View source for Succession of the Roman Empire

{{Short description|Desire to be latter-day Roman Empire}}
{{Redirect|Third Rome|the opinion that Moscow is the successor of the Roman empire|Moscow, third Rome}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2020}}
[[File:Ludwik_I_Pobo%C5%BCny.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Carolingian emperor [[Louis the Pious]] represented as a Roman soldier holding a Christian cross, with superimposed poem ''De Laudibus Sanctae Crucis'' by [[Rabanus Maurus]], 9th century]]
The continuation, succession, and revival of the [[Roman Empire]] is a running theme of the [[history of Europe]] and the [[Mediterranean Basin]]. It reflects the lasting memories of power, prestige, and unity associated with the Roman Empire.

Several polities have claimed immediate continuity with the Roman Empire, using its name or a variation thereof as their own exclusive or non-exclusive self-description. As centuries went by and more political ruptures occurred, the idea of institutional continuity became increasingly debatable. The most enduring and significant claimants of continuation of the Roman Empire have been, in the East, the [[Ottoman Empire]] and [[Russian Empire]], which both claimed succession of the [[Byzantine Empire]] after 1453; and in the West, the [[Carolingian Empire]] (9th century) and the [[Holy Roman Empire]] from 800 to 1806.

Separately from claims of continuation, the view that the Empire had ended has led to various attempts to revive it or appropriate its legacy, [[Moscow, Third Rome|notably in the case of Orthodox Russia]]. The vocabulary of a "'''Third Rome'''", the "First Rome" being Rome in [[Italian Peninsula|Italy]] and the "Second Rome" being [[Constantinople]] in the Byzantine Empire, has been used to convey such assertions of legitimate succession.

==Historiography and nomenclature==
{{See also|Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire}}

In Western Europe, the view of the [[deposition of Romulus Augustulus]] in 476 [[Anno Domini|AD]] as a historic watershed, marking the [[fall of the Western Roman Empire]] and thus the beginning of the [[Middle Ages]], was introduced by [[Leonardo Bruni]] in the early 15th century, strengthened by [[Christoph Cellarius]] in the late 17th century, and cemented by [[Edward Gibbon]] in the late 18th century. In practice, it is little more than a historiographic convention, since the Imperial idea long survived the [[Western Roman Empire]] in most of Western Europe, and reached territories that had never been under Roman rule during [[classical antiquity]].

The fall of Constantinople in 1453 is historically and broadly accepted as the end of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire and the end of the Middle Ages.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Conquest of Constantinople and the end of empire |url=http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-155920054.html |last=Foster |first=Charles |date=22 September 2006 |website=Contemporary Review |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090611074715/http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-155920054.html |archive-date=11 June 2009 |quote=It is the end of the Middle Ages}}</ref> Nonetheless, two notable claims to succession of the Eastern Roman Empire arose in the centuries after the fall of Constantinople: the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire; notably, Mehmed II, the Ottoman sultan who captured Constantinople, justified his assumption of the title of Emperor of the Romans (''Kayser-i Rum'') by [[right of conquest]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2004/12/19/pazar/yazortay.html |title=Milliyet İnternet – Pazar |publisher=Milliyet.com.tr |date=19 December 2004 |access-date=9 April 2017 |archive-date=31 October 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071031030657/http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2004/12/19/pazar/yazortay.html |url-status=live }}</ref> which was consistent with Byzantine imperial ideology which believed that control of Constantinople constituted the key legitimizing factor for an emperor<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Nicol|first=Donald M.|author-link=Donald Nicol|date=1967|title=The Byzantine View of Western Europe|url=|journal=Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies|volume=8|issue=4|pages=315–339|via=}}</ref> and also was supported by contemporary historiographer [[George of Trebizond]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/constantinople.htm|title=washingtonpost.com: Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453–1924|website=www.washingtonpost.com|access-date=9 April 2017|archive-date=24 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190724153239/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/constantinople.htm|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ftOp1cR7VK8C&q=%22The+seat+of+the+Roman+Empire+is+Constantinople.%22&pg=PT13|title=Constantinople: The Last Great Siege, 1453|last=Crowley|first=Roger|year=2009|publisher=Faber & Faber|isbn=978-0571250790|language=en}}</ref> Mehmed II's claim was also recognized by [[Gennadius Scholarius]] after Mehmed II installed him as [[ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople]] in 1454, the year after the fall of Constantinople.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia|url=http://global.britannica.com/biography/Gennadios-II-Scholarios|title=Gennadios II Scholarios {{!}} patriarch of Constantinople|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia Britannica|access-date=9 April 2017|language=en|archive-date=31 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171031214404/https://global.britannica.com/biography/Gennadios-II-Scholarios|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.patriarchate.org/list-of-ecumenical-patriarchs?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_u1pdiOuFkFSc&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=2&_101_INSTANCE_u1pdiOuFkFSc_delta=20&_101_INSTANCE_u1pdiOuFkFSc_keywords=&_101_INSTANCE_u1pdiOuFkFSc_advancedSearch=false&_101_INSTANCE_u1pdiOuFkFSc_andOperator=true&p_r_p_564233524_resetCur=false&_101_INSTANCE_u1pdiOuFkFSc_cur=6|title=List of Ecumenical Patriarchs – The Ecumenical Patriarchate|website=www.patriarchate.org|language=en-US|access-date=9 April 2017|archive-date=2 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170702213524/https://www.patriarchate.org/list-of-ecumenical-patriarchs?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_u1pdiOuFkFSc&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=2&_101_INSTANCE_u1pdiOuFkFSc_delta=20&_101_INSTANCE_u1pdiOuFkFSc_keywords=&_101_INSTANCE_u1pdiOuFkFSc_advancedSearch=false&_101_INSTANCE_u1pdiOuFkFSc_andOperator=true&p_r_p_564233524_resetCur=false&_101_INSTANCE_u1pdiOuFkFSc_cur=6|url-status=live}}</ref> Mehmed II's claims were not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church or the Christian states of Europe at the time, and though Mehmed II intended to follow through on his claims by launching a conquest of Italy, his death in 1481 signaled the last time the Ottoman state attempted to conquer Italy or Rome itself; rather subsequent Ottoman emperors instead fought rival claimants to the Roman title (the Holy Roman Empire and the Russian Empire). As the Ottoman Empire continued its break with Greco-Roman legitimacy in favour of strengthening its Islamic legitimacy, Ottoman claims to the Roman Empire faded; the last official use of the title ''Kayser-i Rum'' was in the 18th century.

===Names===
{{more citations needed|section|date=April 2023}}
[[File:Corpus scriptorum historiæ byzantinæ.PNG|right|thumb|''De Byzantinæ historiæ scriptoribus'', also known as the "{{ill|Byzantine du Louvre|fr}}", cover page with arms of [[Louis XIV]]]]
The empire that modern historiography calls the "[[Byzantine Empire]]" never used that expression, and kept calling itself the ''Roman Empire'', ''Empire of the Romans'', or ''Romania'' until the [[fall of Constantinople]].{{citation needed|date=April 2023}}<ref>{{Cite book |last=Caselli |first=Giovanni |title=The Roman empire and the dark ages |date=1981 |publisher=Macdonald |isbn=978-0-356-05975-4 |location=London |pages=24 - 26}}</ref> Following the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire in 800, Christian Western Europeans were reluctant to apply the "Roman" epithet to the Eastern Empire and frequently called it "Empire of the Greeks" or "Greek Empire", even though they also used ''Romania'' – the latter also for the [[Latin Empire]] of the 13th century.{{citation needed|date=April 2023}} By contrast, Muslims in the [[Levant]] and farther east typically referred to the people of the Eastern Empire as "Romans" (''Rum''), and to Western Europeans, including those from the Holy Roman Empire, as "[[Franks]]" (''[[Farang]]'').{{citation needed|date=April 2023}}

The name [[Byzantium]] refers to the ancient city on the [[Bosporus]], now called [[Istanbul]], which [[Constantine the Great|Constantine]] renamed [[Constantinople]] in 330. It was not used thereafter, except in rare historical or poetic contexts, until it first took its new meaning in 1557 when the German scholar [[Hieronymus Wolf]] published his ''Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ'', a collection of historical sources about the Eastern Empire. Then from 1648 onwards, [[Philippe Labbe]] and fellow French [[Society of Jesus|Jesuits]] published the 24-volume ''De Byzantinæ historiæ scriptoribus'',<ref>{{cite web|website=Qantara|url=https://www.qantara-med.org/public/show_document.php?do_id=720&lang=en |title=The "Byzantine du Louvre" collection}}</ref> and in 1680 [[Charles du Fresne, sieur du Cange|Du Cange]] produced his own ''Historia Byzantina''. These endeavors further entrenched the use of the "Byzantine" label among French authors, including [[Montesquieu]] in the 18th century.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Celator |volume=10 |number=3 |date=March 1996 |last=Fox |first=Clinton R |url=http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm |title=What, If Anything, Is a Byzantine?}}</ref> Outside France in the Western world, it only came into general use around the mid-19th century, after [[Barthold Georg Niebuhr]] and his continuators published the 50-volume ''[[Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae]]''.<ref>{{cite book|author=John H. Rosser |date=2011 |title=Historical Dictionary of Byzantium |location=Lanham, MA|publisher=Scarecrow|isbn=978-0-8108-7567-8|page=2}}</ref>

Similarly, what historians call the "[[Carolingian Empire]]" and "[[Holy Roman Empire]]" – in French and Spanish, "Holy Roman Germanic Empire" ({{lang|fr|Saint Empire romain germanique}}, {{lang|es|Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico}}) was the ''Roman Empire'', ''Empire of the Romans'' or simply ''Empire'' to their own subjects and rulers, with "Frankish" or "of the Franks" sometimes added depending on context. Only in 1157 did the twists and turns of the [[Investiture Controversy]] lead to the practice of calling the Empire, though not the Emperor himself, "holy" (''sacrum'').<ref name=Wilson /><ref>[[Peter Moraw]], ''Heiliges Reich'', in: [[Lexikon des Mittelalters]], Munich & Zurich: Artemis 1977–1999, vol. 4, columns 2025–2028.</ref> The reference to Germany (''Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation'', ''Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicæ''), which first appeared in the late 15th century, was never much used in official Imperial documents,<ref>Peter H. Wilson, "Bolstering the Prestige of the Habsburgs: The End of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806", in ''The International History Review'', Vol. 28, No. 4 (December  2006), p. 719.</ref> and even then was a misnomer since the Empire's jurisdiction in Italy had not entirely disappeared. Other colloquial designations in the early Modern era included "German Empire" ({{lang|de|Deutsches Reich|italics=yes}}) or "Roman-German Empire" ({{lang|de|Römisch-Deutsches Reich|italic=yes}}).<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|chapter=Heiliges Römisches Reich – Kapitel 1: Gebiet und Institutionen |author=Marco Jorio|title=Heiliges Römisches Reich|encyclopedia=Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz |chapter-url=https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/articles/006626/2016-04-25/}}</ref>

In 1773, a few decades before the Holy Roman Empire's demise, [[Voltaire]] made the famous quip that it "was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."<ref>{{cite book |author=Voltaire |title=Essais sur les mœurs et l'ésprit des nations |year=1773 |orig-year=1756 |edition=nouvelle |location=Neuchâtel |volume=3 |chapter=Chapitre LXX|page=338 |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/essaissurlesmoeu03volt/page/338 |quote=Ce corps qui s'appelait, & qui s'appelle encore, le Saint-Empire Romain, n'était en aucune manière, ni saint, ni romain, ni empire}}</ref>

==Roman imperial legitimacy==

In the early decades of the Roman Empire, legitimacy was largely defined by the institutions inherited from the [[Roman Republic]], initially together with a form of hereditary succession within the [[Julio-Claudian dynasty]]. As the old Republican institutions gradually lost relevance, many later Emperors derived their legitimacy from acclamation by the army, and during the [[Nerva–Antonine dynasty]], [[Adoption in ancient Rome|adoption by their predecessor]]. The Roman Empire itself was long defined by its eponymous capital, but this equation became blurred after the [[crisis of the Third Century]] as the administrative center was moved to [[Mediolanum]] (Milan), then further fragmented into various locations (e.g. [[Nicomedia]], [[Sirmium]], [[Trier|Augusta Treverorum]], [[Sofia|Serdica]]) before being reconsolidated by [[Constantine the Great]] in [[Byzantium]], renamed and dedicated as [[Constantinople]] in 330 - while [[Ravenna]] replaced Milan as Western political capital in 402. Meanwhile, the Empire was [[Christianization|Christianized]] in the course of the 4th century, which partly redefined the authority of the Emperor as he became the protector of the new state religion.

Thus, the Imperial identity, and therefore the question of which polity could rightfully claim to be the Roman Empire, rested not on a single criterion but on a variety of factors: dominant territorial power and the related attributes of peace and order; rule over Rome and/or Constantinople; protection of justice and of the Christian faith (against paganism, heresy, and later [[Islam]]); as well as, albeit only intermittently, considerations of  [[Dynasty|dynastic succession]] or of [[ethnic nationalism]].

===Conflicting claims===
{{Main|Problem of two emperors}}

The multidimensionality of the imperial claim, together with the unique prestige of the imperial title, explains the recurrence of often intractable conflicts about which polities and rulers could rightfully assume them. These conflicts lost their potency in the course of the [[Early modern period]], however, as improved communications and literacy increasingly undermined any claim of universal supremacy.

{{multiple image| align=right| total_width=300
| image1=Basil I (867-886) from the Chronikon of Ioannis Skylitzes.jpg
| image2=Louis II of Italy.png
| footer = Emperors [[Basil I]] (left, on horseback) and [[Louis II of Italy|Louis II]] (right)}}

A letter of [[Louis II of Italy|Carolingian Emperor Louis II]] to [[Basil I|Byzantine Emperor Basil I]], probably drafted in Roman circles close to the Papacy in response to a lost original and surviving in 13th-century copy kept at the [[Vatican Library]], articulates how the debate was framed in its time (ca. 871). The following quotes are from a full translation by scholar Charles West.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://turbulentpriests.group.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Emperor-Louis-II-of-Italy-to-Emperor-Basil-I.pdf|title=The letter of Emperor Louis II of Italy to Emperor Basil I of Byzantium, c. 871; Translation by Charles West|date=May 2016}}</ref>

Territorial rule over Constantinople is not the exclusive criterion for a rightful Imperial claim: 
{{Cquote|quote=Over here with us, in truth, many books have been read, and many are tirelessly being read, yet never have we found that boundaries were set out, or that forms or precepts were issued, so that no-one is to be called Emperor (''Basileus'') except whoever happens to hold the helm of rule (''imperium'') in the city of Constantinople.}}

While the Empire as an idea is unitary, there is no established doctrine that there should be only one Emperor at any time, especially if the two Emperors are on friendly terms. Whether on purpose or not, Louis's description of two Emperors of a single Empire matches the doctrine underlying the [[Tetrarchy]] or the division between Eastern and Western Empire between 395 and 476: 
{{Cquote|quote=You say also that the four patriarchal sees [of [[Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople|Constantinople]], [[Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria|Alexandria]], [[Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch|Antioch]] and [[Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem|Jerusalem]]] have a tradition handed down from the God-bearing Apostles to commemorate a single empire (''imperium'') during mass, and you advise us that we should persuade them that they should call us emperors. But neither does reason demand this, nor does it need to be done.  Firstly, since it is not fitting for us to instruct others on how we should be called. Secondly, because we know that, without any persuasion on our part, both patriarchs and all other people under this heaven, except Your Fraternity, both office-holders and private citizens, do call us by this name, as often as we receive letters and writings from them. And we find that our uncles, glorious kings [i.e. [[Charles the Bald]] and [[Louis the German]]], call us emperor without any envy and say without any doubt that we are the emperor, not taking age into account – for they are older than us – but considering instead unction and the blessing by which, through the laying on of hands and prayer of the highest pontiff, we are divinely raised to this height and to the rulership of the Roman principality (''romani principatus imperium''), which we hold by heavenly permission. But however this may be, if the patriarchs do make mention of a single empire during the holy sacraments, they should be praised as acting entirely appropriately. For there is indeed one empire of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, of which the church on earth is a part. But God has not granted this church to be steered (''gubernari'')
either by me or you alone, but so that we should be bound to each other with such love that we cannot be divided, but should seem to exist as one.}}

Louis's claim is ancient enough to be justified by tradition since it has already held for several generations: 
{{Cquote|quote=We are justified in feeling some astonishment that your Serenity believes we are aspiring for a new or recent title (''appellatio''). For as much as it pertains to the lineage of our descent (''genus''), it is neither new nor recent, for it comes from our great-grandfather of glorious memory [i.e. [[Charlemagne]]]. He did not usurp it, as you maintain, but received the imposition and the unction of his hands by the will of God, and by the judgement of the church and of the highest pontiff, as you will easily find written in your books. (...) Indeed none doubts that the dignity of our empire (''imperium'') is ancient, who is aware that we are the successor of ancient emperors, and who knows the wealth of divine piety.}}

{{multiple image| align=right| total_width=300
| image1=Ravenna Basilica of San Vitale wideangle.jpg|caption1=[[Basilica of San Vitale]] in [[Ravenna]], designed under the [[Ostrogothic Kingdom]] in 526
| image2=Aix dom int vue cote.jpg|caption2=[[Palatine Chapel, Aachen]], designed under [[Charlemagne]] around 792
| footer=Both buildings are thought to be modelled on large audience halls of the [[Great Palace of Constantinople|Imperial Palace]] in [[Constantinople]], such as the [[Chrysotriklinos]] or Golden Reception Hall. San Vitale may also have served as direct inspiration for the Aachen Chapel.}}

Louis defends the Carolingian principle of dynastic succession as validated by tradition. Furthermore, Louis thinks that there should be no exclusive ethnic criterion for the Imperial dignity. Here Louis apparently refers to a claim by Basil that the Emperor should be a Roman and not from a non-Roman ethnicity (''gens''): 
{{Cquote|quote=It is only right to laugh at what you said about the imperial name being neither hereditary (''paternum'') nor appropriate for a people (''neque genti convenire''). How is it not hereditary, since it was hereditary for our grandfather? In what way is it inappropriate for a people (gens), since we know – mentioning only a few for the sake of brevity – that Roman emperors were created from the people (''gens'') of [[Hispania]] [e.g. [[Theodosius I]]], [[Isauria]] [e.g. [[Leo III the Isaurian|Leo III]]], and [[Khazars|Khazaria]] [e.g. [[Leo IV the Khazar|Leo IV]]]? And though you will not truthfully assert that these nations (''nationes'') are more outstanding in religion or virtues than the people (''gens'') of the [[Franks]], yet you do not refuse to accept them nor disdain to talk of emperors coming from them. (...) Your beloved Fraternity moreover indicates you are surprised that we are called emperor of the Romans, not of the Franks. But you should know that if we were not emperor of the Romans, we should not be emperor of the Franks either. We derive this title and dignity from the Romans, amongst whom the first summit of glory and exaltation shone out, whose people (''gens'') and whose city we divinely received to govern, and whose church, the mother of all the churches of God, we received to defend and raise up. (...)  Since things are so, why do you take such effort to criticise us, because we come from the Franks and have charge of the reins of the Roman empire (''imperium''), since in every people (''gens'') anyone who fears God is acceptable to Him? For certainly the [[Theodosius I|elder Theodosius]] and his sons [[Arcadius]] and [[Honorius (emperor)|Honorius]], and [[Theodosius II|Theodosius the younger]], the son of Arcadius, were raised from Spaniards to the summit of the Roman empire.}}

Using a modern vocabulary, Louis thought that those populations (gens) he cited (e.g. Spaniards, Isaurian etc.) were not Romans and that only the inhabitants of the city of Rome were Romans, not recognizing that those populations would have been seen as Romans, being citizens of the empire. While for Basil, the population (gens) of the Franks would not make good emperors because they were not citizens of the empire.

===Empire and Christianity===

Since the 4th century and particularly since the [[Edict of Thessalonica]] in 380, the defense and promotion of Christianity has been a key driver of Imperial identity. After that date, the territorial scope of the Empire or any of its continuating entities has never exactly coincided with that of Christendom, and the discrepancies led to enduring conflicts of legitimacy. The most consequential of these was the [[East-West Schism]], which crystallized in 1054 as a consequence of longstanding fights over governance and jurisdiction (known as [[Ecclesiastical differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church|ecclesiastical differences]]) and over doctrine ([[Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church|theological differences]]), and can be fairly viewed as a delayed effect of the [[problem of two emperors]] arising from the creation of the [[Carolingian Empire]] in 800.

Earlier examples include the preference of several [[barbarian kingdoms]] during the [[Migration Period]] for [[Arianism]] after the competing [[Nicene Creed]] had regained dominance in Constantinople: the [[Kingdom of the Burgundians|Burgundians]] until 516, [[Vandal Kingdom|Vandals]] until 534, [[Ostrogothic Kingdom|Ostrogoths]] until 553, [[Kingdom of the Suebi|Suebi]] until the 560s, [[Visigothic Kingdom|Visigoths]] until 587, and [[Kingdom of the Lombards|Lombards]] intermittently until 652. The adoption of Arianism protected these kingdoms' rulers from the religious disputes and policy initiatives of Constantinople, while being more acceptable to their majority-Catholic subjects than paganism.{{citation needed|date=October 2020}}

[[File:Palaio.jpg|thumb|right|Presumed portrait of [[John VIII Palaiologos|Emperor John VIII]] at the [[Council of Florence]], by [[Benozzo Gozzoli]], ca. 1459]]

On two occasions, the Eastern (Byzantine) Emperors reunited their church with its Western (Roman Catholic) counterpart, on political motivations and without durable effect. At the [[Second Council of Lyon]] in 1274, [[Michael VIII Palaiologos|Emperor Michael VIII]] aimed to appease the Papacy to keep his [[Frankokratia|Frankish]] adversaries in check, particularly [[Charles I of Anjou]]'s plans to re-invade the Empire; the union was never widely accepted in Constantinople, and was reversed at the [[Council of Constantinople (1285)|Council of Blachernae]] in 1285 after both Michael and Charles had died. At the [[Council of Florence|Council of Ferrara/Florence]] in 1438–39, [[John VIII Palaiologos|Emperor John VIII]] negotiated under the threat of Ottoman conquest, but the union agreement was again resisted in Constantinople and only proclaimed by [[Isidore of Kiev]] in December 1452, four years after John's death and too late to prevent the [[fall of Constantinople]] a few months later.

Conversely, the Ottoman Sultans' policies as self-proclaimed Emperors of the Romans (i.e. in the language of the time, of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox Christians]]) supported the independence of the Orthodox Church from Rome and occasionally favored reforms to keep religiously inspired separatism in check, e.g. the revival of the [[Serbian Patriarchate of Peć]] in 1557. The initial instrument of that policy, [[Gennadius Scholarius]], had been a prominent opponent of the union of the Eastern and Western churches in the 1440s and early 1450s.

The link between Empire and Christianity has a durable legacy: to this day, [[Rome]] remains the seat of the [[Catholic Church]], and [[Constantinople]] ([[Istanbul]]) that of the [[Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople|Ecumenical Patriarchate]] with a widely recognized status of ''[[primus inter pares]]'' within the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]]. In 2018, the negotiations over [[autocephaly]] of the [[Orthodox Church of Ukraine]] led to a [[2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism|schism between Moscow and Constantinople]] as the [[Russian Orthodox Church]] unilaterally severed [[full communion]] with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. A [[1996 Moscow–Constantinople schism|similar schism]] had occurred in 1996 over the [[Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church]], but unlike in 2018 it was resolved after a few months.

The Imperial connection extends, through the legacy of the [[Ottoman Empire]], to [[Islam]] as well. Istanbul was also [[Abolition of the Caliphate|until 1924]] the seat of the only widely recognized [[Ottoman Caliphate|Caliphate]] of the last half-millennium, and keeps most of the surviving [[Relics of Muhammad]] as the [[Sacred Relics (Topkapı Palace)|Sacred Trust]] in [[Topkapı Palace]], close to the location of the former [[Great Palace of Constantinople|Roman Imperial palace]].

==Continuation in the East==

===Roman/Byzantine Empire until 1204===
{{Main|Byzantine Empire}}
[[File:Byzantine Empire animated.gif|thumb|right|Territorial extent of the Roman/Byzantine Empire 476-1400]]

There is seamless continuity between the Roman and Byzantine Empires, to the extent that the date at which the former ends and the latter begins is essentially a matter of historiographical convention. The Byzantines consistently and near-exclusively called themselves Romans, before and after they [[Hellenization in the Byzantine Empire|adopted Greek as principal state language]] in the 7th century. Traditional Western European historiography retains 395 as the date of beginning of the Byzantine Empire, when [[Theodosius I]] was succeeded by [[Arcadius]] in the East and [[Honorius (emperor)|Honorius]] in the West.{{citation needed|date=October 2020}} Alternative conventions date the transition from Rome to Byzantium at the translation of the imperial capital from [[Rome]] to [[Constantinople]] in 330, or at the reign of Heraclius marking the end of [[late antiquity]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Corbishley |first=Mike |title=The Middle Ages: cultural atlas for young people. |publisher=Equinox (Oxford) Ltd |year=1990 |isbn=0816019738 |location=Oxford |pages=16-26 |language=English}}</ref>{{citation needed|date=October 2020}}

Even though the Byzantine Empire went through numerous political upheavals, and faced periods of dramatic contraction in the 7th and late 11th centuries, it exhibited unquestionable institutional continuity until 1204, not least because its central and defining seat of power, [[Constantinople]], was never conquered during this period. Conversely, in the Eastern Mediterranean territories that ceased being part of the Empire during that period, there emerged almost no competing claim of Imperial legitimacy. In their different ways, the [[Avar–Byzantine wars|Avars]] and [[Slavic migrations to Southeastern Europe|Slavs in Southeastern Europe]], and the [[Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628|Sasanians]] and [[Muslim conquest of the Levant|Muslims in the Levant and Northern Africa]], had different models of governance and no appetite for posing as Romans. This may also be linked to their inability to conquer the Imperial capital despite [[List of sieges of Constantinople|numerous attempts]], as is suggested by the counter-example of the Ottoman Sultans claiming the Imperial title after 1453.

====Bulgarian Empire====
{{Main|Bulgarian Empire (disambiguation){{!}}Bulgarian Empire}}

In the period before 1204, the only significant competing Imperial claim in the East appeared in 913, when [[Simeon I the Great]], ruler of [[First Bulgarian Empire|Bulgaria]], was crowned "Emperor and Autocrat of all Bulgarians and Romans" (''Car i samodǎržec na vsički bǎlgari i gǎrci'' in the modern vernacular) by the [[Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople|Patriarch of Constantinople]] and imperial regent [[Nicholas Mystikos]] outside of the Byzantine capital. The decade 914–927 was then spent in a destructive [[Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927|Byzantine–Bulgarian war]] over the Imperial claim and other matters of conflict. The Bulgarian monarch was eventually recognized as "Emperor of the Bulgarians" (''basileus tōn Boulgarōn'') by the Byzantine Emperor [[Romanus I|Romanos I Lakapenos]] in 924, following the convention also adopted with the [[Carolingian Empire]] that ''[[basileus]]'' (a Greek word that can translate as ''king'' or ''emperor'' depending on context) was not an equal title to that of the Emperor as long as it did not explicitly confer authority over the "Romans". Constantinople's recognition of the ''basileus'' dignity of the Bulgarian monarch and the patriarchal dignity of the [[Patriarch of All Bulgaria|Bulgarian patriarch]] was again confirmed at the conclusion of permanent peace and a Bulgarian–Byzantine dynastic marriage in 927. The Bulgarian title "[[tsar]]" (''[[Caesar (title)|Caesar]]'') was adopted by all Bulgarian monarchs up to the fall of Bulgaria under Ottoman rule.

During the [[Second Bulgarian Empire]], 14th-century literary compositions portrayed the then capital of Tarnovo, now [[Veliko Tarnovo]], as successor of both Rome and Constantinople.<ref>{{cite book|author=Ivan Duychev (Иван Дуйчев)|date=1972|title=Bulgarian Middle Ages (Българско средновековие) |location=Sofia|publisher=Наука и Изкуство|page=430}}</ref> Bulgarian contemporaries called the city "Tsarevgrad Tarnov", the ''Imperial city of Tarnovo'', echoing the Bulgarian name then used for Constantinople, [[Tsarigrad]].<ref>{{citation|author1=Ivan Bozhilov (Иван Божилов)|author2=Vasil Gyuzelev (Васил Гюзелев)|date=1999|title=История на средновековна България VII–XIV век (History of Medieval Bulgaria VII–XIV centuries) |location=Sofia|publisher=Анубис |isbn=954-426-204-0|pages=620–621}}</ref>

===Fourth Crusade and its aftermath===
{{Main|Fourth Crusade|Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae}}
{{See also|Frankokratia}}
[[File:LatinEmpire2.png|thumb|right|Political fragmentation in the aftermath of the sack of Constantinople, early 13th century]]

The [[Fourth Crusade]] and [[sack of Constantinople]] in 1204 marked a major rupture in the history of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, and opened a period of fragmentation and competing claims of Imperial legitimacy. The crusading (Latin) invaders divided most of the Empire among themselves by a [[Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae|formal treaty of partition]], under which the [[Latin Empire|Latin Empire of Constantinople]]'s direct rule did not extend greatly further than the city itself. It included the [[Turkish Straits|Straits]] and their immediate hinterland, e.g. [[Edirne|Adrianople]] and [[İzmit|Nicomedia]], but neither [[Thessaloniki|Salonica]] nor [[İznik|Nicaea]]. Other territories of the former Empire were not conquered by the Latin crusaders, and remained held by various holdovers of the former (Greek) Empire.

Several of the polities emerging from that fragmentation claimed to be the rightful successor of the prior Empire, on various motives: the Latin Empire held the Imperial capital; the rulers of the [[Empire of Trebizond]] stemmed from the formerly Imperial [[Komnenos|Komnenos family]]; those of the [[Despotate of Epirus]] (briefly the [[Empire of Thessalonica]]) were from the [[Angelos|Angelos family]], even though they renounced the imperial claim by accepting Nicaean overlordship in 1248; the [[Empire of Nicaea]] successfully claimed the [[Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople|patriarchate]] in 1206, and eventually prevailed through skillful management of alliances and its recapture of Constantinople in 1261.

====Latin Empire of Constantinople====
{{Main|Latin Empire}}
{{See also|Podestà of Constantinople|Treaty of Viterbo}}

The Latin Empire had its own line of Imperial succession, initially dominated by the [[Count of Flanders|House of Flanders]] then by the French [[House of Courtenay]]. It was embattled almost from the start, as the city was never able to recover from the trauma of 1204. Despite its theoretical [[suzerainty]], the Latin Empire was not even politically dominant among the crusader states, which were referred to as Latin or [[Franks|Frankish]] by Easterners.

After being expelled from Constantinople in 1261, its [[Latin Emperor|titular Emperors]] occasionally held territorial power in parts of modern Greece. [[James of Baux|Jacques des Baux]] was [[Principality of Achaea|Prince of Achaea]] in 1381–1383, and the last recorded claimant to the Latin Imperial title.{{citation needed|date=October 2020}}

===Late Byzantine era===
{{Main|Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologos dynasty}}
[[File:Eastern Mediterranean 1450.svg|thumb|right|Byzantine Empire (purple) immediately before the fall of Constantinople]]

The [[Palaiologos|Palaiologos dynasty]] prolonged the Roman Imperial experience from its recovery of Constantinople in 1261 until the Ottoman conquest in 1453. The Empire shrunk considerably during that period, and at the end it was only the imperial city itself without any hinterland, plus most of the [[Peloponnese]] (then referred to as [[Morea]]) typically under the direct rule of one of the Emperor's sons with the title of [[Despot (court title)|Despot]]. This line of Imperial succession ceased in 1453; even though the [[Despotate of the Morea]] lingered on a few more years, until the Ottomans conquered it in 1460, its rulers at the time did not claim Imperial authority.

====Serbian Empire====
{{See also|Emperor of the Serbs}}

In 1345, the [[Serbian King]] [[Stefan Dušan]] proclaimed himself Emperor ([[Tsar]]) and was crowned as such at [[Skopje]] on [[Easter]] 1346 by the newly created [[Serbian Patriarch]], as well as by the [[Patriarch of All Bulgaria]] and the [[Archbishop of Ohrid]]. His imperial title was recognized by, among others, the Bulgarian Empire, much diminished following the [[Battle of Velbazhd]] in 1330, albeit not by the Byzantine Empire. In [[Medieval Serbia|Serbia]], the title of "[[Emperor of Serbs|Emperor of Serbs and Romans]]" (in its final simplified form; ''цар Срба и Римљана'' / ''car Srba i Rimljana'' in modern Serbian) was only employed thereafter by Stefan Dušan's son [[Stefan Uroš V]] until his death in 1371. A half-brother of Dušan, [[Simeon Uroš]], and then his son [[Jovan Uroš]], used the same title until the latter's abdication in 1373, while ruling as dynasts in [[Thessaly]].

====Empire of Trebizond====
{{Main|Empire of Trebizond}}

The [[Empire of Trebizond]], one of the entities that had emerged from the fragmentation of the early 13th century, survived until Ottoman conquest in 1461. Its [[Komnenos]] rulers claimed the Imperial title for themselves in competition to the ones in Constantinople, even though they did not receive any meaningful international recognition.

A separate polity on the Crimean coast of the Black Sea, the [[Principality of Theodoro]], only fell to the Ottomans in 1475. There is no indication that its rulers made any claim of being Roman Emperors.

====Andreas Palaiologos's cessions====
{{Main|Pretenders to the Byzantine throne}}

[[File:Σφραγίς Ανδρέου Παλαιολόγου.png|thumb|right|Seal of Andreas Palaiologos, late 15th century. The Latin inscription translates as "Andreas Palaiologos by the Grace of God [[Despot (court title)|Despot]] of the Romans"]]

[[Andreas Palaiologos]], a nephew of the last Byzantine Emperor [[Constantine XI Palaiologos]] and the head of what remained of the Palaiologos family, started calling himself Emperor of Constantinople in 1483 and, possibly childless, sold what he viewed as his imperial title to [[Charles VIII of France]] in 1494.<ref name="Norwich">{{cite book|author=John Julius Norwich|title=Byzantium – The Decline and Fall|page=446| year = 1995 | publisher = Alfred A. Knopf  | location = New York | isbn = 0-679-41650-1}}</ref> The following Kings of France kept the claim until [[Charles IX of France|Charles IX]] in 1566, when it went into disuse. Charles IX wrote that the imperial Byzantine title "is not more eminent than that of king, which sounds better and sweeter."<ref>David Potter, ''A History of France, 1460–1560: The Emergence of a Nation State'', 1995, p.&nbsp;33</ref>

In his last will in 1502, Andreas Palaiologos again ceded his self-awarded imperial title, this time to [[Ferdinand II of Aragon]] and [[Isabella I of Castile]].<ref>Polychrones Kyprianos Enepekides, ''Das Wiener Testament des Andreas Palaiologos vom 7. April 1502''</ref> Other [[pretenders to the Byzantine throne]] have appeared following his death that year, with increasingly dubious claims as centuries went by. [[Charles I Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua]], who also claimed descent from the Palaiologos family, declared in 1612 his intent to reclaim Constantinople but only succeeded in provoking an uprising in the [[Mani Peninsula]], which lasted until 1619.

===Ottoman Empire after 1453===
{{Main|Ottoman Empire|Ottoman claim to Roman succession}}
[[File:Gennadios II and Mehmed II.jpg|thumb|right|[[Mehmed II]] and [[Gennadius II]], 18th-century mosaic at the [[St. George's Cathedral, Istanbul|Fener Patriarchate]] in Istanbul]]
[[File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png|thumb|right|The [[Ottoman Empire]] at its greatest extent, under [[Sultan]] [[Mehmed IV]]]]

After the [[conquest of Constantinople]] in 1453, [[Mehmed II]] declared himself Roman Emperor: ''Kayser-i Rum'', literally "[[Caesar (title)|Caesar]] of the Romans", the standard title for earlier Byzantine Emperors in Arab, Persian and Turkish lands.<ref>{{cite web|author=İlber Ortaylı |title=Büyük Constantin ve İstanbul |website=Milliyet |url=https://www.milliyet.com.tr/yazarlar/ilber-ortayli/buyuk-constantin-ve-istanbul-1395940 |date=28 May 2011}}</ref> In 1454, he ceremonially established [[Gennadius Scholarius]], a staunch antagonist of [[Catholicism]] and of the Sultan's European enemies, as [[Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople]] and [[ethnarch]] (''milletbashi'') of the [[Rum Millet]], namely [[Greek Orthodox Church|Greek Orthodox Christians]] within the Empire. In turn, Gennadius endorsed Mehmed's claim of Imperial succession.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|url=https://global.britannica.com/biography/Gennadios-II-Scholarios|title= Gennadios II Scholarios | encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia Britannica | access-date=13 July 2020 }}</ref><ref>[[Dimitri Kitsikis]], Türk-Yunan İmparatorluğu. Arabölge gerçeği ışığında Osmanlı Tarihine bakış – İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları, 1996.</ref>

Mehmed's claim rested principally with the idea that Constantinople was the rightful seat of the Roman Empire, as it had been for more than a millennium even if the 1204–1261 period is subtracted. Contemporary scholar [[George of Trebizond]] wrote that "the seat of the Roman Empire is Constantinople ... and he who is and remains Emperor of the Romans is also the Emperor of the whole world".<ref name="Crowley2009">{{cite book|author=Roger Crowley|title=Constantinople: The Last Great Siege, 1453|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ftOp1cR7VK8C&pg=PT13|year=2009|publisher=Faber & Faber|isbn=978-0-571-25079-0|pages=13–}}</ref> An additional though questionable claim of legitimacy referred to the past alliances between the [[Ottoman dynasty]] and Byzantine Imperial families. Byzantine Princess [[Theodora Kantakouzene (wife of Orhan)|Theodora Kantakouzene]] had been one of the wives of [[Orhan I]], and an unsupported but widespread story portrayed Mehmed as a descendant of [[John Tzelepes Komnenos]].<ref name=Norwich />

[[George of Trebizond]] addressed Mehmed in a poem:<ref>{{cite book|title=The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600|author=Halil İnalcık|year=1973|pages=56–57|language=en}}</ref>
{{blockquote|No one can doubt that he is emperor of the Romans. He who holds the seat of empire in his hand is emperor of right; and Constantinople is the centre of the Roman Empire.|author=[[George of Trebizond]]}}

Mehmed's imperial plans went further and aimed at conquering Rome itself, thus reuniting the Empire in a way it hadn't been for nearly eight centuries. His Italian campaign started in 1480 with the [[Ottoman invasion of Otranto|invasion of Otranto]], but was cut short by Mehmed's sudden death on 3 May 1481.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bunson|first=Matthew|title=How the 800 Martyrs of Otranto Saved Rome|work=Catholic Answers|url=http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-the-800-martyrs-of-otranto-saved-rome|access-date=30 May 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131217224555/http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-the-800-martyrs-of-otranto-saved-rome|archive-date=17 December 2013}}</ref> None of his successors renewed that endeavor. Instead, they repeatedly (albeit never successfully) attempted to conquer the capital of the rival contenders to the Imperial Roman title, with a [[Siege of Vienna (1529)|first siege of Vienna]] in 1529 and a [[Battle of Vienna|second one]] in 1683.

Being the rightful heir of the Roman/Byzantine Empire became part of the identity of the Sultanate, along with its Turkish and Muslim heritage, even though that dimension was played down by Western observers. According to Turkish scholar F. Asli Ergul:<ref name=Orthodox>{{cite web|author=Matthew Namee |title=When did the Roman Empire end: 1917 or 1922? |url=https://orthodoxhistory.org/2020/07/20/when-did-the-roman-empire-end-1917-or-1922/ |date=20 July 2020 |website=Orthodox History}}</ref> 
{{Cquote|quote=Although this title was not recognized by either the Greeks or the Europeans, the Ottoman dynasty, by defining itself as Rum [Roman], internalized the hegemonic and multi-cultural structure of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire). Obviously it was a declaration of the Ottoman Sultan's seizure of the heritage of the Eastern Roman Empire.}}

Additionally, over the centuries, many Greeks abandoned Orthodoxy and embraced Islam, to the point that today, in part [[Genetic studies on Turkish people|because of the intermingling of ethnic Greeks with Turks in the Ottoman Empire, genetic studies have found that modern Turks]] are closer, genetically, to Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people than to Central Asians.<ref name=Orthodox />

In diplomatic exchanges with the [[Holy Roman Empire]], the Ottomans initially refused to acknowledge the latter's Imperial claim, because they saw themselves as the only rightful successors of Rome. In the [[Treaty of Constantinople (1533)]], the Austrian negotiators agreed not to make any mention of the Holy Roman Empire, only referring to Ferdinand I as King of Germany and Charles V as King of Spain. The Ottomans abandoned that requirement in the [[Peace of Zsitvatorok|Treaty of Sitvatorok]] in 1606, and similarly to the [[Russian Empire]] in the [[Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca]] in 1774.

Chinese usage during the [[Ming dynasty]] referred to the Ottomans as Lumi (魯迷), derived from [[Rûm]]i, literally "Roman". It is important to emphasize that in China there is the concept of "[[conquest dynasty]]", with the Chinese considering dynasties of non-Han ethnic origin as the [[Yuan dynasty]] (Mongolian origin) and [[Qing dynasty]] (Manchu origin) as Chinese dynasties, this concept (when used for non-Chinese foreign people) may have influenced the Chinese to see the Ottomans as a Roman dynasty  <ref>{{Cite journal|title=Mindai no teppo denrai to Osuman teikoku : shinkifu to Saiiki tochi jinbutsuryaku [in Japanese]|url=https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110007409554|journal=Keiogijuku University|date=October 1958 |volume=31 |issue=1/2/3/4 |pages=692–719 |last1=和田 |first1=博徳 }}</ref>

==Continuation in the West==

===Political fragmentation and imperial overlordship===
{{Main|Fall of the Western Roman Empire}}
{{See also|Frankish Table of Nations}}
[[File:Mapa Imperio Occidental año 418.svg|thumb|right|Western Empire as it started to fragment, 418 CE]]
[[File:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.png|thumb|right|Peak fragmentation in the West, 476 CE]]

By the start of the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire remained close to its maximum territorial extent, notwithstanding the loss of the ''[[Agri Decumates]]'' during the [[crisis of the Third Century]], but Roman rule had become fragile and many areas were depopulated. In the early years of the century, the Empire [[End of Roman rule in Britain|withdrew from Great Britain]], leaving it open to [[Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain|Anglo-Saxon settlement]]. Mounting [[Migration Period|foreign incursions]] soon resulted in permanent settlement of Germanic and other ethnic groups into territories that became gradually autonomous, were sometimes acknowledged or even encouraged by treaty (''[[Foederati|foedus]]'') by the Western Empire, and often embarked on expansion by further conquest.

The [[Vandals]] crossed the Rhine in 406, the Pyrenees in 409, the [[Strait of Gibraltar]] in 428, and established the [[Vandal Kingdom]] in Northern Africa and the Western Mediterranean islands by the mid-5th century; the [[Suebi]], initially moving alongside the Vandals, established their [[Kingdom of the Suebi|Western Iberian kingdom]] in 409; the [[Visigothic Kingdom]] was initially established by treaty in 418 in the [[Garonne|Garonne Valley]], and soon expanded into the [[Iberian Peninsula]]; the [[Alemanni]] expanded into [[Alsace]] and beyond, from their initial base in the ''[[Agri Decumates]]''; in the 440s, the [[Kingdom of the Burgundians]] was established around the [[Rhone]]; an autonomous [[Kingdom of Soissons]] was carved out from 457 by Roman military commanders between the [[Seine]] and [[Somme (river)|Somme]] rivers; last but not least, the [[Franks]], which had been established north of the Rhine in 358 by treaty with [[Julian (emperor)|Emperor Julian]], expanded into what is now Belgium and Northern France. As a consequence, when the last Western Emperor [[Romulus Augustulus]] was deposed by military commander [[Odoacer]] in 476, his direct rule did not extend much beyond the current Northern borders of Italy. Another military leader, [[Julius Nepos]], briefly Romulus Augustulus's predecessor, held territory in [[Dalmatia]] and kept the Imperial title until his assassination in 480.

In a symbolic act that would fascinate later historians, Odoacer sent back the Imperial ''[[regalia]]'' or accessories of Romulus Augustulus to the Eastern [[Zeno (emperor)|Emperor Zeno]] in Constantinople. Far from signaling the end of imperial rule in Italy, this meant that Odoacer acknowledged Zeno's overlordship and did not claim full sovereignty. Like previous ''foederati'' leaders, he adopted the title of King (''Rex'') and ruled in the name of the remaining Emperors, namely Zeno and also Julius Nepos while the latter was still alive. This arrangement was kept by [[Theodoric the Great]], who vanquished and killed Odoacer in 493 and replaced him as [[King of Italy]].

[[File:Empèri Bizantin - Rèine de Justinian.png|thumb|right|Justinian's reconquest campaigns in the West, 535-554]]

Political boundaries kept moving in the later 5th and 6th centuries. [[Clovis I]], king of the Franks (d. 511), conquered [[Alemannia]], the [[Kingdom of Soissons]] and most of the [[Visigothic Kingdom]] north of the Pyrenees, and his sons conquered the [[Kingdom of the Burgundians]] in 534, thus creating a vast [[Francia|kingdom of Francia]], which was periodically divided between various members of the [[Merovingian dynasty]]. Meanwhile, Eastern [[Justinian I|Emperor Justinian I]] reestablished direct Imperial rule in [[Spania|Southern Spain]], [[Exarchate of Africa|North Africa]] and especially [[Byzantine Italy|Italy]], reconquered during the hard-fought [[Gothic War (535–554)]]. Later in the 6th century, [[Maurice (emperor)|Emperor Maurice]] sponsored [[Gundoald]], a member of Clovis's [[Merovingian dynasty]], in his claim to the Frankish kingdom, which ended unsuccessfully in 585 at [[Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges]].

Even though it was out of the Empire's direct military reach, [[Francia]] kept acknowledging the overlordship of Constantinople throughout the 6th century. At a ceremony in early 508 in [[Tours]], [[Clovis I|Clovis]] received the ''[[insignia]]'' sent by [[Anastasius I Dicorus|Emperor Anastasius I]] which established his service to the Empire as [[Consul]]. Similarly, in the early 6th century, [[Gundobad|King Gundobad]] of the still-independent [[Kingdom of the Burgundians|Burgundians]], despite being an [[Arianism|Arian]], was ''[[Magister militum]]'' in the name of the Emperor.<ref>{{cite book|publisher=Belin|page=128|title=La France avant la France, (481–888)|author1=Geneviève Bührer-Thierry|author2=Charles Mériaux|date=2010|location=Paris}}</ref> The ''Gesta pontificum Autissiodorensium'', a compendium of information about the [[Roman Catholic Diocese of Auxerre|Bishops of Auxerre]] first compiled in the late 9th century, keeps referring to the reigning Roman Emperor up to [[Desiderius of Auxerre|Desiderius]] (d. 621), listed as bishop "in the reigns of [[Phocas]] and [[Heraclius]]" (''imperantibus Foca, atque Heraclio'').<ref>{{cite web|website=GitLab |url=https://gitlab.huma-num.fr/cbma/hagiographie/-/blob/e2241c62441e91281c1e8f1306b7b62b5de7f4bb/Textes/Auxerre/Auxerre_GestaEveques_t1_nettoy%C3%A9.txt |title=Gesta of the Bishops of Auxerre}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Les Gestes des évêques d'Auxerre|publisher=Les Belles Lettres|date=2002|location=Paris|url=https://www.decitre.fr/livres/les-gestes-des-eveques-d-auxerre-9782251340531.html}}</ref> No such deference appears to have existed in the [[Visigothic Kingdom]] at the same time. [[Christopher Wickham|Chris Wickham]] portrays the Visigothic king [[Euric]] (466–484) as "the first major ruler of a 'barbarian' polity in Gaul - the second in the Empire after [[Gaiseric|Geiseric]] - to have a fully autonomous political practice, uninfluenced by any residual Roman loyalties."<ref>{{cite book|page=86|author=Chris Wickam|title=The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages 400-1000|date=2009|publisher=Penguin Books}}</ref> A century and a half later in the 620s, [[Isidore of Seville]] articulated for the Visigothic Kingdom, by then a [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] monarchy following the conversion of [[Reccared I]] in 587, a vision of Christian monarchy on an equal status with the Eastern Roman Empire that would have seminal influence on later Western European political thinking.<ref name=Herrin>{{cite book |author=Judith Herrin |title=The Formation of Christendom |publisher=Penguin Classics |date=1987}}</ref>{{rp|236}}

{{multiple image| align=right| total_width=600
| image1=Alboin's Italy-it.svg| caption1=572
| image2=Rotari's Italy.svg| caption2=652
| image3=Liutprand's Italy-it.svg| caption3=744
| image4=Aistulf's Italy-en.png| caption4=751
| footer = Respective Italian territories of the Roman Empire (orange) and Lombards (grey).}}

Imperial rule in the West eroded further from the late 6th century. In Britain, to the extent discernible from scarce documentation, Roman rule was at best a distant memory. In Francia, references to Imperial overlordship disappear at the time of [[Merovingian dynasty|Merovingian]] renewal in the early 7th century under [[Chlothar II]] and [[Dagobert I]]. In the Iberian Peninsula, the [[Visigothic Kingdom|Visigothic]] [[Suintila|King Suintila]] expelled the last Imperial forces from Southern Spain in 625. In Italy, the [[Lombards]] invaded in 568, and the resulting [[Kingdom of the Lombards]] was hostile to the Empire whose territorial footprint shrunk gradually.

====Papal pivot====
{{Main|Byzantine Papacy}}

The Roman Papacy was to become the instrument of the Imperial idea's revival in the West. Rome was increasingly isolated from Constantinople following the devastations of [[Gothic War (535–554)]], subsequent imperial choices to favor [[Ravenna]] over Rome,{{R|Herrin|p=149}} and the [[Lombards|Lombard]] invasion of Italy starting in 568, which limited its communications with the main imperial outposts in [[Ravenna]] and [[Sicily]].{{R|Herrin|p=141}} The [[Column of Phocas]] on the [[Roman Forum]], dedicated in 608, counts among the last monumental expressions of (eastern) imperial power in Rome. In 649, in breach of tradition, [[Pope Martin I]] was elected and consecrated without waiting for imperial confirmation.{{R|Herrin|p=218}} [[Constans II]] was the last (eastern) emperor to visit Rome for centuries, in 663, and plundered several of the remaining monuments to adorn Constantinople. Meanwhile, and for various reasons, Catholicism finally triumphed over [[Arianism]] in the Western kingdoms: in the Visigothic Iberian Peninsula with the conversion of [[Reccared I]] in 587, and in Lombard-held Italy, after some back-and-forth, following the death of [[Rothari|King Rothari]] in 652. [[Pope Gregory I]] (590-604) established the foundations for the papacy's incipient role as leader of Christianity in the West, even though at the time there was no conception of an alternative imperial authority to be established there in competition with Constantinople.{{R|Herrin|p=182}}

The promotion of [[Byzantine iconoclasm|iconoclasm]] by Emperor [[Leo III the Isaurian]] from 726 led to a deepening rupture between the Eastern Empire and the Papacy. [[Pope Gregory II]] saw iconoclasm as the latest in a series of imperial [[heresy|heresies]]. In 731, his successor [[Pope Gregory III]] organized a [[synod]] in Rome which declared iconoclasm punishable by [[excommunication]]. Leo III responded in 732/33 by confiscating all papal patrimonies in south Italy and Sicily, and further removed the bishoprics of [[Thessalonica]], [[Corinth]], [[Syracuse, Sicily|Syracuse]], [[Reggio Calabria|Reggio]], [[Nicopolis]], [[Athens]], and [[Patras]] from papal jurisdiction,{{citation needed|date=October 2020}} instead subjecting them to the Patriarch of Constantinople. This was in effect an act of [[triage]]: it strengthened the imperial grip in Southern Italy, but all but guaranteed the eventual destruction of the [[exarchate of Ravenna]], which soon occurred at Lombard hands. In effect, the papacy had been "cast out of the empire".<ref>{{cite book|author=Eamon Duffy|date=1997|title=Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes|publisher=Yale University Press|location=New Haven, CT}}</ref> [[Pope Zachary]], in 741, was the last pope to announce his election to a Byzantine ruler or seek their approval.<ref>{{cite book|author=Frederic J. Baumgartner|date=2003|title=Behind Locked Doors: A History of the Papal Elections|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=0-312-29463-8}}</ref>

[[File:Couronnement de Pépin le Bref.jpg|thumb|right|Coronation of [[Pepin the Short]] by [[Pope Stephen II]] in 754 (right), [[Miniature (illuminated manuscript)|miniature]] by [[Jean Fouquet]], ''[[Grandes Chroniques de France]]'', ca. 1455-1460]]

The Popes needed to quickly reinvent their relationship to secular authority. Even though the neighboring Lombard kings were no longer heretical, they were often hostile. The more powerful and more distant Franks, which had by and large been allies of the Empire, were an alternative option as potential protectors. In 739, Gregory III sent a first embassy to [[Charles Martel]] seeking protection against [[Liutprand, King of the Lombards]], but the Frankish strongman had been Liutbrand's ally in the past and had asked him in 737 to ceremonially adopt his son. The Papacy had more luck with the latter, [[Pepin the Short]], who succeeded Charles in October 741 together with his elder brother [[Carloman (mayor of the palace)|Carloman]] (who withdrew from public life and became a monk in 747). [[Pope Zachary]] was pressed into action by the final Lombard campaign against the [[exarchate of Ravenna]], whose fall in mid-751 sealed the end of Byzantine rule in Central Italy. He was in contact with the Frankish ruling elites through the venerable [[Saint Boniface|Boniface]], [[Archbishop of Mainz]], and other clerics such as [[Burchard of Würzburg]] and [[Fulrad]]. In March 751 he moved to depose [[Childeric III]], the last [[Merovingian dynasty|Merovingian King]], following which Pepin was dedicated as King of France in [[Soissons]]. In 754, Zachary's successor [[Pope Stephen II]] undertook the first-ever papal visit north of the Alps, met Pepin in [[Ponthion]] and anointed him as king at [[Basilica of Saint-Denis|Saint-Denis]] on July 28, setting the template for later [[Coronation of the French monarch|rites of coronation of French Kings]]. Stephen further legitimized the [[Carolingian dynasty]] by also anointing Pepin's sons [[Charlemagne|Charles]] and [[Carloman I|Carloman]], by prohibiting the election of any non-descendant of Pepin as king, and by proclaiming that "the Frankish nation is above all nations".<ref>{{cite book|publisher=Belin|page=321|title=La France avant la France, (481–888)|author1=Geneviève Bührer-Thierry|author2=Charles Mériaux|date=2010|location=Paris}}</ref> This in return prompted the [[Donation of Pepin]] in 756, cementing the Popes' rule over the [[Papal States]] over the next eleven centuries. Subsequently, in 773–774, Pepin's son and successor [[Charlemagne]] conquered the Lombard Kingdom of Italy.

===Holy Roman Empire===
{{Main|Holy Roman Empire}}
[[File:Coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III.jpg|thumb|right|[[The Coronation of Charlemagne|Coronation of Charlemagne]], probably by [[Gianfrancesco Penni]] on a design by [[Raphael]], [[fresco]] in the [[Raphael Rooms]] of the [[Vatican City|Vatican]], 1516-1517]]
[[File:Carolingian and Eastern_Roman empires 814.png|thumb|left|Carolingian (green) and Byzantine (purple) Empires in the early 9th century]]

The coronation of [[Charlemagne]] by [[Pope Leo III]], in Rome on Christmas Day 800, was explicitly intended as establishing continuity with the Roman Empire that still existed in the East. In Constantinople, [[Irene of Athens]] had blinded and deposed her son [[Constantine VI|Emperor Constantine VI]] a few years earlier. With no precedent of a woman being sole holder of the imperial title, her critics in the West (e.g. [[Alcuin]]) viewed the imperial throne as vacant rather than recognizing her as Empress. Thus, as [[Peter H. Wilson]] put it, "it is highly likely Charlemagne believed he was being made Roman Emperor" at the time of his coronation; however, Charlemagne's imperial title rested on a different base from any of the Roman emperors until him, as it was structurally reliant on the partnership with the Papacy, embodied in the act of his coronation by the Pope.<ref name="Wilson">{{cite book|author=Peter H. Wilson|title=The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe's History|publisher=Penguin Books|date=2017}}</ref>

Meanwhile, the accession to the Byzantine throne of [[Nikephoros I]] in 802 confirmed the conflict of legitimacy between the Frankish and Byzantine incarnations of the Roman Empire, known in historiography as the [[problem of two emperors]] (in German, ''Zweikaiserproblem''). According to [[Theophanes the Confessor]], Charlemagne had attempted to prevent that conflict with a project to marry Irene, but this was not completed. The territorial conflicts were addressed in the following years through a series of negotiations known as the ''[[Pax Nicephori]]'', but the broader conflict with Constantinople about Imperial legitimacy proved extremely durable.

[[File:HRR.gif|thumb|left|The change of territory of the [[Holy Roman Empire]] superimposed on present-day state borders]]
[[File:Weltliche Schatzkammer Wien (190)2.JPG|right|thumb|[[Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire]], late 10th / early 11th century]]
[[File:Constantine Albi.jpg|thumb|right|Statue of [[Constantine the Great]] inside [[Albi Cathedral]], showing him with a mantle adorned with the Holy Roman Empire's {{lang|de|[[Reichsadler]]}} emblem]]

Political authority fragmented within the Empire following Charlemagne's death. The eventual outcome was an association of the Imperial dignity with the easternmost ("German") lands of the Carolingian geography, but that was not self-evident at the start and took a long time to happen. From 843 to 875, the holders of the Imperial title only ruled over Northern Italy and, at the start, the "middle kingdom" of [[Lotharingia]]. On Christmas Day 875, exactly 75 years after Charlemagne, [[Charles the Bald]] of [[West Francia]] was crowned Emperor in Rome by [[Pope John VIII]], adopting the motto ''renovatio imperii Romani et Francorum'', which raised the prospect of an Empire centered on what is today [[France]]. Charles died soon afterwards in 877, and his successor [[Charles the Fat]] only briefly managed to reunite all the Carolingian domains, and after his death in 888 the Western part of [[Francia]] was dominated by the non-Carolingian [[Robertians]], later the [[Capetian dynasty]]. For over seven decades, the Emperors' authority was then mostly confined to Northern Italy, until [[Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor|Otto I]] revived the Imperial idea and was crowned by [[Pope John XII]] in Rome in 962. From then on, all Emperors had dynastic roots in the Germanic-speaking lands (even though [[Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor|Frederick II]] was born in Italy, [[Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor|Henry VII]] in [[Valenciennes]], [[Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor|Charles IV]] in [[Prague]], [[Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor|Charles V]] in [[Ghent]], [[Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor|Ferdinand I]] in Spain, [[Charles VII, Holy Roman Emperor|Charles VII]] in [[Brussels]], [[Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor|Francis I]] in [[Nancy (France)|Nancy]], and [[Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor|Francis II]] in [[Florence]]).

During the millennium of the Holy Roman Empire, several specific attempts were made to recall the Empire's classical heritage. [[Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor|Emperor Otto III]] reigned from Rome from 998 to his death in 1002, and made a short-lived attempt to revive ancient Roman institutions and traditions in partnership with [[Pope Sylvester II]], who chose his papal name as an echo of the time of [[Constantine the Great]]. [[Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor|Frederick II]] took a keen interest in Roman antiquity, sponsored archaeological excavations, organized a Roman-style [[Roman triumph|triumph]] in [[Cremona]] in 1238 to celebrate his victory at the [[battle of Cortenuova]], and had himself depicted in classical imagery.<ref>{{cite web|website=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/arts/05iht-conway.html?referringSource=articleShare|title=Under Frederick II, the first rebirth of Roman culture|author=Roderick Conway Morris|date=5 July 2008}}</ref> Similarly, [[Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor|Maximilian I]] was highly mindful of classical references in his "memorial" projects of the 1510s that included the three monumental [[Woodblock printing|woodblock prints]] of the ''[[Triumphal Arch (woodcut)|Triumphal Arch]]'', ''[[Triumphal Procession]]'' and ''[[Large Triumphal Carriage]]''.

====Papacy and the imperial title====
[[File:Mitteleuropa zur Zeit der Staufer.svg|thumb|upright=1.35|The Hohenstaufen-ruled Holy Roman Empire. (The [[Kingdom of Sicily]] in pink was in personal union with the Holy Roman Empire)]]
According to his biographer [[Einhard]], Charlemagne was unhappy about his coronation, a fact that later historians have interpreted as displeasure about the Pope's assumption of the key role in the legitimation of Imperial rule. Instead of the traditional recognition by popular acclamation, Leo III had crowned Charlemagne at the outset of the ceremony, just before the crowd acclaimed him. In September 813, Charlemagne tried to override that precedent by himself crowning his son [[Louis the Pious]] in [[Aachen]], but the principle of Papal coronation survived and was renewed in 962 when [[Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor|Otto I]] restored the Empire and its rituals after decades of turmoil and received the Imperial Crown from [[Pope John XII]].

The interdependence between Pope and Emperor led to conflict after the Papacy started asserting its position with the [[Gregorian Reform]] of the mid-11th century. The [[Investiture Controversy]] (1076-1122) included episodes of dramatic confrontation, in which the pope attempted to deprive the emperor of his imperial dignity. The ''[[Dictatus papae]]'', a papal document issued in 1075 shortly after the election of [[Pope Gregory VII|Gregory VII]], states that the pope "alone may use the Imperial Insignia", that "All princes shall kiss the feet of the Pope alone", and that "It may be permitted to him to depose emperors". Following [[Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor|Emperor Henry IV]]'s [[Road to Canossa|walk to Canossa]] in January 1077, Gregory VII pronounced his absolution but referred to him as ''rex Teutonicorum'' ("king of the Germans"), thus omitting the imperial title and the fact that Henry was king (''rex'') of several realms, including [[Kingdom of Burgundy-Arles|Burgundy]] and [[Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire)|Italy]].<ref>{{cite book|author=Rolf Grosse |title=Du royaume franc aux origines de la France et de l'Allemagne 800-1214 |publisher=Presses Universitaires du Septentrion |date=2014 |page=83}}</ref> Wars of [[Guelphs and Ghibellines]], the respective partisans of the Pope and the Emperor, lasted until the 15th century. In 1527, the Pope's involvement in the [[Italian Wars]] led to the traumatic [[Sack of Rome (1527)|sack of Rome]] by [[Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor|Charles V]]'s imperial troops, after which the Papacy's influence in international politics was significantly reduced.

====Kingdoms and the imperial title====
[[File:Empire-Roman-Emperor-Charles-V 02.svg|thumb|left|[[House of Habsburg|Habsburg]] dominions [[Personal union|personally united]] with [[Holy Roman Empire]] at [[Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor|Charles V]].]]
[[File:Louvre Desjardins SPQR.jpg|thumb|Imagined standard of the Holy Roman Empire, from the former [[Louis XIV Victory Monument]] on [[Place des Victoires]] in Paris (1686), anachronistically combining the [[SPQR]] motto with the [[double-headed eagle]]]]

Early in the Empire's history, [[Louis the Pious]] formally established the supremacy of the Empire over Catholic kingdoms through the document issued in 817 and later known as ''[[Ordinatio Imperii]]''. The view at the time was that the Empire covered all Western Christendom under one authority. (The British Isles, Brittany, and the [[Kingdom of Asturias]] were omitted in this vision.) Under Louis's arrangement, only his elder son [[Lothair I|Lothair]] would hold the title of Emperor, and Lothair's younger brothers [[Pepin I of Aquitaine|Pepin]] and [[Louis the German|Louis]] should obey him even though they were kings, respectively, of [[Duchy of Aquitaine|Aquitaine]] and [[Bavaria]]. That document was controversial from the start, not least as it did not conform to Frankish succession law and practices. Following Louis the Pious's death in June 840, the [[Battle of Fontenoy (841)]], [[Oaths of Strasbourg]] (842) and [[Treaty of Verdun]] (843) established a different reality, in which the Imperial title remained undivided but its holder competed with kings for territory, even though at the time all were still bound by the family links of the [[Carolingian dynasty]] and the bounds of Catholic Christianity.

Following the gradual demise of the Carolingian dynasty in the late 9th and 10th centuries, the rivalry between the Empire and individual kingdoms developed on these early precedents. The [[Kingdom of France]], developing from [[Charles the Bald]]'s [[West Francia]], was continually reluctant to acknowledge the Emperor's senior status among European monarchs. As Latin Christendom expanded in the [[High Middle Ages]], new kingdoms appeared outside of the Empire and would similarly bid for territory and supremacy. France itself was instrumental in the developments that led to the Empire's political decline from the 16th to the early 19th centuries.

==Modern-era nationalist revivals==

A number of political regimes have claimed various forms of successorship of the Roman Empire, even though they acknowledged a significant time lag between what they viewed as the Empire's extinction and their own efforts to revive it. These attempts have increasingly been framed in nationalist terms, in line with the times.

Despite its name, European [[imperialism]] has typically not invoked the memories of the Roman Empire, with the only exception of Italy for a few decades in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Thus, European colonial empires are not mentioned in this section.

===Imperial Russia===
{{Main|Moscow, third Rome}}
{{See also|The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir|Greek Plan}}
[[File:Lesser coat of arms of the Russian Empire.svg|thumb|right|421x421px|[[Coat of arms]] of the [[Russian Empire]] with the [[double-headed eagle]], formerly associated with the Byzantine Empire]]

[[Ivan III of Russia]] in 1472 married [[Sophia Palaiologina|Sophia (Zoé) Palaiologina]], a niece of the last Byzantine Emperor [[Constantine XI]], and styled himself [[Tsar]] (''Царь'', "Caesar") or ''[[imperator]]''. In 1547, [[Ivan the Terrible|Ivan IV]] cemented the title as "Tsar of All Rus" (''Царь Всея Руси''). In 1589, the [[Metropolitan bishop|Metropolitanate]] of Moscow was granted [[autocephaly]] by the [[Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople|Patriarchate of Constantinople]] and thus became the [[Russian Orthodox Church|Patriarchate of Moscow]], thanks to the efforts of [[Boris Godunov]]. This sequence of events supported the narrative, encouraged by successive rulers, that Muscovy was the rightful successor of Byzantium as the "Third Rome", based on a mix of religious ([[Eastern Orthodox Church|Orthodox]]), ethno-linguistic ([[East Slavs|East Slavic]]) and political ideas (the autocracy of the Tsar).<ref name=use/><ref>{{cite book| editor1-last = Parry| editor1-first = Ken| editor2-first = David |editor2-last=Melling | title = The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity| publisher = Blackwell Publishing| year = 1999| location = Malden, MA | isbn =978-0-631-23203-2| page = 490  }}</ref> Supporters of that view also asserted that the topography of the [[seven hills of Moscow]] offered parallels to the [[seven hills of Rome]] and the [[seven hills of Constantinople]].

In 1492, [[Zosimus, Metropolitan of Moscow]], in a foreword to his ''Presentation of the [[Easter#Date|Paschalion]]'', referred to [[Ivan III of Russia|Ivan III]] as "the new Tsar Constantine of the new [[city of Constantine]] — Moscow."<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.pravenc.ru/text/200033.html |title=ЗОСИМА |website=www.pravenc.ru |access-date=2019-11-01 |quote=В «Изложении пасхалии» митрополит провозглашает Москву новым К-полем, Московского вел. князя именует «государем и самодержцем всея Руси, новым царем Константином новому граду Константинову Москве, и всей Русской земле, и иным многим землям государем».}}</ref> In a [[panegyric]] letter to Grand Duke [[Vasili III of Russia|Vasili III]] composed in 1510, Russian monk [[Philotheus of Pskov|Philotheus (Filofey) of Pskov]] proclaimed, "Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will be no fourth. No one shall replace your Christian [[Tsar]]dom!"<ref name="use">Mashkov, A.D. ''[http://leksika.com.ua/10651009/legal/moskva_-_tretiy_rim Moscow is the Third Rome (МОСКВА – ТРЕТІЙ РИМ)]. [[Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedia]].''</ref>

=== Imperial Spain ===
The [[Visigothic Kingdom|Hispano-Gothic Monarchy]], recognized himself politically and legally as the heir and successor of Roman Empire in [[Hispania]],<ref>{{Cite web |title=Inicio - La Monarquía en la Historia - La Monarquía en la Historia de España |url=https://www.casareal.es/ES/MonarquiaHistoria/Paginas/historia-monarquia.aspx |access-date=2023-02-16 |website=www.casareal.es}}</ref> using the Roman symbols of monarchy.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Spain - The Visigothic kingdom {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/place/Spain/The-Visigothic-kingdom |access-date=2023-02-17 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref> Additionally, two Roman usurpers of the Visigothic Kingdom attempted to claim [[Imperator|imperial]] authority: [[Burdunellus]] (496) and [[Peter (usurper)|Petrus]] (506).<ref>{{cite book | last=Collins | first=Roger | title=Visigothic Spain, 409-711 | publisher=Blackwell Pub | publication-place=Oxford, OX, UK | date=2004 | isbn=0-631-18185-7 | oclc=52814206}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last=Thompson | first=E. A. | title=Romans and barbarians : the decline of the western empire | publisher=University of Wisconsin Press | publication-place=Madison | date=1982 | isbn=0-299-08700-X | oclc=7836251}}</ref>

During the [[Middle Ages in Spain]], some iberian monarchs, mostly from [[Kings of Castile]] and [[King of Leon|Kings of Leon]], used the title of [[Imperator totius Hispaniae]],<ref>Reilly 1988, 137.</ref> in which there were claims, not only of the [[suzerainty]] over the other kings of the peninsula (both Christian and Muslim), but also the king's equality with the rulers of the [[Byzantine Empire]] and [[Holy Roman Empire]].

The last titular holder heir to the rank of [[Eastern Roman emperor]], [[Andreas Palaiologos]], sold his imperial title, along with his domains in [[Morea]],<ref name=":0">{{citation |last=Floristán |first=José M. |date=2005-01-01 |title="La Corona de Aragón y el Imperio Bizantino de los Paleólogos" |url=https://www.academia.edu/4396192}}</ref> to the [[Catholic Monarchs of Spain]] ([[Ferdinand II of Aragon]] and [[Isabella I of Castile]])<ref>{{cite book | last=Setton | first=Kenneth M. | title=The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571 | publisher=American Philosophical Society | publication-place=Philadelphia | date=1976–1984 | isbn=0-87169-114-0 | oclc=2698253 | author-link=Kenneth Setton}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last=Enepekides | first=Polychronis Kyprianou | title=Das Wiener Testament des Andreas Palaiologos vom 7. April 1502 | publisher=C.H. Beck | publication-place=München | year=1960 | oclc=761003148 | language=de | trans-title=The Vienna Testament of Andreas Palaiologos from 7 April 1502}}</ref> in his will, written on 7 April 1502,<ref>Norwich, John Julius. ''Byzantium — The Decline and Fall''</ref> designating them, and their successors (the future [[Spanish monarchs]]) as his universal heirs.<ref>{{cite book | last=Freiberg | first=Jack | title=Bramante's Tempietto, the Roman Renaissance, and the Spanish crown | publication-place=New York, NY | date=2014 | isbn=978-1-316-07315-5 | oclc=894226999}}</ref> Andreas argue that The Spanish kings held, through the Aragonese line, the ownership of the [[duchy of Athens]] and [[Duchy of Neopatras|Neopatria]], also because in Spanish noble circles there was a belief that the [[Álvarez de Toledo]] family (cousins of Ferdinand of Aragon) descended from the ancient Byzantine imperial lineage of the [[Komnenos]]. He was hoping that the Spanish Army would launch a crusade (during [[Ottoman–Venetian wars]]) from their [[South Italy|south-Italians]] domains in [[Apulia]], [[Calabria]], and [[Sicily]] to conquer the [[Peloponnese]], before moving on to [[Thrace]], [[Macedonia (region)|Macedonia]], and [[Constantinople]]; however, no Spanish monarch is known to have used the Byzantine imperial titles.<ref name=":0" /> In 1510, [[Pope Julius II]] revoked [[Pope Alexander VI|Alexander VI]]'s granting of the title of [[King of Jerusalem]] to [[Louis XII of France]], and transferred it to [[Ferdinand the Catholic]] (which was included in his title of [[King of Naples]] after [[:es:Tratado de Blois (1505)|Treaty of Blois]]).<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-01-22 |title=¿Por qué el Rey de España es Rey de Jerusalén? |url=https://www.abc.es/internacional/abci-espana-jerusalen-202001221727_noticia.html |access-date=2023-02-16 |website=abc |language=es}}</ref><ref>[https://jaimeeguiguren.com/usr/library/documents/main/cert_escudo-copy.pdf COAT OF ARMS OF KING FERDINAND THE CATHOLIC, Kingdom of Naples(?), 1504-1512. Jaime Eguiguren]</ref> This gave a step to make the confrontation with the [[Ottoman Empire]] in the Mediterranean in the [[Spanish-Ottoman wars]], against Turkish claims of being Rome Successor.<ref name=":0" />

During this times of the [[Catholic Monarchs of Spain|Catholic Monarchy]], [[Antonio de Nebrija]] conceived Spain, after the end of the [[Reconquista]] and its political unification of Castille and Aragon, as the heir of the Roman empire, because there was a direct lineage from the Roman emperors and the Visigothic kings (considered their legal successors of Hispania), also appealed to a literary legitimisation in which Castilian replaced Latin as the language of the Empire.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Cervantes |first=Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de |title=The image of Rome in Spain: scholars, artists and architects in Italy in the 16th-18th c. |url=https://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/the-image-of-rome-in-spain-scholars-artists-and-architects-in-italy-in-the-16th-18th-c/html/35de0d22-d8e8-4d90-84fb-c485da47ce97_8.html |access-date=2023-02-17 |website=Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes |language=es}}</ref>
[[File:Greater Coat of Arms of Charles V Holy Roman Emperor, Charles I as King of Spain.svg|left|thumb|354x354px|[[Coat of arms of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor|Coat of arms of Charles I of Spain]], formerly associated with Spain imperial claims of Roman heritage.]]
With the succession of [[Charles I of Spain]] to the throne of [[Crown of Castile|Castile]] and [[Crown of Aragon|Aragon]], the peninsular territories were included in a greater inheritance that included the [[House of Burgundy|Burgundians]] (the [[Burgundian Netherlands|Netherlands]], [[Duchy of Luxemburg|Luxembourg]], [[Duchy of Burgundy|Burgundy]], [[County of Franche-Comté|Franche-Comté]]) and the [[House of Habsburg|Austrians]] ([[County of Tyrol|Tyrol]], [[Archduchy of Austria|Austria]], [[Duchy of Styria|Styria]], [[Duchy of Carinthia|Carinthia]], [[March of Carniola|Carniola]]), to which in 1519 was added the title of [[Holy Roman Emperor]]. It was the first time, since the coronation of [[Charlemagne]] in 800, and after the [[Fall of Constantinople]] in 1453, in which the [[King of the Romans|Romano-Germanic]] and [[Roman Emperor|Byzantine]] crowns coincided in the same person.<ref name=":0" /> The followers of the [[Empire of Charles V]] (and his [[:es:Idea imperial de Carlos V|imperial ideal]] of being the [[Universal monarchy|universal monarch]] of [[Christendom]], the ''[[Universitas Christiana]]'')<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-12-06 |title=La historia olvidada del imperio de Carlos V, la Unión Europa que se esfumó por culpa de los nacionalistas |url=https://www.abc.es/historia/abci-historia-olvidada-imperio-carlos-union-europa-esfumo-culpa-nacionalistas-202012060120_noticia.html |access-date=2023-02-17 |website=abc |language=es}}</ref> created maps, like the [[Europa regina]], in which Hispania is the head, crowned with the Holy Roman Empire's ''insignia,'' its Carolingian crown (inherited of its Roman claims).<ref>''Europeanness in Early Modern Latin Literature'', Isabella Walser-Bürgler, p.60</ref><ref>Wendehorst & Westphal (2006), p. 63</ref><ref>Werner (2009), p. 244-245</ref>

During [[Bourbon Spain]], following the [[Renaissance]] tradition, the [[Spanish Bourbons]], like [[Philip V of Spain|Philip V]], in their attempts to stablish the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] programme, conceived the [[Spanish Empire|Spanish empire]] to be the equal of the Roman empire. So, they started to recover the cultural hegemony, lost under the last Austrian rulers, by imitating Rome political power, institutions and symbols.<ref name=":1" />

With all of this history in the Spanish Monarchy,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Inicio - La Monarquía en la Historia - The Monarchy through History |url=https://www.casareal.es/EN/MonarquiaHistoria/Paginas/historia-monarquia.aspx |access-date=2023-02-17 |website=www.casareal.es}}</ref> [[Spanish nationalism]] claims that there is a legitimate ideological-dynastic (titles of [[Emperor of Constantinople (disambiguation)|Emperor of Constantinople]] and [[King of Jerusalem]] in the [[Spanish Crown]], also in the past have been [[Holy Roman Emperor]]), geostrategic ([[kingdom of Naples]] and [[Kingdom of Sicily|Sicily]] together, the conquests  of North African plazas in Barbary, like [[Melilla]], [[Ceuta]], [[Mazalquivir]], [[Oran]], [[Béjaïa|Bugia]] and [[Peñón of Algiers]]) and cultural basis (being a [[Romance-speaking world|Latin country]]) to claim the inhertiance of the Roman Empire. Also, because many cities and institutions in the Kingdom of Spain still use the Roman double-headed eagle to this day, like the city of [[Toledo, Spain|Toledo]], the [[province of Toledo]] and the [[province of Zamora]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ayuso |first=Miguel |date=June 2018 |title=EL IMPOSIBLE HISTÓRICO DEL NACIONALISMO ESPAÑOL: El pensamiento tradicional español frente al nacionalismo |url=http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S2314-15492018000100006&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es |journal=Revista de historia americana y argentina |volume=53 |issue=1 |pages=143–165 |issn=2314-1549}}</ref> and the manual of history of Edebé editorial ([[conservative nationalist]]) establishes a continuity between the Iberians, Rome, the Visigoths, and the peninsular Christian kingdoms as direct heirs of this Roman imperial tradition as Hispano-romans.<ref>{{cite thesis|title=Nacionalismo español: genealogía, desarrollo y permanencia en los manuales de historia de secundaria|degree=MA|year=2014|author=Álvaro Argüelles Santoveña|location=Universidad de Cantabria
|url=http://lareferencia.info/vufind/Record/ES_656cb6937270b4f80abae062fa67bb26|language=es}}</ref> This claim is also reinforced by the history of [[Spanish colonization of the Americas]], which a lot of [[Hispanism|Hispanists]] claim is the definitive proof that Spain is the most accurate heir of Rome's imperial legacy, as Spain was important for the culture of a continent, America (the [[New World]]), like Rome was to Europe (the [[Old World]]), some even claim that Spain surpassed Rome, since it also knew how to unify diverse peoples for centuries and maintaining cultural unity despite the imperial collapse.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-04-19 |title=Así se forjó el Imperio español, la Roma de América frente a los depredadores |url=https://www.abc.es/historia/abci-forjo-imperio-espanol-roma-america-frente-depredadores-201804192236_noticia.html |access-date=2023-02-16 |website=abc |language=es}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Ibáñez |first=Alberto Gil |date=2021-10-13 |title=El Sacro Imperio Romano Hispánico existió |url=https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/el-sacro-imperio-romano-hispanico-existio/ |access-date=2023-02-17 |website=Revista de Prensa |language=es}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fëanar |date=2015-09-13 |title=Políticamente Incorrectos: España como heredera de Roma: los diez elementos con los que España civilizó América |url=http://elrinconpoliticamenteincorrecto.blogspot.com/2015/09/espana-como-heredera-de-roma-los-diez.html |access-date=2023-02-16 |website=Políticamente Incorrectos}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Dovale |first=Héctor Manuel Vázquez |title=La Pervivencia de la Hispania Antigua y Visigoda en el Nacionalismo Español del Siglo XIX |url=https://www.academia.edu/15347433}}</ref> Even today there are opinions in which [[Philip VI of Spain]] is considered the nearest heir of Rome.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Arndt |first=Gary |date=2020-10-07 |title=Who is the Current Roman Emperor? |url=https://everything-everywhere.com/who-is-the-current-roman-emperor/ |access-date=2023-02-17 |website=Everything Everywhere |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-05-21 |title=Who was the last Roman Emperor? |url=https://catflag.wordpress.com/2017/05/21/who-was-the-last-roman-emperor/ |access-date=2023-02-17 |website=Cat Flag |language=en}}</ref>

===Risorgimento and Fascist Italy===
{{Main|Italian unification|Fascist Italy (1922–1943)}}
Italy's nationalist visionary [[Giuseppe Mazzini]] promoted the notion of the "Third Rome" during the [[Risorgimento]]. Addressing [[Italian unification]] and the establishment of Rome as the capital, he said: "After the Rome of the emperors, after the Rome of the Popes, there will come the Rome of the people."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://students.washington.edu/ageparke/rome.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081204065057/http://students.washington.edu/ageparke/rome.htm|url-status=dead|title=Rome Seminar|archive-date=4 December 2008|access-date=17 March 2023}}</ref> After the Italian unification into the [[Kingdom of Italy]], the state was referred to as the Third Rome by some Italian figures.<ref>Christopher Duggan. ''The Force of Destiny: A History of Italy Since 1796''. New York, New York, USA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008. p. 304.</ref> After unification, Rome was chosen as capital despite its relative backwardness as it evoked the prestige of the former Empire. Mazzini spoke of the need of Italy as a Third Rome to have imperial aspirations, to be realized in the [[Italian Empire]].<ref name="Silvana Patriarca p. 248">Silvana Patriarca, Lucy Riall. The Risorgimento Revisited: Nationalism and Culture in Nineteenth-Century Italy. p. 248.</ref> Mazzini said that Italy should "invade and colonize Tunisian lands" as it was the "key to the Central Mediterranean", and he viewed Italy as having the right to dominate the [[Mediterranean Sea]] as ancient Rome had done.<ref name="Silvana Patriarca p. 248"/>

In his speeches, [[Benito Mussolini]] echoed the rhetoric of the ''Risorgimento'' and referred to his regime as a "Third Rome" or as a [[New Roman Empire]].<ref>Martin Clark, ''Mussolini: Profiles in Power'' (London: Pearson Longman, 2005), 136.</ref> ''Terza Roma'' (Third Rome) was also a name for Mussolini's plan to expand Rome towards [[Ostia (Rome)|Ostia]] and the sea. The [[EUR, Rome|EUR]] neighbourhood was the first step in that direction.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040624114143/http://www.fascismoeliberta.net/kf/Discorso31dicembre1925.htm Discorso pronunciato in Campidoglio per l'insediamento del primo Governatore di Roma il 31 dicembre 1925], [[Internet Archive]] copy of a page with a Mussolini speech.</ref>

===Non-Roman reinterpretations===
{{Main|First French Empire|Austrian Empire|German Empire|Nazi Germany}}
{{multiple image| align=right| width=150
|image1=Abeilles de Childéric Ier.jpg| caption1=Merovingian bees in gold and [[garnet]] [[cloisonné]] from the Tomb of [[Childeric I]], the inspiration for Napoleonic bees
|image2=Crown of Napoleon I.png| caption2=Napoleon's "[[Crown of Napoleon|Crown of Charlemagne]]"}}
[[File:Apotheose.jpg|right|thumb|531x531px|''Apotheose of Empire'' ([[Hermann Wislicenus]], ca. 1880) in the ''Kaisersaal'' of the Goslar Imperial Palace. [[Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor|Frederick Barbarossa]] and other Holy Roman Emperors are watching [[William I, German Emperor|William I]] and his son [[Frederick III, German Emperor|Frederick]] from the sky; on the sides are, left, [[Otto von Bismarck|Bismarck]] holding a hammer and [[Helmuth von Moltke the Elder|''Generalfeldmarschall'' von Moltke]]; and right, the personifications of just-conquered Alsace and Lorraine as ancestral Imperial lands.]]

Several political regimes in the 19th and early 20th centuries defined themselves with reference to continuators of the Roman Empire, but not to the (Classical) Roman Empire itself. They all assumed nationalist reinterpretations of those continuators, and underplayed the extent to which the latter had portrayed themselves as Roman.

* [[Napoleon I of France]] claimed the heritage of the [[Francia|Frankish Empire]], both the [[Merovingian dynasty|Merovingians]], conveniently forgetting the fact that they acknowledged Constantinople's overlordship, and [[Carolingian Empire|Carolingians]], whose legacy was easy to appropriate since he had conquered their heartlands in what are now Belgium and Western Germany. Thus, from his imperial coronation as [[Emperor of the French]] on 2 December 1804, he used both the symbolism of the bees from the burial of [[Childeric I]] (which had been unearthed in 1653 in [[Tournai]]) and a mock-Carolingian style for his [[coronation crown]], which he dubbed the [[Crown of Napoleon|Crown of Charlemagne]]. Even after his first defeat, Napoleon again borrowed the Merovingian-inspired bees to compose the [[Flag of Elba]].
* The [[Austrian Empire]], and after it the [[Republic of German-Austria|Austrian Republic]], borrowed from the imagery and symbolism of the [[Holy Roman Empire]] following its demise in 1806. To this day, the Imperial eagle is a symbol of the Austrian government, as is also the case in Germany.
* In [[Greece]], the ''[[Megali Idea]]'' ("Great Idea") developed shortly after the [[Greek War of Independence|War of Independence]] of recreating the [[Byzantine Empire]], understood as an ethnic-Greek polity with capital in Constantinople. The idea first appeared during the debates of [[Prime Ministers of Greece|Prime Minister]] [[Ioannis Kolettis]] with [[Otto of Greece|King Otto]] that preceded the promulgation of the 1844 constitution.<ref name="BA0">[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-26420 ''History of Greece''] Encyclopædia Britannica Online</ref> This nationalist aspiration drove Greek foreign relations and, to a significant extent, domestic politics for much of the first century after independence. The expression was new in 1844 but the concept had roots in the Greek popular psyche – the "Greece of Two Continents and Five Seas" (Europe and Asia, the Ionian, Aegean, Marmara, Black and Libyan seas, respectively).<ref name="BA0" /> The effort to realize the idea after the World War I defeat of the Ottoman Empire ended in disaster with the [[Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)]].
* Certain links between the [[German Empire]] in 1871 and the legacy of the Holy Roman Empire were shown in propaganda and actions, such as the creative restoration of the [[Imperial Palace of Goslar]] in the 1870s.<ref name="Warwick Ball 2000. p. 449">Warwick Ball. ''Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire''. London, England, UK: Routledge, 2000. p. 449.</ref><ref name="Craig M. White 2007. P. 169">Craig M. White. ''The Great German Nation: Origins and Destiny''. AuthorHouse, 2007. p. 169.</ref> [[Nazi Germany]] has been subsequently called the Third Reich (''Drittes Reich'') by certain figures during its regime, succeeding both the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire. The Holy Roman Empire reference was awkward, as it did not fit well with Nazi ideology. In 1939, a circular not intended for publication prohibited further use of the expression "Third Reich".<ref name="Bollmus236">Reinhard Bollmus: ''Das Amt Rosenberg und seine Gegner. Studien zum Machtkampf im nationalsozialistischen Herrschaftssystem.'' Stuttgart 1970, S. 236.</ref>
* In [[Bulgaria]], the assumption in 1908 of the title ''Tsar'' by [[Ferdinand I of Bulgaria|Ferdinand I]] was primarily a reference to the [[First Bulgarian Empire|First]] and [[Second Bulgarian Empire]]s;<ref>{{citation |author=Jiri Louda & Michael Maclagan |year=1981 |title=Lines of Succession |location=London  |publisher=Orbis Publishing Ltd.}}</ref>{{rp|297}} unlike in Russia, it was translated into Western languages as "king" rather than "emperor".<ref>{{citation |website=Encyclopedia Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ferdinand-king-of-Bulgaria |title=Ferdinand, king of Bulgaria|date=March 2024 }}</ref>

==Supranationalism and the Roman imperial idea==
{{See also|Pax Americana}}

In the 20th century, several political thinkers and politicians have associated the [[multi-level governance]] and [[multilingualism]] of the Roman Empire in its various successive incarnations with the modern legal concepts of [[federalism]] and [[Supranational union|supranationalism]].{{clarify|date=May 2022|note=Unclear who and how they connected these concepts}}

===League of Nations===
{{Main|League of Nations}}

French historian [[Louis Eisenmann]], in a 1926 article titled ''The Imperial Idea in the History of Europe'', portrayed the newly created [[League of Nations]] as the modern expression of an "imperial idea" that had been degraded by the nationalistic drift of the [[German Empire]], [[Habsburg monarchy]] and [[Russian Empire]]. He argued that the three empires' final demise and the League's establishment represent a renewal of the [[Pax Romana]] imperial idea.<ref>{{citation|author=Louis Eisenmann|translator=R.W.S.W.|journal=The Slavonic Review|date=December 1926|title=The Imperial Idea in the History of Europe |volume=5|issue=14|pages=242–257|jstor=4202072|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/4202072}} Quote:"But in reality what disappeared in the throes of the Great War was not so much the Imperial Idea itself as the forms under which it had asserted itself in history during these two thousand years. For paradoxical as it may seem, that which gives it its historical value and force, is not the political structure of the Empire or the name and dignity and power of the Emperor; it is the conception of a supernational political and moral organism which stands high above the diversity of nations in order to tone down and soften its effects, which brings together and reconciles peoples and sets up a balance of justice between them. It is the idea that human society, however complex, however divided in interests it may be, cannot exist without a supreme authority, which even though lofty and distant personifies to the public mind those ideals of order, peace and brotherhood towards which civilized mankind aspires, despite every obstacle, often without knowing it, sometimes even without desiring it.

This idea, then has not perished in the great cataclysm of empires. On the contrary, it has issued from the furnace purified, extended and rejuvenated, more clear cut and more conscious than ever before; and it is this idea which to-day (...) is being realised by successive stages in the League of Nations. The reader may be disposed to regard as merely arbitrary or reckless this attempt to connect the Empire with the League of Nations. (...)

Stripped of its perishable forms, the Imperial Idea remains one of the historical and moral forces of the new world; freed henceforward from its materialism, purified and spiritualised, it has thus been restored to that midway sphere between heaven and earth from which the ambition of Princes had degraded it, and to which the desire and hope of free nations are restoring it. (...) For, indeed, we are neither doing violence to historical truth nor yielding unduly to imagination or enthusiasm if we see in the League of Nations the legitimate heir of the ancient Empire, of that Empire which remained unitary through the long centuries of&nbsp;Pax Romana."</ref>

===European Union===
[[File:Official Emblem of the Court of Justice of the European Union.svg|thumb|right|100px|Logo of the [[Court of Justice of the European Union]]]]
{{Main|European integration}}

Memories of the Roman Empire have accompanied the [[European Union]] since its inception with the 1950 [[Schuman Plan]].{{citation needed|date=May 2022}} The Roman Empire has provided the European Union, like many countries, with [[Roman law|Roman legal concepts]] and their language, [[Latin]]. As such Latin has been used in some circumstances as one non-official ''[[lingua franca]]'' [[languages of the European Union|in the European Union]],{{citation needed|date=May 2022}} for example by [[Institutions of the European Union|EU Institutions]] using Latin concepts in texts and titles.

The comparison of the European Union with the Holy Roman Empire, in a negative or positive light, is a common trope of political commentary.<ref>{{citation|newspaper=Financial Times|url=https://www.ft.com/content/5f128086-bed2-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221210/https://www.ft.com/content/5f128086-bed2-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2 |archive-date=10 December 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=The Holy Roman Empire can help inspire a different European Union|date=20 January 2016|author=Peter Wilson}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=The Holy Roman Union|author=Dalibor Rohac|url=https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/05/07/the-holy-roman-union/|website=The American Interest|date=7 May 2019}}</ref> The European Union has been viewed as a reincarnation of a foreign and overbearing Roman Empire in some European countries, particularly the [[United Kingdom]]. The 2020 withdrawal of the UK from the Union, or [[Brexit]], has been variously compared with the [[Boudica|Boudica Rebellion]]<ref>{{cite web|website=The Tablet|title=Does Boudicca hold the clue to our Brexit conundrum?|author=Clifford Longley|date=9 December 2019 |url=https://www.thetablet.co.uk/blogs/1/1335/does-boudicca-hold-the-clue-to-our-brexit-conundrum-}}</ref><ref>{{citation |newspaper=The Telegraph|title=The fighting spirit of Boudica, warrior queen, lives on in Brexit Britain|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/04/fighting-spirit-boudica-warrior-queen-lives-brexit-britain/|date=4 March 2020|author=Daisy Dunn}}</ref> or with [[end of Roman rule in Britain]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://unherd.com/2019/04/britains-first-brexit-was-the-hardest/ |title=Britain's first Brexit was the hardest |author=Tom Holland|website=UnHerd|date=9 April 2019}}</ref> A different negative view of the European Union as new Roman Empire has been regularly formulated in [[Christian fundamentalism|Christian fundamentalist]] circles, principally in the United States. According to that view, the EU, like other supranational endeavors such as the [[United Nations]] and [[World Bank]], by attempting to revive the Roman Empire, signals the approaching [[Eschatology|end time]], [[rapture]] or [[Second Coming]]. Occasionally, the European Union is portrayed as a "Fourth Reich", further emphasizing its demonic nature. This critique is often portrayed as fringe despite its widespread following among [[Evangelicalism in the United States|American Evangelicals]] for several decades.<ref>{{citation|title='The Beast of the Revelation': American Fundamentalist Christianity and the European Union|author=Orestis Lindermayer|journal=Etnofoor|date=1995|volume=8|issue=1|pages=27–46|jstor=25757855|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25757855}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|Europe|History}}
* {{Annotated link |Caesar (title)}}
* {{Annotated link |Augustus (title)}}
* {{Annotated link |Basileus}}
* {{Annotated link |King of the Romans}}
* {{Annotated link |Imperium|{{lang|la|Imperium|nocat=yes}}}}
* {{Annotated link |Roman emperor|Roman Emperor}}
* {{Annotated link |Renovatio imperii Romanorum|{{lang|la|Renovatio imperii Romanorum|nocat=yes}}}}
* {{Annotated link |Translatio imperii|{{lang|la|Translatio imperii|nocat=yes}}}}
* {{Annotated link |Byzantium After Byzantium|''Byzantium After Byzantium''}}
* {{Annotated link |Legacy of the Roman Empire}}
* {{Annotated link |Nova Roma|{{lang|la|Nova Roma|nocat=yes}}}}
* {{Annotated link |Pan-Latinism}}
* {{Annotated link |Union for the Mediterranean}}
* {{Annotated link |Succession to the Byzantine Empire}}
* {{Annotated link |Last Roman Emperor}}

==References==
{{reflist}}{{Historiography}}{{Authority control}}

[[Category:History of Rome]]
[[Category:Legacy of the Roman Empire]]
[[Category:Fall of the Western Roman Empire]]
[[Category:Christian states]]
[[Category:Byzantine Empire]]
[[Category:History of Eastern Orthodoxy]]
[[Category:Constantinople]]
[[Category:Carolingian Empire]]
[[Category:Holy Roman Empire]]
[[Category:East–West Schism]]
[[Category:Latin Empire]]
[[Category:Christian messianism]]
[[Category:German nationalism]]
[[Category:16th century in the Principality of Moscow]]
[[Category:Politics of the Russian Empire]]
[[Category:Russian nationalism]]
[[Category:Italian unification]]
[[Category:Italian fascism]]
[[Category:Roman historiography]]