History Was the Republic of Venice a Roman successor state?

[Lord Sovereign]

At least, in so far as culture is concerned. As I understand it the Venetians bore some strange similarities to the Romans and Romanitas of yesteryear, likely as a result of Venice starting out life as a Roman refugee colony from the Lombards in the immediate century after the Western Empire's final implosion. Also their political system was just about cut throat enough to compare to the Principate, so there is that.

If that's true, then that puts Venice and Constantinople's wars in a new light.

 

[ATP]

At least, in so far as culture is concerned. As I understand it the Venetians bore some strange similarities to the Romans and Romanitas of yesteryear, likely as a result of Venice starting out life as a Roman refugee colony from the Lombards in the immediate century after the Western Empire's final implosion. Also their political system was just about cut throat enough to compare to the Principate, so there is that.

If that's true, then that puts Venice and Constantinople's wars in a new light.

Of course.Venice payed homage to Constantinopole ,not to HRE,but,for them,they always was true descendent of Rome.

 

[Cherico]

If the holy Roman empire gets that honor might as well give the same title to Venice. It's like a participation trophy at that point thought I mean sure you lost but you tried

 

[Lord Sovereign]

If the holy Roman empire gets that honor might as well give the same title to Venice. It's like a participation trophy at that point thought I mean sure you lost but you tried

I might argue that Venice is in some respects more deserving of that honour, if I have it right. The Holy Roman Empire was an attempt at restoring the Imperium Romanum under the auspices of the Roman Church, whilst Venice could be regarded as a more direct successor to Romanitas as it is, essentially, a Roman/Italian refugee colony.

 

[Cherico]

I might argue that Venice is in some respects more deserving of that honour, if I have it right. The Holy Roman Empire was an attempt at restoring the Imperium Romanum under the auspices of the Roman Church, whilst Venice could be regarded as a more direct successor to Romanitas as it is, essentially, a Roman/Italian refugee colony.

And the Falklands is the last outpost of the glorious british empire....

 

[Lord Sovereign]

And the Falklands is the last outpost of the glorious british empire....

Well...yes. The Falklands is distinctly British, far more so than even some of the United Kingdom's core regions after decades of mass immigration. If the home islands went totally tits up but the Falklands survived as an independent state then yes it would be a successor state, especially in terms of culture.

 

[Airedale260]

At least, in so far as culture is concerned. As I understand it the Venetians bore some strange similarities to the Romans and Romanitas of yesteryear, likely as a result of Venice starting out life as a Roman refugee colony from the Lombards in the immediate century after the Western Empire's final implosion. Also their political system was just about cut throat enough to compare to the Principate, so there is that.

If that's true, then that puts Venice and Constantinople's wars in a new light.

Short answer: No

Long answer: Legal successor, absolutely not. As a descendant? Kind of, but it's complicated.

The Roman Empire as a unified state ended in 395 (I actually just had to double check this today so it's still fresh in my mind). The Western Roman Empire fell in 476, and was replaced by a Kingdom of Italy under Odoacer, the the Ostrogothic Kingdom, before eventually being reclaimed by the Byzantine Empire under Justinian (part of the Exarchate of Ravenna, which covered most of Italy and answered to Constantinople).

When the Exarchate fell in the 8th century, Rome became part of what we know as the Papal States (which lasted until the 1860s when Italy was unified).

As for the wars, it's really over Venice continuously butting heads over trade (not just with the Empire but basically anyone who threatened its profits). The Empire was basically just the most noted, partly because of the Fourth Crusade and its infamy. Not that the Greeks didn't cause problems, either: The Venetians and other trade republics were repeatedly outdoing the local merchants (the Empire was really in bad shape economically and militarily at this point), and the imperial court was between a rock and a hard place when dealing with them and with the local citizens. The fact that they were regarded by the locals as schismatics didn't help, either.

This all culminated in the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, and then the Sack of Constantinople happened (partly out of greed, partly out of retaliation).

So it's not fighting over who's a successor to what; it's that the two had a lot of other differences that simply grew over time and each side got tired of the other's shit.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

So it's not fighting over who's a successor to what; it's that the two had a lot of other differences that simply grew over time and each side got tired of the other's shit.

Oh I reckoned something like that was the case. I didn't think they were fighting over who Rome's true successor was, I simply found the idea interesting that echoes of the Western and Eastern Empires were still fighting each other hundreds of years later.

 

[ATP]

Oh I reckoned something like that was the case. I didn't think they were fighting over who Rome's true successor was, I simply found the idea interesting that echoes of the Western and Eastern Empires were still fighting each other hundreds of years later.

If we agree tat Moscov really is third Rome,and Waschington become fourth,then those ehoes are still fighting - in Donbas.

 

[Agent23]

Of course.Venice payed homage to Constantinopole ,not to HRE,but,for them,they always was true descendent of Rome.

Then the Venetians started fighting wars with the Byzantines during the fourth crusade.
Afterwards, particularly during the Turkish invasion the Venetians poached lots of talent from Constantinople, and one theory is that the scholars, artisans and artists they got helped incubate the Renaissance.

So you can say that the Byzantines are indirectly responsible for both the 3rd and 4th Rome.
Also, proto-Protestantism thanks to the Bogomils

 

[Airedale260]

If we agree tat Moscov really is third Rome,and Waschington become fourth,then those ehoes are still fighting - in Donbas.

The whole “America is the successor of Rome” shtick is something that only applies in the sense of “republic that has a ton of reach and influence in the world” Most Americans don’t really consider it anything more than a parallel, and if we are a successor to any empire, it’s the British than the Roman one. And even that is only in terms of influence and reach.

The “Third Rome” bit is entirely an obsession of Moscow that is largely ignored since it’s really as much about religious leadership as it is temporal power. America doesn’t give a shit about caesaropapism or look at Russia as anything other than “the neighborhood drunken bully currently being an asshole and abusive ex who is bent on regaining its prior position at the expense of everyone else”

 

[ATP]

The whole “America is the successor of Rome” shtick is something that only applies in the sense of “republic that has a ton of reach and influence in the world” Most Americans don’t really consider it anything more than a parallel, and if we are a successor to any empire, it’s the British than the Roman one. And even that is only in terms of influence and reach.

The “Third Rome” bit is entirely an obsession of Moscow that is largely ignored since it’s really as much about religious leadership as it is temporal power. America doesn’t give a shit about caesaropapism or look at Russia as anything other than “the neighborhood drunken bully currently being an asshole and abusive ex who is bent on regaining its prior position at the expense of everyone else”

So,it is second roman republic versus woud-be-third rome?

 

[Airedale260]

So,it is second roman republic versus woud-be-third rome?

No, it's a fight over Russian expansionism. America *isn't* a "Second Roman Republic" and has zero links to it. The only person of note/fame who thinks otherwise is Ben Shapiro, and he's not only way outside mainstream American political thought but he's also outside mainstream American *conservative* political thought. Hell he's not even Christian, much less Orthodox Christian, so his obsession over who is Rome's "successor" is even weirder considering that's a thing only the Orthodox care about -most American Christians are either Catholic or Protestant (that is, offshoots of Catholicism) and so don't believe Rome *has* a successor.

Then the Venetians started fighting wars with the Byzantines during the fourth crusade.
Afterwards, particularly during the Turkish invasion the Venetians poached lots of talent from Constantinople, and one theory is that the scholars, artisans and artists they got helped incubate the Renaissance.

So you can say that the Byzantines are indirectly responsible for both the 3rd and 4th Rome.
Also, proto-Protestantism thanks to the Bogomils

It's more like the Byzantines got pulled into a slap fight between the Italian city states (specifically, Genoa, Lisa, and Venice) that was ultimately over money. The Genoans grabbed the Pisans and rioted through the Venetian quarter of Constantinople and killed/injured a bunch of people. They in turn (rightly) got booted from the city for being assholes, but it had the unintended effect of allowing the Venetians to entrench themselves in the city as the dominant merchant faction (partly due to the resources and links Venice could draw on but the Greeks couldn't). This, coupled with hatred for Catholics over the Great Schism, meant that when a palace coup was executed by the Greeks (something that was normal for them but notably *not* normal in the West) and targeting Catholics was used as a way to get domestic support by the new guy (Romanus IV, I believe) it blew up in spectacular fashion and pissed off a LOT of people (murdering old people and children while selling most everyone else into slavery will do that).

The funny thing is, Venice and the rest weren't actually in a position to do anything about it until Yet Another Claimant to the throne showed up asking for help while saying "Help me with this and I'll pay off the debts you guys worked up setting up the Fourth Crusade" -and Venice went for it because they had, in fact, gone deep into debt prepping for what they were told was going to be a massive venture. So off they all went, and did it...only to find out that the Byzantines had, in fact, been inadvertently stringing them along because the claimant in question (Alexios Angelos, later Alexios IV) turned out to have no idea what he was talking about. The Westerners, whose ideas of governance, inheritance, etc were quite different from the Greeks, and whose faith made them hated, kept trying to push for the bargain they'd made to be upheld, whereupon the Greeks reacted poorly...only to have their asses handed to them because commoners and peasants going up against trained soldiers generally goes very poorly for the former, as it did here.

The Crusaders, sick of this shit, overthrew the Empire and set up their own regime. That is another story in and of itself but it basically was the beginning of the end for the Empire.

So it's less the Venetians having multiple beefs with the Byzantines and more just a bunch of angry Italians who were pissed off at a perception of being cheated out of money they earned and having the muscle to retaliate.

As for "poaching" artisans...it's less that and more that Venice was one of the first major Western cities that wasn't a backwater of note refugees came to while fleeing, trade and travel routes being what they were at the time. The other contenders were generally Genoa (for the same reasons as Venice) and Florence (which had conquered the *third* major maritime player, Pisa, about 50 years before).

You are correct, however, in that this is generally considered a significant factor if not the biggest factor in kick-starting the Renaissance.

This all has about as much to do with the current geopolitical climate as Columbus's voyages do...that is, there is no straight line between the two. Thinking otherwise is a bunch of weird strings of thought, a *massive* oversimplification, and missing the forest for a particular and not particularly noteworthy tree.

 

[JagerIV]

At least, in so far as culture is concerned. As I understand it the Venetians bore some strange similarities to the Romans and Romanitas of yesteryear, likely as a result of Venice starting out life as a Roman refugee colony from the Lombards in the immediate century after the Western Empire's final implosion. Also their political system was just about cut throat enough to compare to the Principate, so there is that.

If that's true, then that puts Venice and Constantinople's wars in a new light.

From my recollection, they're more a descendent of Byzantium, at least chronologically. They don't really gain true independence until around the 800s, with the Byzantines able to appoint a governor at least up to the very early parts of that century. This is of course complicated by them culturally being much closer tied to the West than East, generally.