Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043
Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043
Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043
FRANCE
Turks are a continuation of the Eastern Roman empire and a return to form after centuries of greek decadence
People point out the different religion but the empire had already switched religions in multiple ocassions, without dissapearing as an empire
People can point at the "foreign conquest" But is that any different from the hundred civil wars done by generals of different ethnicities? Besides, the ottomans saw themselves as roman, why is that enough for the greeks but not them?
Turkey
The Ottomans called themselves romans too
Either Roman empire dies with judeochristianity infecting it or it goes to whoever holds the capital
capital is instanbul
ergo turkey
None, obviously. Tsarist Russia was closest to the late eastern empire. Western republics are closest to the principate
>Western republics are closest to the principate
How so? I don't remember Augustus being elected every 4 years
New York& New Jersey
Serbia
There is no country which is heir to Rome.
They called themselves roman
The rûm sultanate literally means the "roman sultanate", Mehmet II literally called himself "Kayser-i Rûm" And viewed himself as the continuation of the roman empire
>Flase pretender
Piss off
>rûm sultanate literally means the "roman sultanate"
Rum refers to the geographical area. It was not a claim to being the Roman Empire. Middle Easterners knew the Byzantine Empire, and the wider West as being called Rum. So Anatolia was to them, the geographical region known as Rum.
No they didn't you fucking retard, any territory that was under Roman control was called Roman
>No they didn't you fucking retard
To what? They got their name for Rum from the fact that the Byzantines called Anatolia, Thrace and Greece, Romania. Armenia and Bulgaria weren't considered as part of it by them. There was a real geographical area known to the Byzantines and Easterners as the Land of the Romans.
Seeing how quickly the post was deleted, it's obvious that you're the pedo arab from iraq that LARPs as a turk
>Russian Republic Bad
>Finnish Republic Good
?
Yass! Bow to the Queen
Screeching autism.
*speaking truth
Korea at high alert
Prince Philip is great Grandson to Nicholas I therefore Charles III Prince of Wales is heir to Byzantium.
The one that speaks the same language and practices the same religion. Gee it's not very hard.
yeah, the byzantine empire spoke latin and was pagan
they called themselves Rhōmaîoi or romans, it was an ethnonym, not a geographical term, i've never seen any byzantine text calling any region "Romania", the Rûm sultanate was called as such due to ruling over the romans, as such, a roman sultanate
They spoke Greek and didn't worship Zeus. You're only legitimizing Turks, dipshit
>only legitimizing Turks
based
If Turkey was a Christian nation, and the Ottomans a Christian empire, people would have no problem admitting the answer is obviously Turkey.
this
saying turkey isn't the roman successor is like saying the Tang or Qing aren't chinese
modern day views on ethnicity do not apply to the roman or chinese empires, you had armenians, turks, greeks and latins all sharing an ethnicity, roman
>tang
Poltard detected
Also no, notions of ethnicity existed during the Qing. Queue.
they'd still have different language/genetics/culture, turks belong to the east of anatolia. Greece has a more relevant claim
>they'd still have different language/genetics/culture
Just like the Byzantine Greeks did compared to the Latin Romans who founded Rome to begin with.
"Greece" is merely a neutered Byzantium that was mentally reconfigured by Westerners with a passion for all things classical, at the expense of the medieval.
Neither. Heir of Rome is a pathetic larp.
Kind of the ottomans but if we are going to be fair, we also have consider the spanish claim and the russian one too.
Given that only 1 of those monarchies still exists. technically it's the kingdom of spain.
Just checked and yes there is a direct connection between the kings of spain as of right now and the catholic kings, which originally got the claim.
Disclosure that of all the titles of the spanish crown, eastern roman emperor is not one of them.
>of all the titles of the spanish crown, eastern roman emperor is not one of them.
they haven't claimed to it but one of the last Palaelogans sold his titles to the catholic king Fernando
>East Rome
I know this is going to get laughed at on LULZ but there is one very obvious answer (two actually if you also count Moldova)
>speaks East Romance language
>uses name derived from "Roman"
>majority Eastern Orthodox
>Byzantine culture ("Byzantium after Byzantium")
>leaders were related to Byzantine emperors
>part of the people actually lived in the former regions of the East Roman Empire and still do today as minorities in various Balkan states
Those Romanians, eve stole the Byzantine Empire.
Romania
No country can claim to be Rome's successor. The continuity of state succession was finally broken beyond dispute in 1453. Mehmed claimed to be the Roman Emperor, but it's like Charlemagne being crowned, a new title or rank claimed or asserted. The changes to the former Byzantine lands were not made from a throne won through war, but from the throne previously held that was moved to where the previous throne sat.