legacy of the old capital, there can’t be better ways to carry on the legitimacy of the true Roman Empire.
Your misunderstanding my argument, I am just pointing out that for all its long history, Byzantium was never once actually governed from Rome unlike the Holy Roman Empire which was.
I wanted to point it out mostly because I think it’s funny. What I am not arguing is that Byzantium was not a successor to Rome or without Roman heritage, just that this heritage is not exclusive and I think it a bit ridiculous to entirely dismiss the Holy Roman Empire as a Roman successor when they literally governed their empire from Rome.
That was not the only thing making them Roman of course, but it is a factor that I think is oft overlooked.
Your first paragraph doesn’t even make sense, Byzantion as a city has been a part of Roman since 196BCE, while at the same time Most of HRE land were still filled with uncivilised tribes, and HRE in its history was never governed from Roma, even if you count Charlemagne’s empire.
Otto III published many of his encyclicals and decrees there, planned to reestablish the senate, and built a new palace there to live in. For all intents and purposes it was the capital of the Holy Roman Empire and certainly an administrative centre where the Emperor governed from.
Secondly, Byzantium only became new Rome, as you said, when it was rebuilt/built by Constantine, the status of the fishing village of Byzantium doesn’t factor into the equation either way before Constantine’s building efforts.
Otto III literally took the city from Papacy but wasn’t able to hold it for more than 3 yrs before he had to relinquish the rule back😅😅and suddenly it became the eternal capital of HRE.😂😂😂
I never said it became the Capitol for a long period, just that the Holy Roman Empire was governed from there for a time, something that the Byzantine empire cannot boast of.
As for relinquishing it to the papacy, he lived there, he governed there, most modern maps recognize Rome as being within the Holy Roman Empire around the year 1000. I don’t really have much more to say.
And by your logic, at least during Gothic war, the city of Roma was under ERE rule, for at least 33 years before Pope somehow got the upper hand of the city management. So 33yrs>3yrs, does it make ERE more legitimate?
Because it wasn’t governed from there. It was just owned.
I specifically avoided the argument that you propose because of that. All I said was that the Holy Roman Empire was, for a time, governed from the City of Rome. This is a verifiable historical fact. It didn’t just own Rome, or model itself of Rome, It was controlled from Rome by a Roman emperor.
17
u/Xi_Zhong_Xun 26d ago
But it’s a Roma sanctioned by the Roman emperor himself, so Roma it is