But wait – there’s more Roman Empires!

That’s right – we haven’t come close to the bottom of our Roman Empire iceberg, as we follow the iceberg all the way down through wilder and more esoteric claimants to the succession of the Roman Empire.

As my usual rule, I have twenty special mentions for each top ten – and to my surprise, I was able to compile twenty special mentions for my Top 10 Roman Empires, as there was no shortage of claimants for succession to the Roman Empire. That is, there’s no shortage of polities or states claiming succession from the Roman Empire as a whole or from one of its western or eastern halves.

I might even have squeezed out some more – or at least a couple more, with the short-lived state of Dalmatia held by the surviving former emperor Julius Nepos until 480 AD, or the Despotate of the Morea holding out in revolt against the Ottomans until 1460.

“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 and prestige 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”.

As the above quote indicates, the claimants to the succession of the Roman Empire reflected in my special mentions become increasingly tenuous, to the point of metaphor at best and delusions of grandeur at worst.

However, there are some exceptions to the general rule – my first god-tier special mention is very much an exception to the other claimants to succession from the Roman Empire albeit still involving a line of succession with the empire, while my second god-tier special mention does involve a line of succession from the empire but in a unique sense.

My next top-tier three special mentions are for “the most enduring and significant claimants of continuation of the Roman Empire”.

My high-tier special mentions may not be as “enduring and significant” but at least could made their claims from a position of having control or possession of either Rome or Constantinople – or close enough for the purposes of the ranking.

And the balance of special mentions is where things get wild – as tends to be the case in my special mentions where I have some fun with the subject category and splash out with some wilder entries – hence their consistent wild-tier ratings.

 

 

 

(1) ROMAN REPUBLIC (509 BC – 27 BC)

 

Some might argue for this as the real Roman Empire or true Pax Romana – the Roman Republic as imperial republic, a recurring political model with surprising frequency in Western history.

Certainly, when many people think of the Romans, they are thinking of the Romans of the Republic rather than the Romans of the Empire.

As I said for the eastern Roman Empire, there seem to be two recurring arguments among Roman history enthusiasts – whether one ranks the Roman Republic over the Roman Empire, and whether one ranks the Byzantine Empire over the Roman Empire.

While the Roman Republic predates the formal institutions of empire founded by Augustus, it essentially laid almost all the foundations for the subsequent empire, not least in its Mediterranean supremacy and imperial core territory. And perhaps even more so in the values or virtues, martial or otherwise, fostered by the Republic in its citizens and institutions – such that it might be (and has been) argued that the further one gets into its history, the more the Empire is running on fumes from the Republic.

The Republic also saw some of the most definitive events and figures of Roman history – not least Julius Caesar, who lent his name to the title of emperor and is perhaps the figure most identified with the Empire, although it was his heir Augustus who actually founded the empire in the wake of Caesar’s assassination. Like a good car salesman, Augustus just slapped the formal institutions of empire on the pretense of authority of the Republic or Senate, and said this baby can fit a millennium and a half in it.

Obviously, it is the one exception to my special mentions as successors to the Roman Empire – but not from the line of succession itself, except that for the Roman Republic, the Roman Empire claimed succession from it rather than the other way around.

And while we’re on the subject of line of succession, I can’t give special mention to the Roman Republic without a shout-out to the Republic’s legendary predecessor, the Roman Kingdom.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

 

 

(2) ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH / VATICAN CITY

 

The most enduring successor of the Roman Empire, indeed the one which can “actually trace its origin to the Roman era” and endures to the present day – inheriting the capitol, the pontifex and the imperial language of Latin, as well as many of the trappings and much of the mystique of the western empire.

It’s a successor in a somewhat unique sense. It was not a direct political successor or successor in terms of the military institutions of empire – as it lacked the latter other than those it could enlist from leaders or states owing it allegiance – but instead, dare I say it, a spiritual successor.

I gave it away with that reference to leaders or states owing it allegiance – it was the surviving institution from the western empire most retaining allegiance, or cultural and moral authority or legitimacy, reinforced by its effective monopoly status as ‘international’ institution transcending tribes or kingdoms, reflected in the catholic part of its name, connoting universality

Indeed, it had started to eclipse the empire in moral authority even prior to the fall of the western empire, best demonstrated by Pope Leo I as imperial envoy to Attila the Hun to persuade him to turn back after his invasion Italy and not sack Rome, armed with little else other than moral authority – which by some miracle worked, with Attila withdrawing from Italy, never to return to the empire (and dying shortly afterwards, possibly from papal mojo).

For much of its history, the Church was somewhat broader than the present Roman Catholic Church, including as the Orthodox Church in the eastern empire – but ironically the Orthodox Church remained in the shadow of the eastern imperial government, while the Roman Catholic Church emerged as the shadow empire because of the very absence of any political state to rival it in reach after the fall of the western empire

Of course, the Church was able to convert (heh) its moral authority to claims for political succession of the Roman Empire, becoming effectively the ’empire-maker’ (or more precisely emperor-crowner) – not for itself, except in so far as it was able to secure control of Rome and other Italian territory as the Papal States, but for my next special mention.

On the subject of the Papal States, they too have endured to the present day, albeit very much in residual or substituted form as the state of Vatican City in its enclave within Rome, the smallest nation in the world.

The continuation of the empire in the Church tends to be one of bases for the argument that “the empire never ended” – albeit usually in a trippy way, as in the works of SF writer P.K. Dick.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER – WHAT ELSE?)

 

 

 

(3) HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE (800 / 962-1806)

 

It may be most remembered today by Voltaire’s famous quip – neither holy nor Roman nor an empire – but it remains the most enduring and significant claimant to the continuation or succession of the western Roman empire, hence ranking in my top tier of special mentions.

Of course, that claim does feel somewhat like Pope Leo III pulling a fast one on the eastern Roman Empire, opportunistically using a woman on the eastern imperial throne – the horror! – to effectively claim Empress Irene as a nullity and crown Charlemagne as Roman emperor, in Rome no less, over three centuries after the last western Roman emperor. Charlemagne’s realm henceforth was styled simply as the Roman Empire – the holy part of its title came a few centuries later or so.

In fairness, the claim to Roman emperor or empire had some force to it under Charlemagne. After all, he had achieved the largest unified polity in western Europe since the Roman Empire, including a substantial part of the former territory of the western Roman empire, effectively including Rome itself – although his father Pepin had donated that to the papacy in what would become the Papal States. Possession of one of the two Romes – the original first Rome or the ‘second Rome’ of Constantinople – is my foremost criteria for ranking special mentions above my wild tier of claimants to succession from the Roman Empire.

Historians tend to identify the empire of Charlemagne as the Frankish or Carolingian Empire, as distinct from the Holy Roman Empire proper. Charlemagne’s empire was divided between his sons. From that division, Germany emerged as a separate realm from the Frankish Empire, largely originating from the eastern Frankish empire, and it was from Germany that the Holy Roman Empire truly arose, with Otto I as the first Holy Roman Emperor in 962, even if that cuts down the so-called thousand year Reich (from Charlemagne’s coronation in 800) to a mere 844 years.

Again, the claim to Roman empire had some force to it under Otto and his successors, even if it oscillated between that idea as reflected in its title as Roman Empire and the reality as reflected in its title as Empire or Kingdom of the Germans. The actual term Holy Roman Empire began to be used only during the reign of Friedrich or Frederick Barbarossa two centuries and two dynasties later, under whom the claim also had some teeth to it (as well as transforming him into a legendary figure) and continued to do so until his grandson Friedrich II, who attempted to run an Italian-German empire from Sicily.

From there however the empire and its claim to succession from Rome devolved into the sorry state reflected by Voltaire’s quip – or that of Marx, that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce – until Napoleon Bonaparte did away with the whole dog’s breakfast of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. Hence 1806 is occasionally proposed as a date for the fall of the Roman Empire, albeit often with tongue in cheek.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

 

 

(4) OTTOMAN EMPIRE (1453-1922)

 

“Now it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople

Been a long time gone, Constantinople”

 

The first of the two most enduring and significant claimants of continuation of the eastern Roman Empire – and the one which had the force of right of conquest to it, something the Byzantines themselves might have recognized as part of their own imperial doctrine, as well as substantially overlapping with the territory of the eastern Roman empire at its height under Justinian the Great.

It also had my foremost criteria for a top-tier or at least high-tier claimant to succession from the Roman Empire – possession of one of the two Romes, Rome or Constantinople, once Constantinople fell to Ottoman conquest in 1453.

“After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Mehmed II declared himself Roman Emperor: Kayser-i Rum, literally “Caesar of the Romans”, the standard title for earlier Byzantine Emperors in Arab, Persian and Turkish lands… 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”.

Indeed, Mehmed apparently took a swing at the first and original Rome itself, emulating Justinian the Great and “reuniting the Empire in a way it hadn’t been for nearly eight centuries” – starting a campaign in Italy with the invasion of Otranto in 1480 but which was cut short by his death in 1481. His successors didn’t follow up on that but instead ” repeatedly (albeit never successfully) attempted to conquer the capital of the rival contenders to the Imperial Roman title” with their sieges of Vienna. Those rival contenders of course being the Habsburgs as claimants for the Holy Roman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire also had the “additional though questionable claim of legitimacy” from past alliances between the Ottoman dynasty and the Byzantines through marriage.

Hence one of the dates proposed on occasion (albeit also often tongue in cheek) for the fall of the Roman Empire is 1922, the end of the Ottoman Empire.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

 

(5) RUSSIAN EMPIRE (1472-1917)

 

The second of the two most enduring and significant claimants of continuation of the eastern Roman Empire – and the one which managed to pull it off without conquest or even any of the same territory of the former empire (except for the most far flung parts at its greatest extent in the Crimea and the Caucasus).

Indeed, it didn’t even have my foremost criteria for top-tier or high-tier claimant to succession from the Roman Empire by having either Rome or Constantinople, instead breezily styling Moscow as the third Rome – a lesson in audacity for any claimant as heir to the Roman Empire. Just style your capital as the fourth Rome. What next? London? Tokyo? Canberra, seat of the Tsar of all the Australias?

In fairness, the Russian Empire did set its sights on Constantinople in its foreign policy – and more to the point, did have a tenuous claim to dynastic succession from the eastern Roman Empire. “Ivan III of Russia in 1472 married Sophia (Zoé) Palaiologina, a niece of the last Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI” and styled himself Tsar, adapted from Caesar. It also claimed a more abstract succession as the new Orthodox empire, champion of that religious denomination elsewhere.

So now we can add another date to those proposed for the fall of the Roman Empire – 1917, when the last ‘Roman’ emperor fell to the ultimate plebeian revolt in the Russian Revolution.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

 

 

(6) KINGDOM OF ITALY (476-493 AD)

 

The immediate successor to the western Roman Empire in Italy and neighboring territory in the Balkans, commencing as it did with its Germanic ruler Odoacer deposing the last western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus in 476 AD, the date traditionally seen as marking the end of the western Roman Empire.

It therefore ranks as a high tier claimant to the succession of the Roman Empire, not only for its immediate continuity with the western Roman empire but also for my foremost criteria of possession of Rome, as well as the actual imperial capital at the time, Ravenna.

Odoacer did not purport to have any imperial authority beyond his kingdom and indeed expressly represented himself as the client of the eastern Roman emperor Zeno, ruling his kingdom on behalf of the eastern empire under the title of duke of Italy (dux Italiae) bestowed on him by Zeno. To that end he sent back to Zeno the imperial regalia of Romulus Augustulus.

And really it seemed like business as usual for the Romans in Italy. Odoacer simply abandoned the pretense of the succession of puppet emperors to German leaders. Romulus Augustulus was himself a child emperor, little more than a frightened figurehead for his father, possibly much relieved at avoiding the hot seat of the western imperial throne – and apart from deposing him, Odoacer left him to peaceful retirement.

Odoacer also left the Roman Church alone, despite being of the Arian Christian faith pronounced to be heresy by the Church. In addition, he ruled with the loyal support of the Roman Senate in Ravenna – in part probably because the Senate no longer had to contend with their own emperor.

Indeed, while the former empire west of Italy went its own way, Roman Italy itself doesn’t seem too distinct for the next couple of centuries or so from internal strife within the former empire – except instead of Roman generals contending with each other, it was barbarian German warlords contending with each other, or with Roman generals from the eastern empire after its resurgence under Justinian.

Odoacer’s reign of almost seventeen years was relatively peaceful when compared to other periods of Roman internal strife in Italy – until it wasn’t, which brings me to my next special mention entry…

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

 

(7) OSTROGOTHIC KINGDOM (493 – 553 AD)

 

The immediate successor to Odoacer’s Kingdom of Italy in my previous special mention – the Ostrogoths led by Theodoric the Great took over the kingdom after killing and replacing Odoacer. The kingdom itself carried on much the same as before, including in territory – it’s the same picture as one might observe of maps of the two kingdoms.

That understates the brilliant ploy of the eastern Roman Emperor Zeno that lay behind it – a classic illustration of winning without fighting by having others do your fighting for you. In this case, having the Ostrogoths fight Odoacer.

The Ostrogoths had settled within the eastern empire in the usual manner of German allies or foederati – except that they retained more independence than the Romans preferred. If anything, the eastern empire was at some risk of becoming an Ostrogothic colony – with large numbers of Goths entering service in the Roman army, as well as comprising “a significant political and military power in the court of Constantinople”.

“The thought occurred to Zeno and his advisors to direct Theodoric against another troublesome neighbour of the Empire – the Italian kingdom of Odoacer”

That suited everyone at the time, except of course Odoacer – who despite being Zeno’s nominal viceroy in Italy, was menacing eastern Roman territory (among other things), although not any more once Theodoric was done with him.

Theodoric the Great assumed a similar position to Odoacer, nominally a subject of the eastern Roman emperor and ruling from Ravenna as their viceroy in Italy. “In reality, he acted as an independent ruler, although unlike Odoacer, he meticulously preserved the outward forms of his subordinate position”. An Ostrogothic Augustus, one might say – similarly appeasing the eastern roman empire as Augustus did the Senate by keeping up appearances of their rule. Speaking of the Senate, they continued to function mostly as before, as did the Roman administration, law, church and elite.

I have a soft spot for the Ostrogothic Kingdom ever since their starring role in L. Sprague de Camp’s SF novella, Lest Darkness Fall, in which the time travelling protagonist finds himself stranded there and seeks to stave off the pending Dark Ages.

We are accustomed to thinking of the Dark Ages kicking in with the fall of the western Roman Empire, but that is arguably premature of us, at least in Italy – with Roman Italy carrying on much as before until the destruction of the Ostrogothic Kingdom by the Byzantines in the Gothic Wars, which truly turned Italy into the Dark Age wasteland we see in our mind’s eye.

The Gothic Wars came about for Theodoric’s successors, when the Ostrogothic Kingdom’s relations with the eastern empire – always somewhat strained, even under Theodoric – finally ruptured into war and the eastern empire under Justinian the Great sought to reclaim the western half of the empire, a war fought for about two decades and that led to my next special mention entry…

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

 

 

(8) EXARCHATE OF RAVENNA (584 – 751 AD)

 

Yes – this special mention entry is literally the Roman empire rather than some separate entity, as it’s the province of the eastern Roman Empire after their reconquest of Italy. However, the exarchate of Ravenna (also called the exarchate of Italy) seems sufficiently distinct – as well as tenuous, albeit enduring for two centuries – for its own special mention, as well as a segue between my previous special mention and the next one. Also in fairness, it does meet my foremost criteria for high-tier special mention by actually having Rome in it.

The exarchate of Ravenna emerged from the Gothic War, a slogging match for almost two decades from 535 and 554 between the eastern Roman Empire and the Ostrogothic Kingdom, in which the Romans found themselves the victors of a proverbial Pyrrhic victory in Italy.

Sure – they defeated the Ostrogothic Kingdom and recaptured Italy after fighting off yet more invasions by the Franks and Alemanni, but an Italy devastated and depopulated by war, and worse, with the eastern Roman Empire so exhausted that they found themselves incapable of resisting an invasion by the Lombards, yet another German invader.

So the exarchate of Ravenna, founded in 584 AD, was tenuous from its very inception – presiding over territory snaking across central Italy to Rome itself and mostly clinging to the coastal cities and southern parts of Italy, as the Lombards were ensconced in the hinterland of the peninsula. (The eastern Roman imperial territory in the Italian islands – Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica – was separately governed).

And it was also tenuous in presiding over increasingly fractious and fragmented territories, nominally subject to the exarch in Ravenna as the representative of the emperor in Constantinople, but in reality asserting their own sovereignty even before being swallowed up by the ever-encroaching Lombards (until the Lombards in turn were swallowed up by the Franks in the Carolingian Empire, the origin of the Holy Roman Empire).

The exarchate crumbled away, with the last exarch in Ravenna killed by the Lombards in 751. As for Rome itself, it had been administered as the Duchy of Rome within the Exarchate, but the Duchy was increasingly supplanted by the papacy, culminating with the papal states under the patronage of the Carolingian or Holy Roman Empires.

However, the eastern Roman empire retained territory in southern Italy that was reorganized as the Catapanate of Italy, which endured in dwindling form until conquered by the Normans in 1071, finally extinguishing five centuries of the eastern Roman empire in Italy.

So there’s yet two more tongue-in-cheek dates for the fall of the Roman Empire – 751 and 1071. And the Exarchate of Ravenna did lead in a way to my next special mention entry.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

 

(9) VENETIAN REPUBLIC (697 – 1797 AD)

 

Venice may have laid its claim as an assassin using the Fourth Crusade as its weapon, but it did lay claim to be “lord of a fourth part and a half of the whole Empire of Romania” – or three eighths of the eastern Roman Empire – after Constantinople fell to the Crusade in 1204 AD, extending to a significant part of the occupation of Constantinople itself and hence my primary criterion for high-tier ranking.

Venice had a weird love-hate symbiotic-parasitic relationship with the eastern Roman Empire – evolving from an imperial province and vassal in the empire’s reconquest of Italy, to ally and close associate of the empire effectively as its navy and trading house, and ultimately to rival and perfidious adversary in the Fourth Crusade.

In some ways, that symbiosis involved Venice as almost the inversion of Constantinople – the heart of a mercantile empire which waxed and rose, sucking from the blood of the latter as it waned and fell. Although ironically, Venice found its fortune to be little more symbiotic with Constantinople than it would have liked after all – declining as it faced the Ottoman Empire more directly once the Ottomans captured Constantinople, and not coincidentally, the decline of Mediterranean trade relative to the Atlantic, although it endured until 1797 when it finally fell in the face to the French under Napoleon.

Venice was also somewhat antagonistic to Rome – even as it resembled the latter’s classical republic, down to it also being an imperial republic, albeit more in the classical Greek model of a maritime colonial empire with a focus on its naval power and trade. Of course, the world had moved on from when a single city state could dominate first the Italian peninsula and then the whole Mediterranean like the Romans did – although Venice did punch remarkably above its weight, going toe-to-toe with the Ottoman Empire for four centuries or so of Ottoman-Venetian wars.

Venice is reputed to have been settled by refugees from the Huns and Germanic invaders of the Roman Empire seeking the safety of its islands. It was founded as the Duchy of Venetia within the eastern Roman Empire’s Exarchate of Ravenna – its leader’s title of Doge originating from the Latin for dux (or duke) as an imperial provincial title. It became increasingly independent as the Exarchate of Ravenna crumbled, until effectively achieving de facto independence because of an agreement between the Holy Roman Empire and the eastern Roman Empire.

Venice remained nominally subservient to the eastern Roman Empire but abandoned even that over the next century. However, it remained closely associated with Constantinople, by way of trade and as an ally – essentially gaining exclusive privileges in the former in exchange for the use of its navy in the latter, firstly against the Normans in Italy and then against the Turks. Significantly, Venice acknowledged its homage to the empire against the Normans, but not subsequently against the Turks – reflecting the decline of the eastern Roman empire and the rise of Venice.

The rise of Venice (and its role as creditor to the empire) ultimately saw it become the empire’s rival and adversary, which bore bitter fruit when Venice played that instrumental role pulling the strings of the Fourth Crusade to divert it to capture Constantinople instead, leading to my next special mention entry…

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

 

 

(10) LATIN EMPIRE (1204 – 1261 AD)

 

Probably the most ignominious of my high tier successors to the Roman Empire – the state established by the Fourth Crusaders after conquering Constantinople in 1204 – but it did occupy Constantinople after all, hence qualifying for my foremost criterion for high-tier ranking, the occupation of either that city or Rome itself. Also hence why 1204 is yet another date proposed for the fall of the Roman Empire.

It was certainly one of the more precarious. Nominally, according to the treaty or treaties among the Crusaders to partition the eastern Roman Empire among themselves, it was awarded direct control of a quarter of the former empire, with its vassals receiving a further three eighths – and the balance of three eighths going to Venice.

In reality, the Latin Empire was just another Crusader state – or more precisely Crusader states – in which the Crusaders never controlled most of the former empire, as three successor states of the empire arose to challenge it, with the most substantial, the Empire of Nicaea, recapturing Constantinople and reviving the former empire in 1261.

The Latin Empire consisted of not much than Constantinople itself, with only the neighboring territory on either side – although it had various vassal states through most of Greece and the Greek islands. Its vassal states actually did better and endured longer than the Latin Empire itself, which fell when Constantinople was recaptured – although the Latin imperial line persisted in exile for a century or so afterwards.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

 

 

(11) BULGARIAN EMPIRE (913-927 AD)

 

The Bulgarian Empire – one of my two high-tier special mention entries that stopped well short of occupying Constantinople but came close enough to earn high tier ranking, wiping the Byzantines out of most of their Balkan territory.

That’s the First Bulgarian Empire and those dates are not the dates of that empire itself, which endured for about three and a half centuries, but the dates of its imperial claim (and height of its power) under its ruler Simeon the Great, when he took a swing at crowning himself emperor, conquering Constantinople and creating a joint Bulgarian-Roman state.

Well, one out of three ain’t bad, as Simeon was crowned “Emperor and Autocrat of all Bulgarians and Romans” by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the imperial regent – particularly when it set the trend for rulers styling themselves with the title of a Roman emperor, down to the usage of the Bulgarian word tsar standing in for Caesar.

As for the other two, what Simeon got was the bitter Byzantine-Bulgarian War from 913 to 927, with Simeon’s imperial claim ending with his death in 927, although the Byzantines had managed to backpedal it to basileus, effectively a sub-emperor position as “Emperor of the Bulgarians” – which continued to Simeon’s successor and was bolstered by dynastic marriage.

So how did that work out for you, First Bulgarian Empire? Not too well – once Emperor Basil II, henceforth known as the Bulgar Slayer, switched it around completely to conquer the Bulgarian Empire, creating that joint Bulgarian-Roman state after all.

The Bulgars didn’t go anywhere but ultimately struck back (after regaining independence) with the Second Bulgarian Empire from 1185 to 1396 – which strutted around calling its capital as the successor to both Rome and Constantinople, pre-empting Russia’s Third Rome.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

 

 

(12) SULTANATE OF RUM (1077-1308 AD)

 

Sadly that’s not a sultanate of the liquor in the style of Wallace Stevens’ poem The Emperor of Ice Cream – the Rum in this case is the Turkish word synonymous with the eastern Roman Empire and its peoples.

Its claim for the eastern Roman Empire was, like the Ottomans after them, one of conquest, albeit stopping well short of Constantinople itself or the complete defeat of the empire – but close enough for high-tier ranking, the second of two such special mention entries after the Bulgarian Empire. Their conquest was of the empire in most of the Anatolian peninsula, after the empire’s (in)famous defeat by the Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071.

The Sultanate was a breakaway state that seceded from the Great Seljuk Empire in 1077, ironically only six years after Manzikert. They succeeded in secession – reaching the height of their power in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, but weakened by the Crusades, succumbed to the Mongols in 1243 and finally leaving behind many smaller states, one of which emerged as the Ottoman dynasty, which truly fulfilled the Sultanate’s dream of claiming itself to be the successor to the Romans.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

 

 

 

(13) SERBIAN EMPIRE (1346-1371 AD)

 

Okay, this empire and its claim to the Roman Empire came down to the man who made both, the Serbian emperor (Stefan) Dusan the Mighty. He was succeeded by his son Usok the Weak, but you can guess how well it all went after that by comparing their two epithets.

Dusan proclaimed himself Emperor – once again Tsar from Caesar – not only of the Serbs but of the Greeks or Romans as well, a title signifying a claim to the succession of the Byzantine Empire, then in the last century or so of its existence.

In fairness, he did put his money where his mouth was, having “expanded his state to cover half of the Balkans, more territory than either the Byzantine Empire or the Second Bulgarian Empire in that time” – including substantial territory conquered from the former in Greece.

Like the Bulgarian Empire or the Sultanate of Rum, it did not achieve my foremost high-tier ranking criterion of occupying Constantinople, but came close enough in the conquests for its claim to rank in high tier. And also like them, at least it staked its claim while the empire was still alive, albeit in its last century or so of life – ranking it above my wild-tier special mention entries who staked their claim to the empire’s corpse in the West…

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

 

 

 

(14) SPAIN?

 

Hola, Caesar! Or is that ole, Caesar!

Here we are, starting my wild tier successors to Rome, those states that tenuously staked their claims more to the myth or metaphor of Rome in nationalist terms rather than any continuity with the Empire. We’re at the bottom of the Roman succession iceberg here, people.

Of these wild and tenuous claims, I was surprised to find Spain has the most depth to theirs, arguably making it the least wild and tenuous of these wild tier claims (or higher up the iceberg). Don’t worry – we’ll get increasingly wild and tenuous as we go.

If nothing else, at least Spain gave us the term Latin as a substantial label for ethnicity – as well as for geography with Latin America, claiming one continent and a large part of another.

Firstly, there was its loose dynastic claim of succession, starting with Spain’s succession from the Visigothic monarchy as heirs or successors to the Roman Empire in Spain. Subsequent Spanish monarchs apparently used the title Imperator totius Hispaniae to assert equality with the eastern and Holy Roman Empires.

Those claims of succession became a little more concrete firstly when “the last titular holder heir to the rank of Eastern Roman emperor, Andreas Palaiologos” purported to bequeath what he saw as his imperial title and domains in Greece, themselves pretty tenuous claims on his part (particularly as he’d already purported to sell them to another special mention entry), to the ‘Catholic Monarchs’ of the now unified Spain, Ferdinand II and Isabella I, by his will written in 1502.

It gets a lot messier than that – with dynastic claims to the Crusader vassal states to the Latin Empire in Greece and the Spanish crown’s territories in Italy thrown in to the mix. Preempting something of a recurring meme in history, Andreas apparently had grandiose dreams of a Spanish crown crusade from its territories in Italy to reconquer the imperial claims in Greece and ultimately Constantinople itself. Sadly however, the Spanish monarchy ignored “its Byzantine imperial titles”, although it did gain the title of “King of Jerusalem” from the pope and square off in war with that other claimant of Roman succession, the Ottoman Empire.

With Charles I, the Spanish monarchy also succeeded to the title of Holy Roman Emperor in 1519 – “the first time, since the coronation of Charlemagne in 800, in which the Romano-Germanic and Byzantine crowns coincided in the same person”, albeit that seems to me more like historical sleight of hand for both Charles and Charlemagne.

Anyway, Spanish claims to the succession of the Roman empire go on from these dynastic claims to include more broadly geopolitical and cultural claims – dare I say it, themes and memes of Roman empire – including the Spanish empire in the Americas.

“With all of this history in the Spanish Monarchy, Spanish nationalism claims that there is a legitimate ideological-dynastic (titles of 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 Sicily together, the conquests of North African plazas in Barbary, like Melilla, Ceuta, Mazalquivir, Oran, Bugia and Peñón of Algiers) and cultural basis (being a Latin country) to claim the inheritance of the Roman Empire.”

“This claim is also reinforced by the history of Spanish colonization of the Americas, which a lot of 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. Even today there are opinions in which Philip VI of Spain is considered the nearest heir of Rome.”

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

 

 

 

(15) FRANCE?

 

Well, the French monarchy did snap up the title of Emperor of Constantinople from Andreas Palaiologos in his imperial title garage sale to Charles VIII in 1494 prior to him bequeathing it to Spain, for what it was worth.

Spoiler alert – it was worth nothing, although surprisingly the French monarchy apparently used the title until Charles IX could no longer keep a straight face about it in 1566.

And there it lay, until Napoleon Bonaparte, never one to lack for audacity, claimed the mantle of the Roman Empire at his imperial coronation as Emperor of the French in 1804 – albeit through the heritage of the Frankish and Carolingian Empires, as the founders of the Holy Roman Empire.

He imitated Charlemagne’s coronation as Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope, down to having Pope Pius VII at the ceremony. Although unlike that pansy Charlemagne, Napoleon crowned himself rather than having the pope crown him (embellished in historical legend as Napoleon snatching the crown from the Pope).

In fairness, Napoleon did at least achieve what is otherwise my high-tier ranking criterion of occupying Rome itself, which places his claim somewhat above other wild tier claims.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

 

 

 

(16) AUSTRIA?

 

Yeah, Austria picked up the Roman succession ball through the Holy Roman Empire, which had essentially become a title held by the Austrian Habsburg monarchy while everyone else played along with it.

That is, until Napoleon Bonaparte came along and told them to drop it in 1806 – but the Austrians still ran with it for their own empire, borrowing from the imagery and symbolism of the Holy Roman Empire, not least with the imperial eagle as symbol, even after Austria became a republic.

That’s it, though – but arguably still not the wildest or most tenuous of my wild-tier special mentions.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

 

 

(17) GREECE?

 

Probably not too surprising that modern Greece would claim the mantle of the eastern Roman Empire as its former heartland.

Indeed, after Greece won its independence from the Ottoman Empire, it developed the “Megali Idea” or Great Idea “of recreating the Byzantine Empire, understood as an ethnic-Greek polity with capital in Constantinople”, or the “Greece of Two Continents and Five Seas” (Europe and Asia, the Ionian, Aegean, Marmara, Black and Libyan seas, respectively)”.

Apparently, the idea popped up in political debates in 1844, although of course it had older roots. And Greece took a swing at it in the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922 when the opportunity seemed to present itself with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. That didn’t work out too well for them, as while the Ottoman Empire was gone, the new republic of Turkey was not as down and out as everyone had first thought.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

 

 

 

(18) ITALY?

 

Well you had to see this one coming – although the Roman Empire may have shifted east, the city of Rome remained in Italy after all. I remember an internet meme to that effect, something about God punishing the Romans by turning them into Italians…

So naturally Rome became the focus of modern Italian nationalism, along with concepts of the revival of the Roman Empire or at least the revival of Rome with respect to a unified Italy – and beyond to a colonial empire and Mediterranean supremacy.

Italian nationalists such as Giuseppe Mazzini even promoted the notion of the Third Rome, although Mazzini substituted the papacy for Constantinople as the Second Rome – “After the Rome of the emperors, after the Rome of the Popes, there will come the Rome of the people.”

“After the Italian unification into the Kingdom of Italy, the state was referred to as the Third Rome by some Italian figures. 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. 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.”

And so the new Italy set about acquiring the crappiest of the eight modern major European colonial empires, partly because it was a latecomer from its unification in 1871 – and it was the only European power to be decisively defeated by one of its targets in Africa, Abyssinia or Ethiopia, at the Battle of Adwa in 1896.

Infamously, Mussolini also evoked the Roman Empire, referring to his regime as the Third Rome or New Roman Empire – perhaps most embarrassingly out of all my special mention revivals of the empire, not unlike an elderly relative trying to replicate some feat of their youth at a family gathering to look cool

In fairness, he did manage to avenge the Italian defeat at the Battle of Adwa, (briefly) conquering Ethiopia, but if anything, this and other territory that he acquired such as Albania made his empire even crappier. The crown jewel of the Italian colonial empire, Libya, didn’t even have oil as they hadn’t discovered it then (and I recall reading even if they had it was beyond the contemporary drilling technology, although those two things probably overlap) – an irony that might have struck Rommel and his fuel-starved Afrika Korps had they known they were driving over some of the world’s largest oil reserves. That’s what happens when you try for a Mediterranean empire at least half a millennium or so after the world’s economic center of gravity had moved on from the Mediterranean.

Also in fairness, I should point out that Italy, even under Mussolini’s Roman empire no one wanted, did have Rome in it – my foremost criterion for high-tier ranking. So we might add another year for the fall of the Roman Empire – 1943, for the Italian surrender to the Allies in the Second World War. I have actually seen this proposed, although the person proposing it clearly had their tongue firmly in their cheek.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

 

 

(19) GERMANY?!

 

Similarly to Austria, Germany picked up the Holy Roman Empire ball and ran with it when unified under the Prussian monarchy as the German Empire in 1871, styled as the Second Reich after the Holy Roman Empire’s First Reich and with the same imperial title of kaiser derived from Caesar.

Hence the title of Third Reich for Germany’s subsequent and most infamous regime, also touted to last a thousand years like the First Reich (spoiler – it lasted only twelve) – although apparently that was downplayed later as the Holy Roman association was a little too cosmopolitan and not quite, well, German enough.

In fairness, that last Reich did technically meet my high-tier ranking criterion by occupying Rome, if only for less than a year. It also had one of the most recognizable eagle standards, adapted from the Reichsadler of its imperial predecessors.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

 

 

(20) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?!

 

Pax Americana. Washington DC – the Fourth Rome!

Friends, Romans, countrymen – we’re at the bottom of the Roman Empire iceberg here!

I’m joking. The United States has never claimed succession from the Roman Empire, nor has even the most tenuous basis for doing so – although “Americans have been comparing their country to Rome since its foundation” and “in shaping the new country, the Founding Fathers consciously hoped to copy the strengths of the Roman Republic and avoid its eventual downfall”.

Unless you accept such metaphysical fantasy claims as in the Percy Jackson series or in John Crowley’s “Little, Big” that the realm of Olympus or the Holy Roman Empire has transferred to it.

However, as usual I’m joking and I’m serious. It is a claim that is so often made for it, not least by Americans themselves, that it has become something of a trope – often overlooking that the same trope was also used for the British Empire and its Pax Britannica. (Now people tend to deflect to the British or Europeans being the Greek predecessors to the American Romans).

In his preface to “The Fall of the West: The Death of the Roman Superpower”, Adrian Goldsworthy laments that “at certain sorts of parties” the discovery that he is an ancient historian “almost inevitably prompts someone to remark that ‘America is the new Rome'” – “more often than not this is followed by a smug, ‘Of course, they don’t see it.'”

As Goldsworthy opines, “any close look at the Roman Empire will soon reveal massive differences from any modern state, including the United States” – although of course there remains the point of comparison that the United States “is overwhelmingly the strongest country in the world and in this sense its position mirrors that of Rome”.

Bonus points for having as the most recognizable eagle standard in popular culture – and arguably that most closely resembling the Roman eagle in visual design (as opposed to species).

Also bonus points that it, like the latter-day Visigoths or Vandals that preceded and were driven out by it, the United States did technically meet my high-tier ranking criterion by occupying Rome from June 1944 in the Second World War.

And while on the subject of American connections to latter-day Italy, if nothing else the United States did give the world the Italian-American film Caligula in 1979 (produced by Bob Guccione and Penthouse) – which along with Suetonius (on which it is largely based) I take as gospel about the reign of Caligula and has influenced my perceptions of the Roman Empire in perpetuity ever since. No – this is not a subject in which I will entertain my debate. And yes – I strive where I can to reserve my final special mention for some kinky entry where the subject permits. I believe I’ve fulfilled that obligation.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

 

TOP 10 ROMAN EMPIRES (SPECIAL MENTION) – ROLL CALL RECAP

 

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

(1) ROMAN REPUBLIC

(2) ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH / VATICAN CITY

 

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

(3) HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

(4) OTTOMAN EMPIRE

(5) RUSSIAN EMPIRE

 

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

(6) KINGDOM OF ITALY

(7) OSTROGOTHIC KINGDOM

(8) EXARCHATE OF RAVENNA

(9) VENETIAN REPUBLIC

(10) LATIN EMPIRE

(11) BULGARIAN EMPIRE

(12) SULTANATE OF RUM

(13) SERBIAN EMPIRE

 

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

(14) SPAIN?

(15) FRANCE?

(16) AUSTRIA?

(17) GREECE?

(18) ITALY?

(19) GERMANY?!

(20) USA?!