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

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
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.

The East Roman Empire which had its capital in Constantinople from then until 1453, has often been called the Byzantine Empire or Byzantium by modern scholars. By extension, the name Byzantium is often used to refer to the Byzantine Empire, its territory, and its customs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantium

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You chi is weak and your arguments lack substance.

On the contrary, you've continually asserted that the Ottomans were widely recognised as heirs to the Roman Empire by states and peoples outside the reach of their arms. This assertion requires evidence, which you have not provided. The very existence of a powerful rival state also using the titles and symbolism of the Roman Empire (much more extensively, I might add) puts the lie to your claims.

Basically, anybody who had something to gain by doing so recognised the Ottomans. Anybody who had something to gain by doing so recognised the HRE. Succession becomes a meaningless concept when faced with such a fragmentation of claims.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Chegitz, even Charles V did not treat the Ottoman emperor as his equal ?

No, he just ran away and refused to face him in battle. His brother (and his successors), Archduke of Austria, however, paid tribute to Suleyman, Selim II, Murad III and Mehment III, and acknowledged himself as a vassal of the Ottomans. Treaties between the Ottomans and every other power in Europe, including those of Carlos V's, acknowledged the authority of the Ottomans.

While it's true their actual authority only extended as far as their reach, their reach was very long, extending from the Atlantic to the Straits of Java, from Somalia to Moscow. Anyone they could reach, and even those they couldn't, like the Queen of England did not pretend to be the equal of the Sultan. Russia and Poalnd paid tribute for hundreds of years. Austria got away with only have to pay for sixty.

[Barnabas]

do you think they ran away in lepanto or the siege of vienna?!?!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The very existence of a powerful rival state also using the titles and symbolism of the Roman Empire (much more extensively, I might add) puts the lie to your claims.

What powerful state would that be? Until Carlos V was elected HRE, the title of HRE was little more than an honorific. After that, it was a hereditary title of the Archdukes of Austria. It only had power because 1st Spain and then Austria were powerful.

And quoting Wiki at me to justify your intellectual laziness? And it only repeats what I said, it's a modern convention. It's not an accurate one.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
do you think they ran away in lepanto or the siege of vienna?!?!

Was Carlos V alive for either of those events (I'm assuming you mean the 1683 seige of Vienna, and not the 1528 and 1532 seiges--both of which Carlos V avoided)?

[Barnabas]

I meant the first siege of vienna, not the 1683, by lepanto he had already died.

I didnt mean only him, I was just mentioning someone of similar power who faced the ottomans.

[Saras]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Poalnd paid tribute for hundreds of years.

Not that I disagree (I don't know for sure) but source, please.

[techumseh]

I'm with KH on this one. Sorry, Chegitz. I don't care if the Turks claimed the title or not, they weren't legitimate successors. Conquerors, certainly, but that's all.

[Heresson]

Russia and Poalnd paid tribute for hundreds of years.

No. Actually, Poles and Lithuanians were giving "presents" to Crymean Khanate (the vassal of Turkey) to prevent its hordes from pillaging Podolia and Ukraine. But this was not an official tribute.

I think that in the treaty of Buczacz Poland was made tributary, 1673, but the parliament never ratified it. Instead it's enacted additional taxes for army against Turks which defeated them under Chocim the same year. In another words, the treaty was never in force.

That doesn't stop some Turks from printing maps on which Poland is (with or withour Lithuania... - which proves how much they know in this subject) depicted as "resting under Ottoman influence since 1573, tributary since 1673"

The Ottoman "influences" since 1573 are the fact that during the first free election, Turkey demanded from Poland to chose Henry Anjou instead of a Habsburg.
And so, when Henry was elected, Turkey got to the point it was because of its demands.




--------
The Sultanate of Rum is actually the name of the Turkish sultanate in Anadolu before the Ottomans, the Seljuk one. And this titulation doesn't prove they considered themselves the successors of Romans, but simply the regions over which Byzantines ruled were called that way. Erzerum (from Arabic Ard ar-Rum - which is Ground of Rome), Bilad ar-Rum (The lands of Rome), Rumelia.
I don't know if Ottoman Turks called their state "Sultanate of Rum" as well. If so, it probably was just one of the titles.
That one of the Italian region is called Romania, it doesn't mean it's successor of late Roman and Byzantine (that means - even later Roman) empire.

The Ottomans did perceive themselves as successors of Roman (Byzantine) empire due to conquest of it, and they had some right - but there's no direct link and while Byzantines as later Roman Empire is obvious, Ottoman sultanate as its continuation is something very different.

Also, I'll just remind You all that the last Roman empire was destroyed not in 1453, but in 1461, with the fall of the empire of Trebizond (nowdays Trabzon).
And some Byzantine duchy survived in Crimea even 10 years more.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I meant the first siege of vienna, not the 1683, by lepanto he had already died.

During the 1st seige, Carlos was busy fighting the French in Italy. During the 2nd seige, Carlos held the Imperial Army to Ravensburg (iirc), out of the Ottoman's reach rather the sally forth to Vienna. Carlos wasn't stupid. He knew what happened to rulers who gambled everything on a battle with the Ottomans.

The Battle of Lepanto only happened because the combined fleets of Mediterranian Christendom (minus the French) attacked and the Venetians had invented a new type of ship, the galleas (sp?). Before that, individually those fleets fled before the Ottomans.

It wasn't until the 1640s before Venice was able to stand against the Ottomans at sea on its own, and it wasn't until 1683 that the Ottomans were decisvely defeated by a European power. Hunyadi and Skanderbeg were the only ones who were ever able to defeat the Ottomans consistantly, and all they managed to do was hold them at bay.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
On the contrary, you've continually asserted that the Ottomans were widely recognised as heirs to the Roman Empire by states and peoples outside the reach of their arms. This assertion requires evidence, which you have not provided.

You seriously expected me to run down to the library at 2am on a Sunday, fill out a request of an interlibrary loan, wait two+ weeks for it to arrive, and then post the proof all in the same evening?

[Patroklos]

and acknowledged himself as a vassal of the Ottomans

That my freind, beyond all your other unproven claims, is completely false, and I challenge you to back that up.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heresson
No. Actually, Poles and Lithuanians were giving "presents" to Crymean Khanate (the vassal of Turkey) to prevent its hordes from pillaging Podolia and Ukraine. But this was not an official tribute.

It was an official tribute, which happened every year. The Krim were not all that independent of Constantinople.

--------

The Sultanate of Rum is actually the name of the Turkish sultanate in Anadolu before the Ottomans, the Seljuk one.

That was the Seljik Sultanate of Rum. Sultan Beyezit I (the first Ottoman to claim the title of Sultan) claimed the Ottomans were the Ottoman Sultanate of Rum. He asked the Caliph in Cairo for recognition, but I don't know if they received it.

The Ottomans did perceive themselves as successors of Roman (Byzantine) empire due to conquest of it, and they had some right

Thank you.

but there's no direct link and while Byzantines as later Roman Empire is obvious, Ottoman sultanate as its continuation is something very different.

It was different. But the Ottoman Emirate rose up out of ERE lands, not from Turkish controled territory. The army was half Greek, and it was . . . Orhan, I believe, who first married a Roman princess, Cantacuzenos' daughter.

The situation is similar to refering to the Safavid Empire as Persia, even though it was actually an Azerbaijani empire. Europe called them Persia.

[lord of the mark]

Posit - The United States, at its beginning saw itself as in many ways the successor to Rome - the seat of authority was to be on CAPITOL Hill, one branch of the congress was to be called the Senate, and Washington called New York "the seat of empire" In the 20th century the US emerged as the dominant western state.

Ergo George W. Bush is the heir to the Roman emperor.

Posit - Guev is correct, and the Ottomans succeeded to the Byzantine claim, and WERE the Turkish Roman Empire. Their ruler ALSO claimed the title of caliph, and assimilated Roman universal claims, to those of the Caliphate. The caliphate was abolished in 1924, by Kemal and the Turkish republic. BUT the extreme Salafist-Jihadi movement wants a new caliphate (which is why Osama cited the 1924 date in his post 9/11 statement) While AQ hasnt actually proclaimed Osama as caliph, it seems he and Zawahiri are thinking on those lines.

Ergo Osama Bin Laden is the heir to the Roman emperor.'

Ergo, the War on Terrorism is in fact a civil war over leadership of the Roman empire.