Submitted by AutoModerator t3_10tfv04 in history
ImOnlyHereCauseGME t1_j793tbt wrote
Are there any direct familial lines from any of the Roman/Byzantium emperors that later became leaders after those empires collapsed? Even if they were just puppets for others I would think the direct lineage with Rome might give them some legitimacy to rule.
AngryBlitzcrankMain t1_j798i1e wrote
I mean its not direct, but its one of the examples I am even aware of. Ivan III of Russia married the princess of Byzantine empire, niece of the emperor Constantine and started to use the title of gosudar (Grand Prince). His grandson Ivan the Terrible used his connection to the emperor of Byzantine empire and crowned himself the first Russian tsar, called Moscow the "third Rome", started to use Byzantine symbols as his own etc.
en43rs t1_j7af4n3 wrote
One thing to keep in mind, Rome/Byzantium wasn't as big on dynasties and royal blood as feudal Europe were. Of course there were dynasties and it was important, but there wasn't this ideas that you could only rule if you had imperial blood. If you became an emperor without any imperial ancestry, that wasn't a problem.
Keep in mind that Byzantines called themselves Romans... but no one else did. Feudal Europe didn't see them as the heirs to the Roman emperors, to them that was the pope and the Holy Roman Emperors. They just saw them as "the Greeks", who were also heretics. So no Europe didn't look for Imperial Roman blood after the fall of the Empire. There were some marriages with the imperial dynasties but they weren't seen really as anything special.
GSilky t1_j7bqiz8 wrote
The city of Rome was still administered by the few families that consistently produced emperors like the Julii until the Renaissance. Many Provencal nobles would try to trace their lineage to notable Romans in an effort to create legitimacy.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments