Who has the best claim to the title of Roman Emperor?

Today I am going to explore the question of who in the year 2019 has the

best

claim

to the

title

of Roman Emperor. Now I'll tell you right up front that this question doesn't have a simple, clear answer, but I hope that by exploring it we can learn a little bit of history and have a little fun in the first part of the video. I'll describe five different ways the question could be answered and then in the second part I'll let other history YouTubers give you their opinion on who has the

best

claim

, so let's start at the beginning of the Roman Empire, the first Roman

emperor

.

He was Augustus Caesar and reigned from 27 BC. C. until 14 C II, after that we have a lot of

emperor

s, some of whom were fine and some of whom were downright CRAZY. then we come to a period where we have what is called the five good emperors. This is the period when Rome reached its peak and for the most part experienced peace in the central parts of the Empire, after that it was kind of a slow downhill journey. Shortly after the five good emperors, we have a period known as the crisis of the 3rd century in which Rome practically gained a new emperor every two years.

Basically, the Roman Empire had grown so much that it had become difficult for anyone to stay standing. In power for a long time finally came an emperor named Diocletian and basically divided the Empire to create the Tetrarchy. He took the

title

of Emperor or Augustus in the East and let someone else be Emperor in the West. Each Emperor also had a Junior Emperor working. under them he was called Caesar so there were actually four rulers hence the term Ruled Tetrarchy because this didn't actually work because eventually there was a series of fights between the Western Emperor and the Eastern Emperor and this culminated in Emperor Constantine defeating his As a rival and becoming the only Emperor, he moved the capital east to Constantinople, making it a new or second Rome, so the East became as important, if not more, than the West after his death, there were sometimes two Emperors and sometimes one, and finally the division became permanent.

Shortly after the permanent division, several barbarian groups crossed the Rhine River into the western part of the Empire; in fact, the city of Rome itself was sacked for the first time in eight hundred years and in 476 the Western Roman Empire was finished, but in the East things continued. Historians often refer to the Eastern Roman Empire at this point as the Byzantine Empire, but at that time they simply saw themselves as the legitimate continuation of the Roman Empire, in fact, around the year 552 C II, Emperor Justinian was able to remember kuru and, although it was not. They were no longer the capital and held the city until the rise of Charlemagne, which brings us to the year 800 and this is where we have to make our first major decision as to which line we believe is the most legitimate successor to the original Roman line.

Empire Basically, at this point Charlemagne, king of the Franks, had conquered most of Western Europe and in Constantinople the title of Emperor had fallen to a woman for the first time. Charlemagne took this as an opportunity to declare himself the true Emperor of Rome and in fact, the Pope agreed and crowned him as such. He is often seen as the first Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, although in reality that entity took some time to evolve. In addition to this, there has always been some debate about what exactly the Holy Roman Empire was. It was said to be neither holy nor Roman nor empire, but putting all that aside I want you to consider at this point which side you believe is the true successor to the glory that once was Rome, the Western or Eastern Holy Roman Empire.

Byzantine Empire because for the next six hundred and fifty years they coexisted and both claimed to be the legitimate successor state. Now before we continue, I should mention that there was actually a suggestion made at the time that these two should get married, which certainly changed things and made our task a lot easier, but unfortunately it didn't happen, which left us leads to 1453, that's the year Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks, so if you favor the Byzantine side, you have another decision to make at this point. Obviously, as the conquerors of the Second Rome, the Ottoman dynasty certainly has a good claim to be the true successors of the original Roman Empire, they held power for another 450 years and although Turkey is now a republic and heir to the Ottoman dynasty, still is.

There is that person who ended up with Ali Osman and he is the first of the five people I present as possible candidates for the title of Roman Emperor. Now you could argue that it doesn't matter that the Ottoman Empire was Muslim and not Christian because the Roman Empire had already changed its religion once in its history so why not again but this is just one option, let's look at the others going back. to 1453. I would like to point out that the last Byzantine emperor had a legal will and in that will he leave all his titles, including the title of Roman Emperor, to Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain?

It is rumored that he was paid for that legacy, but the king of France had also paid him for the same title a few years before, but if we want to base ourselves on a strictly legal argument, we could say that the current heir of Ferdinand and Isabella is also the legal heir to the title of Roman Emperor, so that person would be King Philip VI of Spain. He is also a good candidate because he is the only one of these five who is actually already a monarch today but there is one more candidate for the Byzantine supporters the last Byzantine emperor had a brother who claimed to be emperor after the fall of Constantinople that person had a daughter who went on to marry Ivan the Great of Moscow because of this, Russia later claimed that Moscow was the third Rome and that the Russian Empire was the true successor state to the original Roman Empire.

They even named their monarchs Tsar after the Roman word caesar to add to their claim that there is also the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church for much of the modern period ended up replacing the Greek Orthodox Church as a sort of center of Eastern Christianity, for which, of course, the Russian empire no longer exists, but if you are convinced by the Russians. argument, you'll want to know who the current heir to the Russian throne is. That's actually a bit of a complicated question in itself and I actually have a separate video on that topic which I'll link to in the description, but maybe the best Russian candidate is a fellow called Andrew Romanov, so he's the third of the five candidates I would like to point out, so these three options are all linked to the idea that the Byzantine Empire was the true successor state of the original.

Roman Empire, however, if one were to support the idea that the Holy Roman Empire was actually the true successor state, we have a different set of options on that side. I will give you two options, as I mentioned above, the Holy Roman Empire lasted for over 1,000 years and actually survived the Byzantine Empire by over 350 years. It finally came to an end in 1806 because of this guy here, Napoleon Bonaparte, after conquering most of Europe, Napoleon grabbed the imperial crown and crowned himself emperor in the presence of the Pope in a manner comparable to the way Charlemagne had Having been crowned more than 1,000 years earlier, of course, Napoleon's Empire was short-lived, as was the resurrected version under Napoleon III, but it could certainly be argued that Napoleon was and is the closest thing Europe has seen to a Roman emperor since the days of Rome itself, so if you are convinced that Napoleon was really the true successor of everything we think of when we think of the Roman Empire, then you will want to see who the current Bonapartist heir is today. and that person is Jean Kristoff, he is not a direct descendant of Napoleon himself, but rather a descendant of Napoleon's brother Jerome.

Finally, it should be noted that the Holy Roman Empire continued after 1806 in the form of the Austrian Empire, which lasted until the end of World War I, with some minor exceptions, the title of Holy Roman Emperor and then Emperor of Austria was held from 1440 to 1912 by a single family, the House of Habsburg, so it could certainly be argued that the current head of the House of Habsburg has the best claim to the title of Roman Emperor and there is no debate as to who that is. boss. It's this man here, Karl von Habsburg, so he is the fifth and final person I would like to introduce with the title.

The best claim beyond these five we could propose others that we could argue in favor of the Pope, for example, or the heir to the throne of Italy, but these five are the five that I think have the best claim. Now I'm going to leave several others. The history youtubers weigh in with their thoughts and in the end I will come back with my best pick for my money, it has to be the Russians, the Eastern Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire, so Bonaparte's Habsburgs are out. I have a blood connection that surpasses any will, so the Spanish are out and they are Orthodox Christians, which is still the religion of the European half of that Eastern Empire, so it has to be the Romanovs or Dwayne Johnson, that's my Wildcard election, first, the capital of the Roman Empire was changed to Constantinople and Constantinople was taken by the Ottomans, ending the Eastern Roman Empire, which was a real part of the Roman Empire at one time, none of the other empires any once united East and West. the way the Ottomans and Romans remembered the second who conquered Constantinople was actually recognized as the successor of the Romans by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Furthermore, the Ottoman sultans probably also had some blood rights, as they intermarried with the Byzantine nobility, including princesses from all over the Now, after the abolition of the Ottoman Empire, some of the Arman princes moved to Syria and dressed with Argos. The man was born there, he is the great-grandson of Sultan Abdulhamid, the second of the Armenian genocide. Fame in 1974, Turkey lifted the ban on the Ottomans and they could return to Istanbul, not Constantinople, however, Elijah's daughter refused to return even though most of her family tried to tell me that's not the ego of a Roman emperor.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's look at this logically, what makes a kingdom a kingdom, what makes an emperor and an emperor sure that you can call yourself king or emperor, but no one else recognizes it as your subjects or even other countries, you are just a crazy person proclaiming something that no one will listen to, trust me. I am speaking from experience, so to see who is the real contender to the Roman throne, we have to look at who has actually been most recognized by others as a claimant, not who claimed it, only themselves, to begin with, we have to recognize that no one sensible I will argue that the Byzantine Empire is not a true successor to the Eastern Roman Empire, but the Byzantine Empire fell in 1453, so who is Napoleon's successor can now be ruled out.

No one thought of him as the pretender to the Roman throne. let alone the Holy Roman Emperor and for most of his reign other countries did not even want to recognize him as King of France let alone anything else. The Romanovs who outside themselves claim the throne and no one took them seriously. I'm not even close to controlling any area of ​​the former Roman Empire, then come the Ottomans and I don't think I have to explain why no one thought of them as successors to the Romans, so who can agree to be a successor to the Romans?

Well, the Romans Charlie Maine is the most prominent being crowned by the Pope as the religious successor of the Western Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Emperor, effectively creating the basis for the medieval political entity known as the Holy Roman Empire, therefore , you can see the Holy Roman Empire. as the successor of the Roman Empire, at least of the Western Roman Empire and who, in everyone's mind, are the main monarchs of the Holy Roman Empire, yes, the Habsburgs, are the successors of a state created by chala main, a person seen as the successor of at least the Western Roman Empire, if not the whole, have also been crowned on many occasions by the religious successor of the Western Roman Empire, the Pope, as Holy Roman Emperors and, finally, by the ruling line Spanish, that the last Byzantine Empire, the successor of the The Eastern Roman Empire left its titles and its testament became extinct and was replaced by none other than the Habsburgs, so in a way the Habsburgs are the ones who united the Roman Empire of East and West once again, making them the true claimants of the Roman Empire.

Empire oh, who has the title of Roman Emperor today? Well, to answer that question, let's consult our handy dandy European family tree available now, so first off, anyone who tries to tell you that the Holy Roman Empire was the successor state to Rome. he's trying to sell you something because Rome kept moving forward and kept moving forward and kept moving until it fallsin the hands of the Ottomans. Does that mean the Ottomans are the new Roman emperors? I think you answer that question with another question when Warsaw was given to Prussia in the late 18th century, did William II become the new king of Poland?

Not exactly, he just ceased to exist, so we are left with two options: we can follow the Spanish claim, which could be right, but honestly. They never really did anything about it, it's mostly lip service, so what we are left with is simply following the lineage of the last Roman emperors, so we go back from Constantine John to his brother Thomas and follow that line towards below. Until we get to the Tsars of Russia, I don't think this makes Russia the third Rome as you like to think, but certainly if anyone has the right to be connected to this whole mess, it's the Tsars who are taking us to the end. to the Russian Empire for poor Nicholas II dead and then there's a whole mess after that, but certainly here in his bloodline, somewhere is your current emperor of Rome.

Hi, I'm Jasmine, from a long, long time ago. The first option Matt gives us is between Irene and Charlemagne. Irene is the legitimate one. Empress Charlemagne conquered most of Western Europe, but the Roman Empire was fallen in the east and the capital was Constantinople, so in reality her claim was as if she were living in a terraced house and claiming the house number. next door because everything was used. to be a house does not fit in 1453 the Ottomans took Constantinople and practically swallowed the remains of the Byzantine Empire in other words they conquered it when William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066 he took the title of King of England and there is no debate about whether the king William is the real king of England or not, so in the same way we can see that the Ottomans were the new heirs of the Roman Empire and therefore dun da Ali Osman has the best claim to the title of Roman Emperor Haider, this is beerus and of course the house of bonaparte has the best claim to the title of

roman

emperor, who better than a man who was crowned emperor with the blessing of the Pope himself, who was crowned with a loyal wrath whose troops carried with pride . the standard of the Roman ego to battle and if the Holy Roman Empire was a descendant of the Roman Empire, then who but the man who destroyed it has the right to call himself the new Roman Emperor and therefore its current heir Zhanka?

Napoleon Bonaparte has the best. Claim the title of Roman Emperor. I agree that Polyana's client has the better claim, but I would say that a different Prince Napoleon is the current mistake, although Louis Prince Napoleon's will named his grandson Jean Christophe as his heir, the traditional succession belongs by right. The choice of Jean Christo's father, Charles Louise, to mutilate Charles' only son, Louise Eyre, broke with the traditional rules of succession between father and eldest son and the fact that Louis was irritated by Charles's political leanings is not sufficient reason to deny him his legitimate right. on the throne blood must be followed in the matter of such succession or the dynasty loses all credibility, otherwise how can we recognize the sanctity of a royal or imperial line of succession?

Hello, I'm going to have to go with the Romanovs. not only because the family used to be called tsar like caesar, but also because the Byzantine empire had the royal lineage of the Roman Empire, plus the current head of the family is an American citizen who has the best claim to the Roman Empire. All the way back to that initial division between Charlemagne and Irene. Irene doesn't get the throne because she's a woman, what is that? So if we follow her line, then I'll go with the fool Ali Osman Irene, by the way, was nice. of a figure who reaches out and tears out the eyes of her son, but despite his rudeness, I still think his line of succession has the best claim to the throne, so Thunder Ali Osman is my guy.

Hi, Tom Ricci here, and thanks for having Me on the show Matt, I'm going to go with Andrew Romanov because I think the story of the three Romas is just a beautiful story and at the end of the day, history needs a story to happen. , so that's my opinion. to the Russians Hello, air house of history and I'm also going to have to go with the Romanovs, although other people have already explained why the Romanovs would be a good fit as successors to the Roman Emperor and I'll show it to you this way. graphic where exactly the Romanov friends would be is around here although the Romanov friends probably would not accept any title during the second world war he did not even want to be promoted to officer in the British army fighting against the Germans he is a very humble man and if he refused the rank of officer in the British army and it is not likely that he was happy being the heir to the Roman emperor.

This is Tarek from the hikmah story and I believe that the house of Osman, the house of the Ottomans, has the best claim to the title of Roman emperor this is because when Sultan Mehmet II conquered Constantinople in 1453 and the rest of the Empire Byzantine later, he assumed the title of kayseri room, that is, the Caesar of Rome, in addition, the second Ottoman leader, Orhan, the first actually married a Byzantine. princess thus establishing a blood relationship with the Romans, therefore, I believe that dressed in our Ali Osman, the current head of the Ottoman family has the best claim to the title of Roman Emperor if the Empire were restored, an Eastern Emperor who would claim the Western European government would not. go well and vice versa therefore I would like to propose two options Karl von Habsburg would be the most likely contender for the western throne in the east the best option would be Andrew Romanov a popular marriage between the children of Karl and Andrew could mend the schism the artist elevated to Slav Romanov on model Eleanor von Habsburg would make an amazing couple however Eleanor is happily engaged so we would probably have to wait a few more generations to see a United Roman Empire well, there you have it over a dozen opinions on who has the most right in Right now, if it came to a vote, it looks like the Russian candidate would win and the Ottoman candidate would come in second, but as promised, I'm going to end up sharing mine.

My opinion and mine is that everyone you have heard so far is wrong. You probably know the saying When in Rome do what the Romans would do well, let's change that to when you think of Rome, think how the Romans would think and there is one thing that The Romans thought a lot about the law and that is the law, in addition to the Latin alphabet Probably the most important contribution that ancient Rome has given to the modern world is its legal system; In fact, most of the legal systems used in the world today have been in some way heavily influenced by Roman law, so I don't think the Romans were swayed by any argument based on lineage religion, who looks better with a laurel wreath, what would some other barbarian country say, or even who controls their capital city, what do I think they would say. being convinced is a good solid legal argument and the only person of the five who has a claim based on a legal argument is the only person that no one has so far chosen to support and that is King Philip VI of Spain.

This is what I First of all, I am going to agree with the majority so far and say that the Byzantine Empire was in fact the legitimate continuation of the original Roman Empire from a legal point of view, there was absolutely no break in the line of succession, in other words, the government. of Rome or the state known as Rome continued to advance even during the few years when the Latin crusaders took power in Constantinople, and when Constantinople fell for good in 1453, a few frightened religious leaders declared that the Ottoman sultan was now the new Caesar of Rome. but in no way was the state of Rome transferred to the control of the Ottomans after all, the Ottomans at that time followed a completely different legal system.

What happened is that the state of Rome that now exists in the person of the Emperor was exiled, so when Constantine Xi died in battle against the Ottomans, his brother Thomas escaped to Rome, where he was recognized in the rest of Europe. Christian as the legitimate Emperor of the East, a title that was later inherited by his son Andrew and now, before he died, Andrew made a legally binding will in the eyes of Roman law and in that will he left the title of Roman Emperor to King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile, their titles, of course, were inherited by Charles, who became both king of Spain and the Holy Roman Empire.

During his lifetime, Emperor Charles controlled more of Western Europe than anyone else since the glory days of Rome. Now, when he died, he divided his titles between that of his son Felipe and that of his brother Fernando, but don't be confused, although Fernando obtained the elegant title of Saint. The Roman Emperor was Philip who was considered the oldest heir, therefore the old Byzantine title, although no longer officially claimed by the Spanish at this time, would have legally belonged to Philip and although there has since been a change of house When it comes to the monarchy of Spain, there is a direct legal line of succession from Philip II of Spain to the current King Philip VI of Spain, so if a Roman court were forced to decide today who is the legal heir of the Roman title.

Emperor, I think they would go with Felipe VI and beyond the legal argument, he has many other great things going for him, first of all, he is the only one of our 5 candidates who is already monarch and the kingdom over which he reigns . he exists within the borders of the original Roman Empire; In fact, if we look at his full title, you'll see that he also claims to reign over many other former Roman territories, including some in Italy and even Jerusalem. He is also Roman Catholic. and he speaks a Romance language and if you like bloodlines, he has an excellent pedigree, he is practically related to every other royal person who has ever reigned in Europe, in fact, we could probably find a connection with a Byzantine emperor, in fact, I know we could or even one of the original Roman emperors if we look hard enough and finally, and this is actually very important, like me, he sports a pretty good beard and as we all know, the best Roman emperors were the ones who had beard, okay, I want to thank you all.

The other YouTubers who participated in this have been a lot of fun, but before you go, make sure you click on the little circle with the letter I that should be located in the upper right corner of the screen. If you do it, you can do it. Vote in a short poll and tell us which of the five candidates you think deserves that title and be sure to comment too and tell us in more detail what you think about the topic.