Which Byzantine successor state had the most legitimacy?

Legitimate successor of Eastern Roman Empire

  • Empire of Trebizond

    Votes: 11 13.4%
  • Empire of Nicaea

    Votes: 50 61.0%
  • Despotate of Epirus

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Latin Empire

    Votes: 4 4.9%
  • All had equal legitimacy

    Votes: 5 6.1%
  • None was legitimate

    Votes: 11 13.4%

  • Total voters
    82
  • Poll closed .
Bastardry is valid?

I think your idea of dynastic is a little hard to follow here.

What I'm trying to say is that the Laskarids are viewed as legitimate because they won. This thread, I think, is asking the question of who had the best claim, regardless of how events actually unfolded.
 
What I'm trying to say is that the Laskarids are viewed as legitimate because they won. This thread, I think, is asking the question of who had the best claim, regardless of how events actually unfolded.

Again. Bastardry. As in illegitimate. As in no claim to inheritance.

As for legitimacy by winning: Isn't that how every dynasty in Roman history (as dating back to and including Augustus) was established? Or are you looking a timeline where hereditary rule was respected, and the rest of us are looking at OTL?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
What I'm trying to say is that the Laskarids are viewed as legitimate because they won. This thread, I think, is asking the question of who had the best claim, regardless of how events actually unfolded.
Konstantinos Laskaris had been recognized as emperor by the legitimate process. The army, the people, the Church, most of the nobles; they elevated him fair and square.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Who exactly did recognize him, anyway? What I know of Constantine Lascaris barely deserves the time it would take to make fun of.
What was left of the army, the Patriarch, the majority of the Constantinopolitan populace, and a good many nobles.

They consciously chose Konstantions Laskaris over Konstantions Doukas.
 
The Nicaeans were most legitimate due solely to their championing of and respect for the traditions and culture of the Orthodox church, their success in arms against the Latins (and to a lesser degree, the Muslims in Asia Minor), their support and maintenance of the Patriarchate, and very obviously, their eventual success in recapturing Constantinople.

In my opinion, by this metric the Ottomans had far greater legitimacy and claim over the Byzantine legacy than any 'Latin' state could have by their respect and maintenance of Byzantine customs and religious practices, whereas Latin Christians trampled over Byzantine customs in a very (dare I say) barbarian manner.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
In my opinion, by this metric the Ottomans had far greater legitimacy and claim over the Byzantine legacy than any 'Latin' state could have by their respect and maintenance of Byzantine customs and religious practices, whereas Latin Christians trampled over Byzantine customs in a very (dare I say) barbarian manner.
Dare. The Latin conquest of Constantinople and the dismantling of the Empire was carried out in barbarous fashion. Just like every Crusade.
 
Dare. The Latin conquest of Constantinople and the dismantling of the Empire was carried out in barbarous fashion. Just like every Crusade.

Taking the city on the twelfth, stopping for the night and expecting more fighting on the morrow, and then sacking it as they did - without even the excuse of battle hot bloodedness in other words - being a good example.

Not the sack would have been anything other than barbaric, but that somehow makes it even worse.
 
Again. Bastardry. As in illegitimate. As in no claim to inheritance.

As for legitimacy by winning: Isn't that how every dynasty in Roman history (as dating back to and including Augustus) was established? Or are you looking a timeline where hereditary rule was respected, and the rest of us are looking at OTL?

If legitimacy by winning is paramount, then the "Franks" had as valid a claim as anyone else.

What was left of the army, the Patriarch, the majority of the Constantinopolitan populace, and a good many nobles.

They consciously chose Konstantions Laskaris over Konstantions Doukas.

I knew he was chosen, but not by whom. Thanks.
 
If legitimacy by winning is paramount, then the "Franks" had as valid a claim as anyone else.

Other than the whole "foreign invader" thing, as opposed to coup (or civil war).

It is like the American presidency - you can't be president if you're not an American citizen (though in this case, naturalized citizens certainly count). You can't claim to be a legitimate continuation of the Byzantine state as a foreign country.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Why not the latins themselves then? they just had the town.
A key aspect of the Byzantine Empire was the centrality of Orthodoxy. Seeing as how the Latins disestablished the Orthodox Patriarchate, looted churches, raped nuns, burned monasteries, and otherwise engaged in good ol' fashioned repression of non-Catholics (this was especially pronounced in the European territories of the "Latin Empire"), I really don't think it would be fair to call them their heirs, especially when there is a perfectly legitimate claimant in Nikaia.
 

Esopo

Banned
A key aspect of the Byzantine Empire was the centrality of Orthodoxy. Seeing as how the Latins disestablished the Orthodox Patriarchate, looted churches, raped nuns, burned monasteries, and otherwise engaged in good ol' fashioned repression of non-Catholics (this was especially pronounced in the European territories of the "Latin Empire"), I really don't think it would be fair to call them their heirs, especially when there is a perfectly legitimate claimant in Nikaia.

I agree with you, just the "he owns constantinople is roman" isnt enough IMHO.
 
If "legitimate" is defined as "has the stronger dynastic claim", then I would say that Trebizond is the legitimate successor. The rulers there are a continuation of the Komnenid line, which had ruled Constantinople for a century before being deposed by those idiot usurpers, the Angeloi. What's interesting to consider is that the Komnenid claim to Constantinople is taken seriously in Nicaea in the mid 1200s. George Akropolites, an historian of the Nicene period, refers to Michael Palaeologus as Michael Komnenos in his history.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
That was more to stress continuity with the older Komnenoi; Michael VIII's father was both a Komnenos and a Doukas, while his mother was an Angelos, Doukas, Komnenos and a Kamateros. In fact, Michael VIII had no less than 11 emperors in his lineage.
 
Top