Talk:Succession of the Roman Empire

message: what's this noncence?
"Ivan III, Grand Duke of St. Petersburg"
?????  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.160.158.67 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Grand Prince of Moscow" 201.1.184.57 06:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please sign your posts by adding four ~s at the end, so everybody knows when they are added. I don't know a single word about this subject, so I can only ask you to be more specific about which parts are disputed and why they are. It would be even better if you corrected the article to reflect both trends (you don't have to be registered to do it). --euyyn 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: nonsense

message: I'm wondering why this says "their" son.  Philoteus and who else?
 Grand Duke Ivan III and Sophie Paleologue.Aranelle (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  whose son? 

message: "Filofey explicitly identifies Third Rome with Russia (the country) rather than with St.Petersburg (the city)"
I've replaced St.Petersburg by Moscow because there is really nonsence! See my footnote on the main page.
To mention here St.Petersburg is out of question! It didn't even exist at that time! St.Petersburg is about 300 years old. The point of this story is Moscow. Silva2times (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax. It was unnoticed vandalism. The article was neglected for quite some time. - Altenmann >t 18:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, please don't make personal footnotes in the article text. Various wikipedians' comments belong to talk pages. Wikipedia article may contain text only based on cited sources. - Altenmann >t 18:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Claims 

message: Just thought it might be good to point out that "Rum" is just the (Classical) Persian word for Anatolia.  "Kayser", on the other hand, is unambiguously Roman.  WikiMarshall (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kayser-i Rum 

message: If citation needed, here: "“Büyük Constantin”in 11 Mayıs 330’da kurduğu şehrimiz, 1123 sene sonra 29 Mayıs’ta bir başka büyük imparator tarafından fethedildi. Ateşli silahlar devrinin mareşali, en azından Constantin kadar klasik kültüre ve dillere vakıftı. İlaveten şark dillerinin kalem ustasıydı. 15’inci yüzyılın tipik ve mükemmel hümanisti olan Fatih Sultan Mehmed’den bahsediyoruz. Şehri fethetti ve hakkıyla “Roma Caesarı - Kayzer-i Rum” unvanını üstlendi." İlber Ortaylı, "Büyük Constantin ve İstanbul", Milliyet, 28 May 2011. --E4024 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation from Ortaylı ref 

message: "The Germanic-led Carolingian Empire" This is utter nonsense. Carolingia was entirely Frankish.
It it true that Moscow is the third Rome  91.134.65.79 (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Franks were Germans. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carolingiea, Germanic-led?! 

message: This whole section seems like conjecture.  There are bibliographical references to some of the shared symbolism, but not a single authoritative source making this claim, outside this wiki article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.229.176 (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, very much so. There are also some non-factual claims that I will try to edit out, i.e. "Roman laws, philosophy and cultural institutions have largely survived in Europe and the territories that make up the European Union, whereas they have been close to completely lost in the non-European parts of the Empire post the Islamic Expansion" Greek philosophy, which heavily influenced Roman philosophy continued in the Islamic world. I don't know what 'cultural institutions' could mean. It's also wrong to say laws have survived, when the political institutions of Rome disappeared until at least the 18th century when they came back in a completely reformed way. The citation given is "f", I will try to see if a real citation was given before and correct it, if not I will delete this sentence. - 37.164.21.191 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The original reference seems to have been the WP page 'Early Muslim Conquests' so I deleted it, I also removed a lot of unrelated material. Frankly, the entire section is mostly unrelated, making conjectural, unsourced claims or just being irrelevant. The section should just have a few citations of people who claimed that the EU was a Third Rome and leave it at that, we don't a history of one person's interpretation of 'European Civilisation'. I won't go at it more so as not to make too big a change in one go, but I may come back to it later. - 37.164.21.191 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: European Union as Rome

message: I just thought Id add another scholarly source.
"Moscow the Third Rome: Sources of the Doctrine". Dimitri Strémooukhoff, Speculum, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Jan., 1953), pp. 84-101
Published by: Medieval Academy of America  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:2680:3CD:542D:5417:B9DF:18D1 (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: So I suggest it wirde:
::What do you mean by "wirde"? Wirde is weird. Is there such a word? Is this a typo? And how is it that you have 4 coats of arms pictured & then say "both." Both means 2.  Can somebody fix this so it makes sense? (PeacePeace (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eagle 

message: Twice user  has removed the image with the she-wolf and Romulus and Remus, first because the image had a alleged "weird caption" (where Altenmann probably meant a weird filename), and a second time because the symbol was alledgedly not "regenerated" in Third Rome. I have restored the image with a new caption and a proper source: . Note that the source also directly supports the filename, and that the image is used in many Rome-related articles. - DVdm (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  She-wolf with Romulus and Remus 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Third Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.ksk.edu.ee/file.php?ID=1604
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204065057/http://students.washington.edu/ageparke/rome.htm to http://students.washington.edu/ageparke/rome.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Third Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131800060600/http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-the-800-martyrs-of-otranto-saved-rome to http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-the-800-martyrs-of-otranto-saved-rome
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can somebody clarify an obtuse sentence in this fascinating article?
:"The guest tried to suggest to the guest that he could be held harmless in the Papal States.:
A guest to the guest??? Can somebody clarify this? Whose guests? (PeacePeace (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A guest who guested a guest? Obtuse sentence 

message: The term "Third Rome" is related to the city. (Example: Moscow is the third Rome). Nothing to do with the Roman Empire. Papal Rome never claimed to be Second Rome. They claimed to be Rome, period. Same for Mazzini's quote for Italy. He does not claim Italy as third Rome. He simply claims that Rome (the capital of Italy, not Byzantium or Moscow) had three roles in history (Emperors, Popes, People).
This article is a mess.
Barjimoa (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A claim that Rome has nothing to do with the Roman Empire is strange, as is an attempt to say that "Third Rome" has nothing to do with the concept of a 3rd Roman Empire. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article creates confusion between successor to Rome and successor to the Roman Empire. 

message: Article says,
:"but the Roman traditions of the empire had never recognized automatic inheritance of the Imperial office.[7] It was also Sophia's brother, Andreas Palaiologos, who held the rights of succession to the Byzantine throne." Are these 2 statements mutually contradictory? (PeacePeace (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @PeacePeace 208.87.147.89 (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Right of Succession 

message: From Europe and the Faith, by Hilaire Belloc:
:My object in writing it is to show that the Roman Empire never perished but was only transformed; that the Catholic Church, which, in its maturity, it accepted, caused it to survive and was, in that origin of Europe, and has since remained, the soul of one Western civilization.
jnestorius(talk) 14:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Church as successor 

message: Should Napoleon really be placed with the Austrian and German Empires? Austria and Germany simply inherited the symbols of the Holy Roman Empire and associated themselves very weakly with the Roman Empire, and I don't think this can really be compared to Napoleon's regime. The French Revolution, in general, was marked by a great rebirth of interest in classical history and many of Napoleon's actions reflect a desire of association with Rome that is not really reflected in this article. 
- Napoleon selected a Roman aquila as his symbol and used eagle standards in his military (the fact that this was selected and not inherited, as was the case for the Germans, increases the connection between Napoleon and an evident desire for Roman continuity).
- Napoleon styled himself as literally "Emperor" after his position as "Consul" (both positions that reference the classical Roman civilization).
- His regime's art and architecture was stylized after Rome as in l'Arc de Triomphe, and other triumphal arches, which imitated Emperor Constantine’s arch in Rome.
- Napoleon is quoted as saying “I am a true Roman Emperor; I am of the best race of the Caesars – those who are founders.” – Napoleon Bonaparte, 1812.
- He gave his son the title "King of Rome", which was previously used exclusively by the heir of the Holy Roman Emperor.
These elements of the Napoleonic Empire should probably find their way into this article and we should reconsider the section that the regime is listed under.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.104.4 (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoleon