Discussion: Who had the WORST claims to being the successor of the Roman Empire?

[EMT]

Anyone voting for the Ottoman Empire as the least legitimate successor to the Roman Empire while raising states built off the bones of the WRE as being perfectly valid candidates or states whose only claims are a blood relationship to a past Emperor are on something or have a severe case of the Byzantiboo going on

The Ottomans maintained a more coherent transition of the Roman state apparatus and geopolitical niche than any other listed successor. They had the blood relationship to a past Roman dynasty, don't claim legitimacy from the same Germanic kingships that first toppled the WRE, and viewed themselves as a successor to Rome, the third religious iteration if you will. The House of Osman(since people seem to have a hard time distinguishing that they're not equivalent to their Turkish subjects or to the original Turks from Central Asia) ran a religious state with nationality/language being a distant second priority. Between the janissaries and the converts, they ran a state that was utterly dependent on the Greeks to function, that operated out of Rumelia. There is no more direct transition possible short of Mehmed II converting to Christianity.

 

[aben]

The people writing Ottomans are being very unfair. Not the best claim yes, but certainly not the worst.

 

[Yuhaoyang]

Holy Roman Empire weren't Romans they were the ones that killed it. More like a zombie empire than anything resembling the real thing

And not just once, but twice, if you count teir participation in the fourth crusade

The Holy Roman Empire(in its earliest form） was first established 324 year's after the end of Western Roman Empire and more than 100 year's after Lombards conquered Italy ，by Franks who had little to do with destroying the core of Roman Empire.
Your comment is simply retarded.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Is territory all that matter? I though that the empire was more than a geographical term, especially after history itself proved that the empire didn't even need Rome or Italy. I mean at one point the Arabs ruled more Roman lands than the actual Romans. Conquest of an empire doesn't make you heir to said empire.

I mean I think Mehmed was also claiming that Islam succeeded Christianity in the same way that Christianity succeeded roman paganism, but I'll admit I always found it odd.

Which is wrong, The ERE and WRE and before them the tripartite division between Constantine' sons and the tertrarchy, were never two/three/four different empires. Just one with two/three/four administrative divisions. The law of one emperor was valid for both halves of the empire after all, troops and civilian officials could move freely from one court to another, the victories of one emperor was the victory of all of them, etc. Multiple emperors, different sphere of competence, one empire. Would the second triumvirate count as three roman republics? Ergo you can't have a second empire ( and no, Franks and Romans were not part of the same empire but ruled by different emperors);

Legally, this is all solid. but in practice, they spoke different languages, had divergent economic and political needs and systems, their cultures were already shifting (due in part to the barbarians being allowed to settle in the WRE,) and neither could reasonably support each other in full due to the barbarians or persians. in effect, they were two separate countries. I'd offer the example of Britain and the commonwealth to the British Empire, but the commonwealth tends to at least share a HoS.

Again the empire is not an "achievement" granted to the kingdom with most land, the strongest army, most orthodox people etc.

Then what is it? you already refuted its spiritual role in the remark on the HRE.

IV century history taught us you don't need to have your goverment based in Rome, VI century that you don't need Rome at all, XIII that you don't even need any traditional capital. Former imperial capitals are not sources of Roman-ness;

Then i think you need to define what Romanness is; I've been working from the view of imperial transition and Empire's spiritual status, so what framework are you operating in?

Never said the French or Spanish didn't count. You'll also notice in my second answer to this thread how I stated that I believe the Italians (and you can add Neo-Latin people you wish) and Greeks to be "modern Romans", the people however, not the state they live in.

so... how is the state less roman than the people?

 

[Flashman]

To my knowledge the french empire was the first in europe to use the title of empire nationalisticially without claiming rome. So I guess them for not trying.

This raises an historiographical question for me - prior to the 19th century, were non-European non-Roman states (IE the Assyrians, the Persians, the Babylonians) ever referred to within works of history as "empires"? Or did this nomenclature only come into play with the age of European imperialism?

 

[AltoRegnant]

This raises an historiographical question for me - prior to the 19th century, were non-European non-Roman states (IE the Assyrians, the Persians, the Babylonians) ever referred to within works of history as "empires"? Or did this nomenclature only come into play with the age of European imperialism?

for lack of a better word... yesn't. They would claim to be an "empire" as in king-of-kings, but i don't believe the europeans would've seen them as Empires. just high kings, or very powerful rulers.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

You’re only considering Ancient Rome, not medieval Rome. By the 15th century the culture and language of Rome was Greek—hell, even if you view the post-Fourth Crusade Byzantium as illegitimate this was already the case by the 13th century. Geographically Rome had not held France/Gaul in centuries but it contested Greece and Anatolia to the end. Religion is the biggest strike against the Ottomans, I agree, but geographically, culturally, linguistically, and even a little bit dynastically (see those Trapezuntine marriages to the Turks) are all points in the Ottomans’ favor.

Sure. Eastern Rome. Western Rome had Latin, which was the primary language of the Emperor, the Republic and the Kingdom with Greek being a secondary language. Sort of like modern European aristocrats speaking French. This was actually something that the ERE was called on at the time.

Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive?

9th-century Byzantium has always been viewed as a mid-point between Iconoclasm and the so-called Macedonian revival; in scholarly terms it is often treated as a ’dead’ century. The object of these papers is to question such an assumption. They present a picture of political and military...

www.google.ca

And yes. I do think that Latin takes precedence over Greek when it comes to defining the Romans. Just think about that. A Roman Emperor was calling a head of the Roman Catholic Church a barbarian for speaking the language of Augustus Caesar. But did the Turks even speak Greek? I’m sure that they spoke Turkish and used the Arabic script until Ataturk reforms.

 

[Boss Tweed]

In my humble opinion, the Ottoman Empire is actually the best of these claimants, second only to the ERE and Rome itself.

Worst would probably be Greece: wrong location, wrong culture, not an empire (heck they only controlled Constantinople for a few years), didn't exist until 1830, legitimacy derived from being a Greek nation-state, never even claimed to be a Roman empire, and ruled by Germans for an added bonus. France and Spain are better claimants than Greece just by being decent-sized European empires, although they aren't much better. San Marino at least is older and in the same general area as Rome.

 

[Yuhaoyang]

Anyone voting for the Ottoman Empire as the least legitimate successor to the Roman Empire while raising states built off the bones of the WRE as being perfectly valid candidates or states whose only claims are a blood relationship to a past Emperor are on something or have a severe case of the Byzantiboo going on

The Ottomans maintained a more coherent transition of the Roman state apparatus and geopolitical niche than any other listed successor. They had the blood relationship to a past Roman dynasty, don't claim legitimacy from the same Germanic kingships that first toppled the WRE, and viewed themselves as a successor to Rome, the third religious iteration if you will. The House of Osman(since people seem to have a hard time distinguishing that they're not equivalent to their Turkish subjects or to the original Turks from Central Asia) ran a religious state with nationality/language being a distant second priority. Between the janissaries and the converts, they ran a state that was utterly dependent on the Greeks to function, that operated out of Rumelia. There is no more direct transition possible short of Mehmed II converting to Christianity.

If the Western Kingdoms couldn't claim to success Roma because they were built upon Germanic Kingship，then how could Ottoman Empire claim so since their rule was built upon Turkish Ghazi leadership which started more than 100 years before any Roman pretense？
Besides，I know it's not on OP's list，but Venice Republic definitely had a more direct succession & transition than the Ottomans，it's litterally just a autonomous commune of Roman Empire that got independent，it also retained complete and unbroken cultural，institutional and religious continuity.

 

[wildwill]

The best claim is pretty clearly to me, The Ottoman Empire, They essentially restored the eastern Roman empire, just under new management.
For the worst one, I chose Greece. It is a very new state that has an identity that rejects romanness in favour of a hellenic identity.

 

[Yuhaoyang]

The best claim is pretty clearly to me, The Ottoman Empire, They essentially restored the eastern Roman empire, just under new management.
For the worst one, I chose Greece. It is a very new state that has an identity that rejects romanness in favour of a hellenic identity.

They didn't “restore” anything，they only killed ERE and built an Empire of their own that geographically looked like ERE.

 

[Yuhaoyang]

This website really never failed to "amaze" me.
Somehow the real descendants of Romans （in both culture and demographic sense）don't qualify as the successor of Romans because their states were "weak"，while their enemies and oppressors(exactly who killed the Roman Empire) qualify because their states were strong.
Very respectable ethics，I have to say.

 

[GameBawesome]

This website really never failed to "amaze" me.
Somehow the real descendants of Romans （in both culture and demographic sense）don't qualify as the successor of Romans because their states were "weak"，while their enemies and oppressors(exactly who killed the Roman Empire) qualify because their states were strong.
Very respectable ethics，I dare say.

Again, may I request that you tone it down. I respect you thoughts and opinion, and really appreciate the discussion going on, but I really don’t want the moderators to come

 

[Yuhaoyang]

In my humble opinion, the Ottoman Empire is actually the best of these claimants, second only to the ERE and Rome itself.

Worst would probably be Greece: wrong location, wrong culture, not an empire (heck they only controlled Constantinople for a few years), didn't exist until 1830, legitimacy derived from being a Greek nation-state, never even claimed to be a Roman empire, and ruled by Germans for an added bonus. France and Spain are better claimants than Greece just by being decent-sized European empires, although they aren't much better. San Marino at least is older and in the same general area as Rome.

In Greek language the title for their King and Byzantine Emperor is the same word.

 

[Flashman]

for lack of a better word... yesn't. They would claim to be an "empire" as in king-of-kings, but i don't believe the europeans would've seen them as Empires. just high kings, or very powerful rulers.

But it wouldn't be unusual for the term "empire" to be applied to them?

 

[Boss Tweed]

This website really never failed to "amaze" me.
Somehow the real descendants of Romans （in both culture and demographic sense）don't qualify as the successor of Romans because their states were "weak"，while their enemies and oppressors(exactly who killed the Roman Empire) qualify because their states were strong.
Very respectable ethics，I have to say.

It's the ethics the Romans used. So I think it's pretty fair to judge any would-be successor to the Roman Empire on the attribute the Romans were most proud of having, military strength.

 

[Miguel Demiurgos]

To a certain extent thinking of Rome as a state with a clear tradition throughout its existence is wrong, given how drastically it changed politically, demographically, and religiously throughout the centuries. But if it were up to me to define what "the Roman Empire" meant, I'm gonna base it on the following characteristics:

1) firm control of at least one former Imperial capital (let's be generous and say it's the five on the Wikipedia entry, namely modern Rome, Instanbul, Milan, Ravenna, and Izmit)
2) a government led by a small political elite with control over a strong military
3) an intertwined religious and political establishment
4) an ethnically diverse population spread out over a large geographic area
5) maintaining control over areas away from the metropole through good infrastructure and cooperation with local elites
6) the abilty to reliably project power beyond its borders

I think that Spain complies with all the points except 2.

 

[Boss Tweed]

In Greek language the title for their King and Byzantine Emperor is the same word.

Does the title Kayser-i-Rum mean anything to you?

 

[Yuhaoyang]

Does the title Kayser-i-Rum mean anything to you?

No，it just (to anyone except Mehmed II) meant they ruled the Land known to Muslims as Rum since 7th century.

 

[Aghasverov]

In Greek language the title for their King and Byzantine Emperor is the same word.

What, Basileus?

The Ottomans adopted the title of Kayser-i Rum...
Not sure what you're point is....