Ottoman Turkish. Not Modern Turkish. Korkut Buğday's Osmanisch is a good starter for Ottoman Turkish.
Discussion: Who had the WORST claims to being the successor of the Roman Empire?
- Thread starter GameBawesome
- Start date
The OP isn’t just about the legal heir (which is already a shaky concept). It’s about the successor covering a variety of factors including language, culture, religion, location, lineage etc.
Like in other thread legalistic is only valid claim to Roman Empire title because Roman Empire was a legal institution created by Augustus and all emperors afterward whether they tried to make it heriditary or not had to have a legal basis for why they were allowed to ascend to the purple. What this means is culture religion etc does not matter when determining claim to Roman Empire. From a legal basis the Russians and Ottomans have the worst claims because blood ties does not determine claim to Roman Empire and the ottomans because they did not receive the transfer of the imperial title front Constantine Paleologos or the Roman senate which was by this point dissolved.
The ones with best claim is Kingdom of Spain because it was the Spanish house of trastemara u believe who received legal rights to basileous ton romaion title after the French King Charles and this was inherited by the Hapsburg and later the bourbons. To claim a non legal basis for being successor of the Roman Empire makes no sense because again Roman Empire was a legalistic/judicial creation.
The ones with best claim is Kingdom of Spain because it was the Spanish house of trastemara u believe who received legal rights to basileous ton romaion title after the French King Charles and this was inherited by the Hapsburg and later the bourbons. To claim a non legal basis for being successor of the Roman Empire makes no sense because again Roman Empire was a legalistic/judicial creation.
And given the Hapsburg didn’t use it later on or the bourbons it was for the most part destroyed if not used officially hence there was no Roman Empire it ended when the title fell out of use/was destroyed by whatever Spanish monarch
Any issue with that is, even you accept that Andreas Palaiologos was the legitimate Emperor (sure, I suppose) he sold to the French first and then sold to the Spanish. And sure, you can accept the selling as accepting them as his successor.
You can't sell something you already sold to someone else. So Spain has no right. Alright then France maybe? Except the French candidate in the poll is the French Empire, not the Kingdom of France. Even if you accept French legitimists as Roman successors Bonapardists do not have legitimacy in the Roman context (even you accept their popular sovereignty over France).
Weirdly Spain comes back into the question from the legitimists. But you gotta ask which Spanish claimant from Spanish War of Succession (and later Carlists etc.) are the legitimate successors.
Yeah that is why my conclusion is ultimately roman empire is dead legal standpoint. When the senate in constantinople ended/did not acclaim Mehmed as Roman Emperor and Constantine XI died the title died with him. At least the original Roman Empire title created by Augustus that was then legally changed by Heraclius I think to Basileous. So yeah Roman Empire is gone if you dont consider Andreas as legitimate Emperor. And yes if you cant sell something twice then yes Kingdom of France is the official successor not French Empire what this means is that the Roman Empire died with the end of the Kingdom of France if we go by that definition. So yeah the poll should replace French Empire with Kingdom of France I think. In any case since the french kings no longer used said title it was destroyed. Hence the Imperator Romanum/Basileous ton Rhomaion title is dead and gone and no one has claim to it because it was destroyed/fell out of use.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
They gave all they could in terms of symbolics, and in contrast to the Ottomans and the HRE (for most of its existence) actually controlled Rome.
Control over the city of Rome however didn't really matter to the actual Romans. Losing it didn't de-legitimized them either. And Napoleon's symbolism was one that ignored almost more than a thousand years of history and evolution ot the actual empire (Caesar, Augustus and nothing else after that). Not that it would have mattered anyways. The empire was not just having eagles, laurel crowns a senate and the title of emperor around. Napoleon's France was the (rebranded) successor of the old kingdom not of the empire of the Romans.
Last edited:
Frankly, you can't sell the title of Emperor of the Romans. Constantine XI didn't even believe he had the right to *sell Constantinople*.
So the Euro Kangs got conned, lol. It's not some inherited title to be sold or granted or given away. It's a stewardship of Romanía. Head of the Roman State. Good on Andreas for conning them.
If the Roman people don't accept you and you aren't ruling the Romans then you can't be Emperor. It's simple as that.
So the Euro Kangs got conned, lol. It's not some inherited title to be sold or granted or given away. It's a stewardship of Romanía. Head of the Roman State. Good on Andreas for conning them.
If the Roman people don't accept you and you aren't ruling the Romans then you can't be Emperor. It's simple as that.
Ottomans had lineage (I could try arguing language but since Greek was not a state language I concede that point).
I personally do not agree to religion being a necessary factor, but I won't argue that Ottomans fail in that category if you do accept it, that's just facts.
Marriages do not need to happen often to exist, just one marriage creates lineages.