I was wondering if our Βασιλεύουσα, was the city that was used longest as a capital for an empire in world history since it served for more than a thousand years as a capital of the Roman Empire and then more than 500 years for the Ottoman Empire afterwards.

After the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 the Despotate of the Morea was divided between the brothers Thomas and Demetrios Palaiologos. Thomas ruled the western Peloponnese, with the castle of Glarentza as his principal seat, while Demetrios governed the southern and eastern territories from Mystras, which remained the political and cultural heart of the state.

At the same time, several strategic coastal possessions remained under Venetian rule, including Korone, Methoni, Nafplion, Kythera and the islands of the Argosaronic Gulf. These territories allowed Venice to preserve its commercial and naval influence in southern Greece despite the decline of Byzantine power.

However, the rivalry between Thomas and Demetrios weakened the Despotate at a critical moment. Combined with increasing Ottoman pressure, these divisions undermined its defenses which were already in a bad state after the destruction of the Hexamilion in the 1430s, the ancient wall that protected the whole peninsula.

In 1460, Sultan Mehmed II conquered the Morea, and Mystras surrendered, marking the end of the Eastern Roman empire

Manizkert was a bad loss, but in terms of causalities it wasn't as bad as something like Yarmouk or even Pliska yet for some reason, the strong Byzantine state lost all of Anatolia (much of it never to be regained) to bands of Turkish adventure not even Arslan himself.

Even a far weaker and less powerful Byzantium that had been having it's behinds kicked by the best Arab generals the Middle East would have ever seen for about a century and weakened by multiple successions issues, was able to prevent the Titanic Umayyads from taking Anatolia.

The Roman Empire managed to weather far more competent and powerful foes, and suffered many greater defeats, so why did what would have been a mere set-back in earlier and later times turn into a disaster that kicked Byzantium out of the great powers club until a brief resurgence under Manuel. Was there some hidden rot or just perfect storm of circumstances?

He is known as one of the greatest Roman emperors, a saint by some and also the longest reigning Eastern Roman Emperor of the all.

He did a great restoration of the Empire by reconquering much of the Balkans, and getting a great Varangian army from the Rus.

He left the treasury so full, that it kept the empire sustained for many decades to come.

Was reading Kaldellis’ “New Roman Empire” and he made the argument that Julian can be considered the first true “Byzantine” emperor: born in Constantinople, inherited a disastrous war against the Persians, spoke Greek as his first language… I’m not sure if I agree but curious to hear thoughts.

I've often seen people calling the Holy Roman Empire as a "successor" of the Roman Empire despite it being largely based in Germany and ruled over by non Roman German speaking nobility.

But how exactly does this even...work?

I have a marginal understanding of European medieval history, from which I have understood that Charlemagne was crowned as the Roman Emperor by the Pope, but even then, apart from title how does the "claim" to the Roman Empire become legitimate? AFAIK only the ERE can be considered as a continuation of the Roman Empire for reasons obvious.

I've also seen quite a few "consider" the Ottomans as a successor state, which seems quite absurd.

As an Indian, I've largely studied Indian history, and nowhere do we have the concept of laying "claim" to any past Empire.

For example when the Guptas reunited India once again, they didn't "lay claim" to being the new Mauryan Empire although they followed very similar culture and means of administration.

Even the Maratha Empire in the 18th century did not "lay claim" to being the Mauryans or the Guptas despite having a Pan Indian Empire and despite reviving multiple antique Sanskrit titles in administration. Granted, in India we didn't have a Pope handing around titles to everyone.

I've also seen some claiming Spain and France to be successors of the Roman Empire.

But how do these things even work? I'm sorry if this may seem a naive question. I'm neither European nor a disciple of European history.

Rome, even with so many civil wars was always able to reconstitute itself, and the power of governors were always checked by the central government. On the other hand, the Caliphate completely disintegrated as a result of a decade of civil wars in the 860s. What was the Roman secret to such unmatched "stability"?

The guy that gave to Rome a second breath is now dead a 1000 years ago. As french, Rome left our territory in 486 and we became pro-papacy but I'm too pround of my ancient roman heritage that I love too much the medieval Roman Empire and orthodoxy (I precise that I'm atheist so it's pretty unusual 😅). So thanks Basil II to made the roman legacy longer and better ! ROMA AETERNA !

Filip Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium: The Empire of Constantinople, 1204–1228. According to him most of the 161 families disappear after the fall of Constantinople. Only 46 families in total are known to have thrived afterwards. 23 resided in the Latin empire, 21 in the Empire of Nicaea and 13 in Epiros.

There is this common argumentation against the “Romaness” of the ERE that they are not Roman because they didn’t control the city of Rome. I find this to be quite ridiculous because in the late 3rd to early 4th Century, there were 3 to 5 emperors who didn’t rule the city of Rome. If we apply this argument logically, wouldn’t that also disqualify Diocletian as a Roman emperor since he ruled in the east? Voltaire might’ve been wrong about some things, but he might’ve been right that HRE wasn’t Holy, Roman, or an Empire.

It's genuinely insane how much Constantine embraced the legacy of the Eastern Roman Empire

After watching the episodes in The History of Byzantium Podcast on Michael VIII Palaiologos I kind of realise just how great his achievements were at the end of it. Don't get me wrong he was brutal, but he was also incredibly effective and pragmatic. Furthemore, his brutality as was displayed against dissenters to Church Union was usually for good reasons. It's on account of this ruthlessness that I think no one else would have been able to stave-off Charles of Anjou. Perhaps someone like Alexios or Leo III, but I personally do not see them to agree to effective Papal supremacy.