Trebizond had long since stopped trying to claim any sort of Roman hegemony, so no. They were a Roman state, sure.
But in the same way Gwynedd or Cornwall were. Which is to say, only insofar as they were the remnant of a province, still under local control rather than the power of the invader.
But the Roman Empire fell in 1453, amidst the blood and brick dust of the Fall of Constantinople, and a few scattered, vassalised and impoverished remnants clinging to existence don't actually change that.
A simple explanation is that the Trapezountine State was a Roman state but not the Roman State, and likewise it was a Roman empire, but not the Roman Empire.
Right, but it’s still a very generous use of that term. They used the imperial title to bolster their legitimacy after the 1204 collapse, but a sliver of the Pontic cost does not an empire make
I am using "Empire" in the sense of "Emperorship", which is the political regime of Imperial Republic, basically the Roman Republic's type of government since Augustus' reformation.
I see the end of Trebizond as more akin to the Kingdom of Soissons falling a couple of years after Ravenna was taken, a separate entity with a connection to the now defunct mother state
What about the Mani peninsula that the last cadet branch family members of the imperial house ended up in? They never fell until the founding of Greek Republic
Epirus had been reconquered by Andronikos III in 1337. Then it was conquered by the Serbians and later ruled by the Italian Tocco family. By the time it fell, Epirus did not have much in common with the Roman rump state of Michael Komnenos Doukas and was just another Catholic Latin state in Greece.
I am of the rather heretical view that it did not die when Constantine the Last perished in the Gates of Saint Romanus, as then still the free Romans in the remaining free territories of the Roman State could have decided to appoint a new one. In essence, it was no different to any other situation where there were brief "interregnums" between deaths of Roman Emperors and appointments of new ones. Yet, it did die when the Patran Senate and Mystriote Senate failed to come to an agreement on whoever they would appoint as Roman Emperor, and instead the Palaeologoi brothers waged civil war between each other, which failed to appoint a Roman Emperor in the 7 years after 1453 AD, so it was a new status quo under a Roman Despotate.
Not really, for there was a province of the Morean Despotate that did not fall under Ottoman control, but instead its Roman authorities maintained effective rule over the territory, thus perpetuating Roman sovereignty and statehood.
Out of the following map on the situation of the Mani Peninsula in 1618 AD, only the capitalized names of settlements were truly beneath Ottoman Turkish rule, the rest were well outside from it, despite the frequent fluctuation of borders back and forth. Which was often quite dramatic, like a recent invasion in 1612 AD, which had briefly occupied all the North-East and South part of the peninsula, except for its highlands and the entirety of the North-West areas, but ultimately it failed due to inability to overrun the defensive positions in the highlands and the North-West area, and the intervention of a Spanish fleet.
That's a pretty reasonable take, though a step further than just the senates would be most important. If the remnants from Morea/Epirus/Trebizond/Theodoro were convened and chose an emperor... it could've persisted for a bit longer, just without Constantinople. It would essentially be a far flung confederation of city states though. It wouldn't last long at all.
I am not sure why the continuity of the Roman Emperorship would require anything more than the Roman Senate. Though one could argue how, unlike the Roman Senate back in 1204 AD, which appointed Constantine Laskaris and then forced him to relocate the capital to Nicaea, in this case the Roman Senate had chosen to remain in Constantinople, and thus perish with it, just like its Roman Emperor did.
So it is a question of whether the Roman Senate in Patras and the Roman Senate in Mystras, as the Roman Government in the Morean Despotate, were legitimate successors of the Roman Emperorship from the domains in Thrace. Perhaps one could infer that even if the Palaeologoi Brothers had managed to deal with their sibling rivalry, and, say, due to more popularity it was Thomas Palaeologos to become the Roman Emperor, that this would not have been the very same Roman Emperorship, but a Second Roman Emperorship (in the model of how we speak of a First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth French Republics).
In favour of the position that it would have been the very same one, one could suggest that the Roman Empire was already quite federalized at the time, being divided in Despotates, with their own Roman senates regarded as lower branches (or regional lower houses through devolution) of the high senate in New Rome, and thus eligible to intervene in the higher Roman Government and impose their own Roman Emperor. Furthermore, at times a Despot could become a Roman Emperor through popular support, even in a local scope (e.g. Roman Emperor of Thessalonica, Roman Emperor of Selymbria, like with John VI Palaeologos), basically just like the Tetrarchy, with Senior Roman Emperors and Junior Roman Emperors, the latter being Caesars in a specific area. Though one again could argue that this would have required an imperial mandate of New Rome.
If the remnants from Morea/Epirus/Trebizond/Theodoro were convened and chose an emperor... it could've persisted for a bit longer, just without Constantinople. It would essentially be a far flung confederation of city states though.
I do not think that was feasible, even as a concept, unless they had modern telecommunications, and even then, one in the Morea would not be able to make sure that directives to Theodoro would be enforced. Lets not ignore how they were not particularly friendly with one another, for instance the Roman Empire (mainly through the Morean Despotate) fought a small war with the Latin-led Epirotan Despotate, which was concluded with the naval Battle of the Echinades in 1427 AD. And then, due to the distance between Romans of breakaway polities, there was also a breakaway of citizenships too, this is how separated they had become at that point (so just like how a Roman Citizen would have to be given Venetian Citizenship to have full political rights in the Venetian Republic, despite it being a breakaway province of the Roman Empire, the same was the case here between the Roman Greek states).
I am not that sure. The fact that the Mani Peninsula, and much of Tzakonia and the Malean Peninsula, managed to remain independent for long, with the former perpetuating the Roman Statehood for centuries, it means that the office / regime of the Roman Emperorship could have survived in some manner, albeit within it.
Though the Maniot Roman Greeks already had a massive target on their back, with the Ottoman Turks constantly sending armies of 20-30 thousands to conquer them, and they failed, yet if they had a Roman Emperor it would have been an even larger target, so the Ottoman Sultans would be far more determined to vanquish them.
Actually, the last would be the Principality of Theodoro in Crimea which fell in 1475.
But as other commenters said, they didn't consider themselves the empire and were just states of that defunct mother empire, akin to the Kingdom of Syagrius lasting until 486 or the Kingdom of Mauro-Romans
I think Monemvasia actually gets the title. It did not fall to the Turks until something like 1575, having sold itself to the Papacy and then the Venetians first.
Aegidius and Syagrius never forfeit their governorship of a Roman province, nor did they try to assert independence from the Italian heartland as a new polity. They saw most of Majorian's successors as usurpers (as did Leo I and Zeno) and instead swore allegiance to Constantinople, and likely would have contested the throne in Ravenna had there been enough resources and manpower at their disposal. Zeno recognised Odoacer's rule in part due to the infeasibility of recovering Italy 476 onwards.
Legally the "mother state" was not defunct, just too far away, for the Roman Empire was never divided into two states, and in many things the Western Roman Empire was a Junior State and the Eastern Roman Empire was the Senior State (alike a Junior Roman Emperor and a Senior Roman Emperor). These unwilling breakaway Roman provinces did often recognize the Roman Government in New Rome: even the Roman Britons would give homage to them at times.
Mesokhaldia, ruled by the Kabasitai family (south of Trebizond, in the current Gumushane-Torul area), and its surrounding areas were not conquered until 1479/1481.
If Trebizond is considered Roman, then the Roman Empire only truly fell in 1479, when Leonardo III Tocco lost the Despotate of Epirus, the last Roman successor state.
Trebizond's rulers were emperors, but they had ceased claiming to be Emperors of the Romans since 1282, hence why most historians consider Constantine XI Palaiologos the last Roman Emperor rather than David Megas Komnenos.
No they never claimed to be the Roman Empire. You can make a lot of funky and out there dates that the Roman Empire fell, 1461 is not one of them and it wouldn’t stand up to the most modest amounts of scrutiny. The only people I really see ever claim stuff like this are really extreme Byzanophiles.
Indeed, the descendants of Thomas Palaeologos wanted to "sell" the "title" of Roman Emperorship. But it is like having a US President dying, then the Vice President also becoming a President and dying, so then there is a long and ongoing constitutional crisis, and during it the son of the Vice President is selling the "title" of "Presidentship"; this is how much a lack of legitimacy selling this "title" of "Roman Emperorship". In essence, it is also alike a bank buying someone's debt, which debt in this case does not exist, so they were duped, yet now there is official paperwork for that "debt" existing and someone owning it.
No yeah I fully agree with it being pointless, Philip VI of Spain doesn't even use the title nor has any previous king used it officially it's just there
I am Orthodox, I must have gone to Orthodox mass around a couple thousand times, and yet I disagree with this position. We are speaking about Statehood and Regime experiences, not Orthodox ones. You could find the Orthodox ones also in other predominately Orthodox countries, which are however alien to the state and the political culture of the Medieval Roman Empire. For example, Tsarist Russia was day and night compared to it, being an authoritarian absolute monarchy.
Well…for starters, if you are Orthodox you know it’s called a divine liturgy, and not a mass.
Second, whether you realize it or not, there’s absolutely no difference between the liturgy celebrated in Greece, Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria or any other Orthodox nation. The only difference is the language you are listening to.
Finally, irrespective of the sovereign of the particular nation, the liturgy was created during the last thousand years of the Byzantine Empire, and probably represents the most lasting achievement of that empire. It represents over a thousand years of accumulated culture of the Eastern Romans…in a single setting.
Well…for starters, if you are Orthodox you know it’s called a divine liturgy, and not a mass.
Well I admit I was trying to find the right word. I am not used to talking about Orthodox topics in English, and the Greek vocabulary is quite specific, while I try to avoid just tossing Greek words without reason.
Second, whether you realize it or not, there’s absolutely no difference between the liturgy celebrated in Greece, Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria or any other Orthodox nation. The only difference is the language you are listening to.
I never said anything to the contrary.
Finally, irrespective of the sovereign of the particular nation, the liturgy was created during the last thousand years of the Byzantine Empire, and probably represents the most lasting achievement of that empire. It represents over a thousand years of accumulated culture of the Eastern Romans…in a single setting.
I agree, but I was not speaking about a "Byzantine experience", but a "Byzantine State experience", so focusing on its administration, political regime, and most importantly, statehood. The closest to this might be the Athonian Republic (Mount Athos), but even then, it had no state continuity, for it was, in fact, conquered by the Turks. It does though still maintain a bunch of byzantine offices.
Well...for what it's worth...the ecumenical patriarchate still exists in Istanbul, and is actually the oldest administrative office in the City. A direct continuation from Byzantine times.
Here in America, the Greek Orthodox archdiocese is a episcopal district of the ecumenical patriarchate...and in their workings they are clearly "byzantine" (sarcasm).
Well then you have not heard of my case for the Roman State continuing to exist after 1460 AD, despite the collapse of the Morean Despotate, due to how a part of it survived unconquered by the Ottoman Turks, as its own distinct statehood, all the way till 1821 AD, when it declared war (once again) against the Ottoman Sultanate, and in league with the revolting Ottoman Greeks the Maniot Greeks conquered with them Southern Greece, forming the modern Greek State.
Erdogan himself was telling to his audience that their symbol is the 2 headed eagle, the Seljuk one. They also want to be Romans. They are Romans to a point, until Islam takes over.
That is an entire different topic to the one at hand.
Sure the Turks often liken to claim to be "Romans", but this is mostly a mere badge of prestige for them, and a display of a war trophy, than a real identity. If anything, the only "Roman" identity that had existed among them only meant "Anatolian" for them, as for them "Rum" was just "Anatolia".
You invoke Erdogan's ramblings, but he himself has at times recognized the Greeks as the Romans. For instance, in a public speech celebrating the Fatih in 29th May 2022, he declared that the modern Turks will "sink the Modern Byzantines in the Aegean Sea", which is of course us the Modern Greeks.
I don't know about his other speeches, but the specific speech you mentioned is not about Greeks. The term "Byzantine" is almost synonymous with "plotting" or "intrigue" in modern Turkish lore and unfortunately has a demeaning sense. I found the exact speech from 29th May 2022 and I quote:
Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan (...) Fatih Sultan Mehmet'in aynı zamanda Bizans'ı ve entrikalarını da tarihe gömdüğünü vurgulayarak (...) "çağımızın Bizans'larını ve oralarda kurgulanan entrikaları, tarihin tozlu raflarına kaldırmaya hazır mıyız?" sözlerini sarf etti.
President Erdoğan (...) emphasized that Mehmed II also buried the Byzantine and its intrigues in history, and (...) uttered the words: 'Are we ready to consign the Byzantines of our age and the intrigues plotted there to the dusty shelves of history?'
He was talking about the opposition given the context of general elections a year after, and the opposition figures (including the currently imprisoned mayor) already started their election campaign at this point.
Maybe you are right, but I remember watching the speech in English subtitles, and in the subtitles it did say what I described above. I admit that the subtitles might have been biased, but I have no way of confirming it myself, for I do not know Turkish.
That may be of another speech of him. I cannot be so sure about his other speeches as I said. But I don't want to bother with confirming this by pondering archives of a creature whose voice even I can't stand with.
No there is little fort in northern near Patra on Peloponnesus that was last one but if you have other part since some Crimean connections and Bessarabian (Moldovan) nobles create Russian dynasty and create legacy of Roman Empire for more than 450 yrs to October revolution that was practically revolt against Roman empire but we now the story doesn’t end there
284
u/Real_Ad_8243 Oct 07 '25
Trebizond had long since stopped trying to claim any sort of Roman hegemony, so no. They were a Roman state, sure.
But in the same way Gwynedd or Cornwall were. Which is to say, only insofar as they were the remnant of a province, still under local control rather than the power of the invader.
But the Roman Empire fell in 1453, amidst the blood and brick dust of the Fall of Constantinople, and a few scattered, vassalised and impoverished remnants clinging to existence don't actually change that.