Is the Pope the successor of the Roman Emperors? Vatican city = Roman Empire?

[KrazyHorse]

By the time Constantinople was captured once and for all the Byzantines were nothing more than an unimportant city-state. Their empire was already gone. The Roman Empire had finally ceased to exist in any meaningful form. The last tenuous link to the past died in 1453.

You can't succeed to something if it no longer exists.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The Ottomans did not succeed to the throne of the Empire. They took the Byzantines apart a piece at a time. They did not install themselves as the new leaders of Rome. Their rule was a clear break with the rule of Rome.

Che's right about this: The Ottoman's saw themselves as the new rulers of the Roman Empire, having taken it from the old rulers.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
When you conquer someone, you inherit any claims they once had.

You inherit any claims you can enforce. Everybody else picks up whatever pieces of the puzzles that they can grab.

The Ottomans took the last scraps of the Byzantines by right of the sword. They couldn't enforce their claims in Europe proper, thus those claims were a pleasant fiction.

The Roman empire was gone.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Che's right about this: The Ottoman's saw themselves as the new rulers of the Roman Empire, having taken it from the old rulers.

The Ottomans could claim anything they wanted to. The English saw themselves as holding claims to all of France until the 19th century. Doesn't make it so.

The successor to the French throne was sitting on it.

[chequita guevara]

Until Constantinople fell, it was called the Roman Empire. All Christendom still considered it such, even if they ceased to respect it after 1204. When the Ottomans took the city (for the final time), it causes shock and fear throughout Christendom. It was still considered the Queen of Cities, the City of World's Desire, even if it was little more than a city of fields, ruins, and an impovrished race behind the world's greatest walls. It was considered the capital of Christianity. It was holier than Jerusalem, holier than Rome.

When Mehmet took the city, he took the title. When dignitaries from Europe visited him, they used the title. He was the Roman Emperor of a revitalized and powerful Turkish Roman Empire.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
By the time Constantinople was captured once and for all the Byzantines were nothing more than an unimportant city-state. Their empire was already gone. The Roman Empire had finally ceased to exist in any meaningful form. The last tenuous link to the past died in 1453.

You can't succeed to something if it no longer exists.

It would be just as easy to say

By the time Constantinople was captured once and for all the Byzantines were nothing more than an unimportant city-state. The Roman Empire was already largely controlled by the Ottomans.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The Ottomans took the last scraps of the Byzantines by right of the sword. They couldn't enforce their claims in Europe proper, thus those claims were a pleasant fiction.

The Roman empire was gone.

With the exception of Sicily and the Kingdom of Naples, the Ottoman Empire under Suleyman reached the extent of Justinian's empire (and a little beyond). Even in Mehmet's day, the Ottoman Empire reached the Roman's 12th Century borders.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Until Constantinople fell, it was called the Roman Empire. All Christendom still considered it such, even if they ceased to respect it after 1204. When the Ottomans took the city, it causes shock and fear throughout Christendom. It was still considered the Queen of Cities, the City of World's Desire, even if it was little more than a city of fields, ruins, and an impovrished race behind the world's greatest walls.

When Mehmet took the city, he took the title. When dignitaries from Europe visited him, they used the title. He was the Roman Emperor of a revitalized and powerful Turkish Roman Empire.

It was an empire of the Ottomans first and foremost. There was no legal link to the Byzantine empire beyond that created by right of conquest.

Byzantium had been reduced to a few square miles. Its extraterritorial claims were a joke. Whatever the Ottomans claimed, there was a clear break when they captured Constantinople.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It was an empire of the Ottomans first and foremost. There was no legal link to the Byzantine empire beyond that created by right of conquest.

So, England ceased to exist when it was conquered by the Normans?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


With the exception of Sicily and the Kingdom of Naples, the Ottoman Empire under Suleyman reached the extent of Justinian's empire (and a little beyond). Even in Mehmet's day, the Ottoman Empire reached the Roman's 12th Century borders.

Yes, and those territories were captured piecemeal.

The capture of Constantinople was not a defining event. They captured no territory based on recognition of their rights as successors to Rome; They captured it all based on the power of the sword.

The claims of heredity to the Roman Empire would have remained just as spurious even had the Ottomans then gone on to capture all of Europe.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


So, England ceased to exist when it was conquered by the Normans?

No, because it was captured in a relatively short period (within a couple of seasons).

Had the Normans captured England a province at a time over the course of 100 years then yes, England as a political entity would have ceased to exist.

[KrazyHorse]

The Normans seized the throne of England; the Ottomans seized the territory of the Byzantines.

[KrazyHorse]

The difference is enormous...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
There was no legal link to the Byzantine empire beyond that created by right of conquest.

You say that as if that didn't have any real meaning in the 15th Century.

Byzantium had been reduced to a few square miles.

Irrelevent.

Its extraterritorial claims were a joke.

Again, irrelevent. The Romans lacked the ability to enforce their claims, but had they any power, their claims would not have been constested.

Whatever the Ottomans claimed, there was a clear break when they captured Constantinople.

Not to the peoples of the 15th Century there wasn't.

Even before the final fall, the City had authority. The lesser Balkan states all owed nominal allegiance to the Emperor, and he could confirm the title of Despot on various rulers, granting them legitimacy. Stephan Dushan attempted to seize the city and make the Roman Empire a Serbian Roman Empire. Why, cuz the name Rome still meant something in those days.

[KrazyHorse]

The Ottomans didn't install themselves at the head of an empire; they killed an empire, and ate it.