12-09-2005 07:57									#1
	Is the Pope the successor of the Roman Emperors? Vatican city = Roman Empire? Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The byzantines spoke greek, and ruled over greeks in greece and asia minor, not romans.

the holy roman empire was well... german, not roman.

From the collapse of the Empire, the only one who ruled over Rome, and kept the language of the romans alive (to this day) was the Bishop of Rome, aka Pope, so, the Papal states (were) until that hellbound mason Garibaldi appeared the successor of the Roman Empire, and now the Vatican City (is) the successor of the Roman Empire, and the Popes have been and are to this day successors of the Emperors!

Rule Rome, they have it
Speak Latin, they have it
Elective Monarchy a la Adoptive Emperors, they have it..
Title Pontifex Maximus, they also have it.

Discuss.

	12-09-2005 08:36									#3
	Tired of ads?

stop giving me the dancing little dudes, people

	12-09-2005 08:38									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

empire > city

	12-09-2005 08:38									#5
	Re: Is the Pope the successor of the Roman Emperors? Vatican city = Roman Empire? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

No, the President of Turkey is.

edit: seriously

Last edited by chegitz guevara on 12-09-2005 at 08:53

	12-09-2005 08:40									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Actually, the Russian Czar was, or claimed to be. So I guess that may mean that Vladimir Putin is now the Roman emperor.

	12-09-2005 08:40									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

No one recognized the Russian claim.

	12-09-2005 08:41									#8
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Gangerolf Actually, the Russian Czar was, or claimed to be. So I guess that may mean that Vladimir Putin is now the Roman emperor.

No, it means Vladimir Putin is now the Pope. Duh.

	12-09-2005 09:06									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Western Rome fell, but Eastern Rome did not. What we now called the Byzantine Empire was not the successor to the Roman Empire. It was the Roman Empire. That is how everyone refered to it. When the Ottomans took Constantinople, they were recognized as the successors to Rome by their contempories, not just in the East, but in the West as well. They were the Ottoman Sultanate of Rum. The Sultan's title was Kaiser i-Rum, Caesar of Rome. Hell, the Venetians recognized the Ottomans claims to Southern Italy based on the Ottomans being the Romans. Turkey was the successor state to the Ottomans, thus, the President of Turkey is the successor of the Caesars.

Muscovy's claim to being the 3rd Rome was based soley on marrying a Byzantine princess, but the Ottomans didn't just marry them, they were decended from them as well.

	12-09-2005 09:09									#10
	Increase the size of your Attachments

The Roman Empire died in 1453

When the Eastern Empire fell there were no more successors.

The line ended there.

	12-09-2005 09:09									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Stop NOT giving him little dancing dudes!

	12-09-2005 09:11									#12
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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.

	12-09-2005 09:13									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

You're wrong, KH. They called themselves the caesar of the romans and their contemporaries recognized them as such. Mehmet II definately considered himself the Roman Emporer. Suleyman did as well, and one of the reasons for the strong animosity betwen him and Carlos of Spain was that the latter called himself Emperor of the Romans (since he was Holy Roman Emperor). The 2nd seige of Vienna was specifically done in order to bring Carlos to battle and decide the issue once and for all. Carlos never showed.

	12-09-2005 09:15									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

They called themselves Caesars as a convenience. Some of their contemporaries recognised them as such because it was convenient. Some did not because it was inconvenient.

The Byzantines were taken apart a piece at a time. The Ottomans were not their successors, but their conquerors.

	12-09-2005 09:17									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse The Byzantines were taken apart a piece at a time.

A distinction without meaning.

quote: The Ottomans were not their successors, but their conquerors.

When you conquer someone, you inherit any claims they once had.

	12-09-2005 09:18									#16
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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.

	12-09-2005 09:19									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: 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.

	12-09-2005 09:21									#18
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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.

	12-09-2005 09:22									#19
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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.

	12-09-2005 09:22									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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.

	12-09-2005 09:24									#21
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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

quote: 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.

	12-09-2005 09:25									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: 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.

	12-09-2005 09:25									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	12-09-2005 09:28									#24
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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?

	12-09-2005 09:29									#25
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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.

	12-09-2005 09:31									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	12-09-2005 09:32									#27
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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

	12-09-2005 09:32									#28
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The difference is enormous...

	12-09-2005 09:33									#29
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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.

quote: Byzantium had been reduced to a few square miles.

Irrelevent.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	12-09-2005 09:34									#30
	Remove this text

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