This bit about the pope "crowning Charlemagne the Roman emperor" was a sort of propaganda move, since the Roman empire still existed (in Constantinople), and the Franks were not Roman. The actual Romans weren't too happy about it.
Its arguable. Charlemagne controlled Rome, so he had a vague claim to be a rule of the largest successor state. The Eastern Roman empire did have political continuity but was not all the Roman - it was culturally and linguistically Greek, and did not control Rome itself.
Yeah, I don't think one has much of a claim to be Roman emperor if they aren't, you know, in possession of Rome. The Taiwanese government considers themselves to be the legitimate Chinese government, but as they aren't in possession of China nobody really agrees with that claim. IDK why people treat Byzantium's claim of being Roman any differently.
Well technically a Roman emperor moved the capital there while it was still a Roman empire. It's a little bit more complicated than a clear cut "Rome or not not Rome". Rome started as a city and a specific people but after many many centuries it became a much more abstract thing
Because it was different. There’s a lot of history involved which is easy to read. I’d also recommend Dan Carlin’s series Thor’s Angels which lays it out pretty clearly.
Twentieth century Chinese history isn't a good comparison. The Roman empire sometimes had multiple emperors and multiple capital cities, and this complicated situation lasted for hundreds of years. Despite being called the Roman empire, the capital's location was no longer essential.
It seems the word for "papa" in Latin or Greek was originally an affectionate way of referring to a bishop. Several major cities in the Roman empire had bishops that used "pope" as a title. There were bitter disputes between them. Rome was pretty persistent about trying to pull rank.
