The most important announcement on this thread.

[Art Vandelay]

"I am Caesar, I am the Emperor." Pope Boniface VIII

"I am the walrus" John Lennon.

"I'm that star up in the sky, I'm that mountain peak up high" R. Kelly.

I'm Slim Shady, yes I'm the real Shady" Eminem.

"I'm Batman" Batman.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

You chose the one pope who loudly declared that the vatican had both spiritual and temporal power over Christendom and got himself killed by King Philip IV of France for his fuckery! Really?

That's your example?

Correction, nearly got himself killed after being abducted by forces loyal to the French king, the official cause of death was fever but the picture below is a sobering depiction of what happened to the one pope who got it into his head that he was the heir to the Roman Empire.

[Askold]

Here's the deal: Anyone can claim to have power. Whether legal, spiritual, physical or Jedi-power. Heck, Jacob here has claimed all kinds of things.

Sadly, this is not enough to make it legal. You still need to prove to a court or other higher power WHICH HAS THE LEGAL POWER TO RECOGNIZE YOUR CLAIM that you really are who you claim to be or that your organization has that power.

Like Jacob, Boniface made claims but had nothing to back them with. Some may have cared that he excommunicated anyone and everyone who annoyed him but it apparently had little effect on his claims and France (with which he had his main beef) never acknowledged him and instead declared him to be heretical. Which to me seems to have a good case as he tried to do stuff that is way out of line for the pope.

In fact, if we go back to the whole "others have to recognize and approve the power" we can discuss how countries are legally formed. Note that other countries have to accept your country in order for it to be able to do anything with them. If I declare that I am "the sovereign nation of silly but impressive hats" that doesn't really work unless other countries start to say "yeah, that's fine by us. Here's an embassy and a trade deal you silly little fellow." In fact, it may be that I get a visit from the Finnish police or mental health workers who explain to me why I am being a silly boy (and I may be asked to come see a doctor or forced to do so if this is deemed necessary for my well being or for the well being of others.)

And again, countries can die and disappear. People can die and disappear without a heir in which case the country takes whatever property they have and takes care of the burial. Similarly when a nation dies it is not necessarily any of the organizations it has that takes over the region. When USSSR collapsed it wasn't any of their organizations that took over, instead new countries were formed. Note that though many of the organizations still exist (sometimes under new name) none of them controls the regions of former USSSR and instead they are part of the countries within which they reside (and even then only if that country decided to take that organization rather than disband it.)

[Jacob Harrison]

Here's the deal: Anyone can claim to have power. Whether legal, spiritual, physical or Jedi-power. Heck, Jacob here has claimed all kinds of things.

Sadly, this is not enough to make it legal. You still need to prove to a court or other higher power WHICH HAS THE LEGAL POWER TO RECOGNIZE YOUR CLAIM that you really are who you claim to be or that your organization has that power.

Like Jacob, Boniface made claims but had nothing to back them with. Some may have cared that he excommunicated anyone and everyone who annoyed him but it apparently had little effect on his claims and France (with which he had his main beef) never acknowledged him and instead declared him to be heretical. Which to me seems to have a good case as he tried to do stuff that is way out of line for the pope.

In fact, if we go back to the whole "others have to recognize and approve the power" we can discuss how countries are legally formed. Note that other countries have to accept your country in order for it to be able to do anything with them. If I declare that I am "the sovereign nation of silly but impressive hats" that doesn't really work unless other countries start to say "yeah, that's fine by us. Here's an embassy and a trade deal you silly little fellow." In fact, it may be that I get a visit from the Finnish police or mental health workers who explain to me why I am being a silly boy (and I may be asked to come see a doctor or forced to do so if this is deemed necessary for my well being or for the well being of others.)

And again, countries can die and disappear. People can die and disappear without a heir in which case the country takes whatever property they have and takes care of the burial. Similarly when a nation dies it is not necessarily any of the organizations it has that takes over the region. When USSSR collapsed it wasn't any of their organizations that took over, instead new countries were formed. Note that though many of the organizations still exist (sometimes under new name) none of them controls the regions of former USSSR and instead they are part of the countries within which they reside (and even then only if that country decided to take that organization rather than disband it.)

The new nations formed after the collapse of the USSR were the remnants and successors of the USSR as they are successors over their individual territories, much like the Byzantine Empire in the East and the Catholic Church in the West. More proof that the Catholic Church was the successor of the Western part was that the Byzantine Empire eventually recognized Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans in Western Europe therefore recognizing that the Pope had the power to crown him with that title.

[Askold]

No it is not.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The countries that broke off were legally new entities. Many went back to recreating the nations they used to be before being taken over by USSSR but there is no legal precedent or even a law that would make "successor states" have some kind of legal ownership to the previous nation. If it did it would have meant that all those nations were property of USSSR-successor. Because that's what you are trying to claim, that faction somehow has legal ownership of everything that used to be part of a thing that the faction was previously part of.

Which makes it even stranger that you don't follow the logical route of claiming that the legal heir of Rome is the part of Rome that survived the longest.

[Jacob Harrison]

No it is not.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The countries that broke off were legally new entities. Many went back to recreating the nations they used to be before being taken over by USSSR but there is no legal precedent or even a law that would make "successor states" have some kind of legal ownership to the previous nation. If it did it would have meant that all those nations were property of USSSR-successor. Because that's what you are trying to claim, that faction somehow has legal ownership of everything that used to be part of a thing that the faction was previously part of.

Which makes it even stranger that you don't follow the logical route of claiming that the legal heir of Rome is the part of Rome that survived the longest.

They have legal ownership over the territories that were part of the USSR. They were therefore successors to the individual Soviet Republics. Besides, the Russian Federation took the USSR's place on the UN Security Council.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Jacob, a piece of paper claiming ownership means nothing if it doesn't have any legal weight to support it and in the case of the Catholic Church somehow being the heirs of Rome, one pope who's reach exceeded his grasp notwithstanding, no piece of paper confirming ownership ever existed.

Yes, we know you love Rome and the idea of imperial conquerors enslaving the grubby little locals, doesn't make your argument valid.

[Jacob Harrison]

Jacob, a piece of paper claiming ownership means nothing if it doesn't have any legal weight to support it and in the case of the Catholic Church somehow being the heirs of Rome, one pope who's reach exceeded his grasp notwithstanding, no piece of paper confirming ownership ever existed.

Yes, we know you love Rome and the idea of imperial conquerors enslaving the grubby little locals, doesn't make your argument valid.

Well isn’t the crowning of Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Emperors and their recognition by the Byzantine Emperor’s enough evidence that it inherited some powers from the Roman Emperors? If it can crown Roman Emperor’s it can legitimize all the pagan conquerors that established the European Kingdoms when they converted.

[Askold]

Hitler said that he's the ruler of the Third Reich, drawing a connection to the Holy Roman Empire.

This did not make it legally so, it was just part of their propaganda and what would later become standard Fascist method of trying to claim inheritance to an ancient (and usually highly idealistic version) nation because rather than doing something new for yourself that ideology is all about reliving the (misrepresented) glory days of the old.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

A Frankish king given lofty titles in order to placate him, yeah-sounds legit!

Also, from your favourite source.

Collins points out "that the motivation behind the acceptance of the imperial title was a romantic and antiquarian interest in reviving the Roman empire is highly unlikely."[77] For one thing, such romance would not have appealed either to Franks or Roman Catholics at the turn of the ninth century, both of whom viewed the Classical heritage of the Roman Empire with distrust. The Franks took pride in having "fought against and thrown from their shoulders the heavy yoke of the Romans" and "from the knowledge gained in baptism, clothed in gold and precious stones the bodies of the holy martyrs whom the Romans had killed by fire, by the sword and by wild animals", as Pippin III described it in a law of 763 or 764.[78]

Furthermore, the new title—carrying with it the risk that the new emperor would "make drastic changes to the traditional styles and procedures of government" or "concentrate his attentions on Italy or on Mediterranean concerns more generally"—risked alienating the Frankish leadership.[79]

[Jacob Harrison]

Hitler said that he's the ruler of the Third Reich, drawing a connection to the Holy Roman Empire.

This did not make it legally so, it was just part of their propaganda and what would later become standard Fascist method of trying to claim inheritance to an ancient (and usually highly idealistic version) nation because rather than doing something new for yourself that ideology is all about reliving the (misrepresented) glory days of the old.

You said that the Byzantine Empire was the successor to the Roman Empire. Well there were treaties where the Byzantine Emperor’s recognized Charlemagne and later the Holy Roman Emperors. Therefore the power of the Popes to crown Emperors was legally recognized by the legitimate successors of Rome.

[Jacob Harrison]

A Frankish king given lofty titles in order to placate him, yeah-sounds legit!

Also, from your favourite source.

Collins points out "that the motivation behind the acceptance of the imperial title was a romantic and antiquarian interest in reviving the Roman empire is highly unlikely."[77] For one thing, such romance would not have appealed either to Franks or Roman Catholics at the turn of the ninth century, both of whom viewed the Classical heritage of the Roman Empire with distrust. The Franks took pride in having "fought against and thrown from their shoulders the heavy yoke of the Romans" and "from the knowledge gained in baptism, clothed in gold and precious stones the bodies of the holy martyrs whom the Romans had killed by fire, by the sword and by wild animals", as Pippin III described it in a law of 763 or 764.[78]

Furthermore, the new title—carrying with it the risk that the new emperor would "make drastic changes to the traditional styles and procedures of government" or "concentrate his attentions on Italy or on Mediterranean concerns more generally"—risked alienating the Frankish leadership.[79]

Charlemagne was crowned because Pope Leo III considered Empress Irene of the Byzantine Empire an illegitimate usurper. However Emperor Nikephoros I recognized Charlemagne’s title.

[Art Vandelay]

You said that the Byzantine Empire was the successor to the Roman Empire. Well there were treaties where the Byzantine Emperor’s recognized Charlemagne and later the Holy Roman Emperors. Therefore the power of the Popes to crown Emperors was legally recognized by the legitimate successors of Rome.

There are also plenty of laws and treaties and other official bits of paper recognising Lizzie as the rightful Queen of England, and Parliament as the rightful body to hold all of the actual power, yet those are all apparently illegitimate because reasons. It's almost as though you only care about the letter of the law when it happens to align with your pet causes.

[Jacob Harrison]

You said that the Byzantine Empire was the successor to the Roman Empire. Well there were treaties where the Byzantine Emperor’s recognized Charlemagne and later the Holy Roman Emperors. Therefore the power of the Popes to crown Emperors was legally recognized by the legitimate successors of Rome.

There are also plenty of laws and treaties and other official bits of paper recognising Lizzie as the rightful Queen of England, and Parliament as the rightful body to hold all of the actual power, yet those are all apparently illegitimate because reasons. It's almost as though you only care about the letter of the law when it happens to align with your pet causes.

But those treaties were not done by the legitimate Kings of England while the treaties of the Byzantine Empire were done by the legitimate Byzantine Emperors.

[Art Vandelay]

But those treaties were not done by the legitimate Kings of England while the treaties of the Byzantine Empire were done by the legitimate Byzantine Emperors.

"Kings' legitimacy is based on treaties.

Treaties' legitimacy is based on kings."

Maybe it's just me, but I think I'm seeing a slight problem with your reasoning.