@apollosdomain
Maybe The true heirs of Rome were the friends we made all along :)).
@Goldenslayer
The Byzantines are. They aren't "heirs to Rome," though, but rather literally Rome itself - they are the half of the empire that survived. Other states can be considered "heirs to Rome" in that they were influenced by Roman civilization. Interestingly, the Byzantine idea of why they were Romans was far less trascendent than the HRE who saw Rome as this higher civilization that they ought to aspire to. On the other hand, the Byzantines called themselves Romans because they were an empire filled with what they considered Roman people.
@serafeimlightbringer9677
Byzantine Empire or Rhomania (Ρωμανία), does not qualify as an heir because it's Rome itself, it never ceased to be until its complete dissolution.
@pyrrhus3445
Fun facts the Arabs have always called the Byzantines the Romans while they called other Europeans as the franks so Byzantine was the other half of Rome that survived so it make since that they are Rome
@awesomehpt8938
The Roman Empire never died, it lives on in our hearts.
@sandretheteacher363
The Byzantine Empire - Simple! Why? It was literally the half of the Roman Empire that survived. It was a continuation, fact. It is beyond idiotic to argue that any other civilization has any more of a claim. Francia could be considered a successor to the western half in some regards, but not a continuation.
@burgerdan4936
It's me, I'm the heir. My mother was a she-wolf and my father was the bravest man alive.
@nycmapper8307
It’s clearly Finland
@EarthChampion_TophBeifong
18:30 “in the east, imperial institutions persisted under Byzantium” Stop. This is a history channel, there was no “persisting under Byzantium” as if Byzantium was a complete different entity, when it’s literally the Roman Empire, not a continuation, the Eastern Roman Empire IS the Roman Empire.
@nubnubdubdeh
The Eastern Roman Empire IS Rome.
@thebrickbuilderofhistory
The Byzantines were the Roman Empire because of their religious, political, economic, legal, dynastic (Zeno), linguistic, and probably genetic ties to the Romans. So that's one basic answer to the question and the correct answer up to 1453/1461/1475/1479. After that, I don't know.
@parthiaball
Byzantium wasn't a claimant for the title of successor to Rome, it was Rome. It was the eastern half of THE Roman Empire than didn't fall when the West did, and held on for another millennia. After Rome properly fell in 1453, then we can start talking about claimants to be successor... of which there were/ are none.
@Theodoros_Kolokotronis
In his notable book “The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium”, Anthony Kaldellis, prominent Professor of Classics at the University of Chicago, delves into the legacy of the millennial Byzantine Empire.
@Etom.
Rome ended with the fall of Constantinople in 1453 everything else is fake or wrong
@ruboveju4767
Talking about Rome remembers me the discusions about who's the next Pelé in football. There was only one Pelé, he finished and never came back despite so many people similar and great players as great as him.
@Lukastar1
17:00 it's the occasional non-academic word that makes me love this channel lmao
@guillermochica
The "byzantine empire" was ROME!!! After the fall of the western empire, the eastern empire became the sole Roman empire. They considered themselves to be "romans", the rest of the world considered them "romans" (well, except the pesky "franks"). The changes that the empire suffered after the 6th century didn't mean it stopped being the "roman empire"...
@TOKMAKCIBASPAPAZ
Greeks (especially Cypriot, Cretan, Cappadocian, Pontic) and Southern Italians (especially Sardinians & Sicilians) are the best representatives of Anatolian Neolithic Farmers both in Y-Dna and A-Dna. Also, their phenotypes reflect the ANF appearance at a rate of 90%. It would be correct to say that the Greco-Roman world was a legacy of Anatolian Neolithic Farmers.
@StavrosDS
With all due respect to the channel the assertion that Greece wanted to establish its rule over Asia Minor due to some outdated imperial Byzantine notion is false. Up until the early 20th century western and much of the north and south coastal region of Asia Minor were still inhabited by Greeks who were the majority in places like Smyrni (Izmir) Trabzon etc. and this has been the case since classical antiquity. These populations wanted to be united with the modern Greek state at least in their majority and this was the struggle. To secure at least a part of Asia Minor for its native Greeks to live there as they have done for millennia. How did modern Turkey had a stronger claim in the wider Smyrni area for example when Turks were a minority there? To compare this to Italian fascist era colonialism to Libya is ahistorical.
@KingsandGenerals