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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The difference is enormous...

Excuse me if I take the people of the 15th and 16th Centuries opinions on the matter over yours.

The fact that you refer to them as the Byzantines which is a modern name for the Eastern Roman Empire pretty much says it all about your knowledge of the period.

[KrazyHorse]

You mean the opinions of the Venetians.

Because I can guarantee you that most of Europe didn't recognise the claims of the Ottomans to the throne of Rome.

Especially not the people living in Rome.

[chequita guevara]

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

Again, a distinction without meaning. They took over an empire and claimed it for their own. They were recognized by their contemporaries as being the legitimate successors of the ERE and a continuation of the ERE.

[KrazyHorse]

You keep throwing in a claim with no factual basis. Some of their contemporaries recognised them. Some did not.

Most, in fact, did not.

[KrazyHorse]

The Roman Empire fragmented into so many pieces that to claim any single group as their successor is a joke.

The last piece to die was the last group with any sort of real claim to the throne of Rome, and by the time they got swallowed that claim was already pure pretension.

[KrazyHorse]

It's interesting to note that the European possessions of modern Turkey correspond almost exactly to the European possessions of Byzantium immediately prior to its annexation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You keep throwing in a claim with no factual basis. Some of their contemporaries recognised them. Some did not.

Most, in fact, did not.

I've got plenty of factual basis. I've read enough material on the Ottomans to do a masters' thesis. I even, briefly considered learning Turkish so I could get my mitts on source material, except Ottoman Turkish isn't the same as modern Turkish, and that's pretty extreme for a hobby anyway.

Until the 1590s, no European country dared treat the Sultan as his equal, but always refered to him as his superior. The sole exception was the Pope, who continually called for holy war against the Ottomans, frequently leading to the misery of those who heeded the call. Even the Holy Roman Emperor defered diplomatically, despite the near constant warfare.

The Roman Empire fragmented into so many pieces that to claim any single group as their successor is a joke.

The last piece to die was the last group with any sort of real claim to the throne of Rome, and by the time they got swallowed that claim was already pure pretension.

What you keep forgetting is that even though the Emperor had little actual power, he had great moral authority and was recognized as being important, much like the Holy Roman Emperor. His "blessing" meant something to the various Balkan princes, and even Western Europe trembled when it fell. The Ottomans already had unfetted access back and forth across the Dardinelles.

When the city fell, many Europeans believed that had God abandoned them, some even believed that God favored Islam and converted.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's interesting to note that the European possessions of modern Turkey correspond almost exactly to the European possessions of Byzantium immediately prior to its annexation.

Byzantium ceased to exist in the 3rd century. It was Constantinople, and the political entity was the Roman Empire. The people were called the Romanoi. If you look on maps from that period, it is called Romania. It was called Romania up until the Moldavians and Wallachians changed the name of their country to Romania. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, use it's name, the ERE.

As for the territory controled by it, in Thrace, it controled only the city itself and the small Italian colony of Galeta on the opposite shore of the Golden Horn. It also controled all the Morea, but for a handful of cities held by the Venetians. The rest of Thrace was in the hands of the Ottomans, whose capital was Adrianople/Edirne.

[chequita guevara]

If the ERE was so meaningless, why did: Skanderbeg adopt the Roman double eagle as his flag, why did the Wallachians become Romania, why did Muscovey claim to be the Third Rome, why did Balkan princes seek confirmation by the Roman Emperor, why did the Ottomans claim the title of Roman Emperor, why did their contemporaires refer to the Ottomans by that term? Because it still had meaning. It still had a powerful hold on the minds of Europeans. They though it was important, so it was important.

It's the same reason the Bishop of Rome has so much authority, even though today he rules directly only a few acres. He's still the leader of the Catholic world. Stop thinking with such a narrow materialist mindset and realize that ideas have power when people act as if they do.

[Barnabas]

John Paul looked like Vespasian!

[KrazyHorse]

I've got plenty of factual basis. I've read enough material on the Ottomans to do a masters' thesis. I even, briefly considered learning Turkish so I could get my mitts on source material, except Ottoman Turkish isn't the same as modern Turkish, and that's pretty extreme for a hobby anyway.

Gee. Thanks for that argument from authority. You've made a blanket claim, and your proof is to tell me that you've read a lot.

Until the 1590s, no European country dared treat the Sultan as his equal, but always refered to him as his superior. The sole exception was the Pope, who continually called for holy war against the Ottomans, frequently leading to the misery of those who heeded the call. Even the Holy Roman Emperor defered diplomatically, despite the near constant warfare.

a) This claim is exaggerated

b) It's irrelevant. Who diplomatically recognised the Ottomans as inheritors of the Roman Empire? Certainly not the HRE, as they had their own pretensions. Diplomatic recognition would have entailed the acknowlegement of the bey (later sultan) as suzerain of most of Christian Europe. Venice gave limited recognition to the Ottomans' claims. Other minor Eastern European states might also have done so. It was certainly not the position of most of Europe.

What you keep forgetting is that even though the Emperor had little actual power, he had great moral authority and was recognized as being important, much like the Holy Roman Emperor. His "blessing" meant something to the various Balkan princes, and even Western Europe trembled when it fell. The Ottomans already had unfetted access back and forth across the Dardinelles.

The Emperor had no moral authority. There was still some sort of faded glory associated with the Byzantines, but nobody recognised the claims of the Byzantines over the territory claimed by Augustus (or even Justinian) any more. Western and Central Europe as a whole had ceased to respect the authority of the Byzantines, and whatever remained of the respect for tradition was brought to an end in 1453

When the city fell, many Europeans believed that had God abandoned them, some even believed that God favored Islam and converted.

Some believed that. There was certainly no mass movement toward joining the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans remained a power in the Balkans, but their authority reached only as far as their swords did.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Gee. Thanks for that argument from authority. You've made a blanket claim, and your proof is to tell me that you've read a lot.

As opposed to you who makes assertions based on what? You can't even refer to the corretly. Why should anyone take you seriously?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If the ERE was so meaningless

Certainly not meaningless in 550. They had become so by 1453. Their fate was sealed in 1204. They were nothing more than a third-rate power after that. Their pretensions died slowly, but outside their periphery nobody recognised their claims as transferring to the new kids on the block.

why did Balkan princes seek confirmation by the Roman Emperor

Third rate power. Vague circles of influence in the Balkans do not a Roman Empire make.

why did the Ottomans claim the title of Roman Emperor

Why did the HRE claim that title too?

why did their contemporaires refer to the Ottomans by that term?

Why did minor states on the periphery of the HRE recognise them as such? Europe as a whole rejected the Ottomans as heirs to the throne of Caesar. Their pretensions held virtually no sway outside their own borders. Force of arms and force of arms alone brought them further conquest. Certainly not any sense of legitimacy.

Because it still had meaning. It still had a powerful hold on the minds of Europeans. They though it was important, so it was important.

Europeans felt that the capture of Constantinople was important. They certainly never regarded the Ottomans as any more than usurpers.

It's the same reason the Bishop of Rome has so much authority, even though today he rules directly only a few acres. He's still the leader of the Catholic world. Stop thinking with such a narrow materialist mindset and realize that ideas have power when people act as if they do.

And if the Ottomans had collected tribute from Europe beyond the Balkans based solely on their authority as emperors of Rome then you would be correct. Unfortunately, they didn't. Their claims were not recognised. You can keep saying that they were, but you're dead wrong. They held what they held by force of arms. The Catholic Church holds what it holds by moral authority.

Duh.

[Barnabas]

Chegitz, even Charles V did not treat the Ottoman emperor as his equal ?

[chequita guevara]

You chi is weak and your arguments lack substance.