If the Yuan and Qing dynasties were legitimate successors to the Song and Ming...

There ERE had at least two successors. The Ottoman Empire controlled a lot of the same land as the ERE so it can be called the successor of the Byzantine Empire. However, there is one issue. Moscow was considered to be Third Rome and Ivan the III was married to Consantine XI's niece, Sofia. Muscovy and Russia also inherited a large amount of Byzantine customs and they had the same religion.
It's really hard to say which one of the two Empires deserves to be called "The Byzantine Empire's successor" more that the other.

Mehmed was descendant from a Byzantine dynasty. His father or grandfather I can't remember now took a Byzantine princess as wife through legitimate marriage.

>Mehmed also had a blood lineage to the Byzantine Imperial family: his predecessor, Sultan Orhan I, had married a Byzantine princess, and Mehmed claimed descent from John Tzelepes Komnenos

Yeah, you're right. In this case, the Ottoman Empire is defiinitely the Byzantine Empire's successor.

Because they weren't Christian.

That is literally it. Christianity was what defined Romanitas from the 5th century for the following thousand years, and then within the Ottoman Empire for another 400.

WE WUZING the Roman Empire is the dumbest historic meme ever invented.

islam is the next stage of monotheism though senpai. the roman republic had its polytheism, the empire its christianity and the ottomans their islam

Because the Manchu/Mongol dynasties heavily adopted Chinese culture while the turkroaches basically said "we wuz rum n sheet" and left it at that.

Constantipolitan Christianity specifically (other Orthodox Churches eventually broke from Constantinople in some ways too), speaking Greek and having a Roman identity. all three combined were important

plenty of Christians were disparaged/not considered Roman in various ways for not fulfilling the three at the same time during the period you're talking about

litteraly this. Just taking the land isn't enough to be considered a successor.

Because they were a bunch of filthy muslims

Why's no one mentioning the fact it was an islamic caliphate?

People on Veeky Forums have a depressingly idiotic grasp of geopolitical history.

Would you consider the Kingdom of Spain to be a "successor" to the Aztec Triple Alliance? Or the Kingdom of England to be a "successor" to the Irish High Kingship?

see

>A Christian Empire can succeed a Pagan Empire
>A Muslim Empire cannot succeed a Christian Empire

>inb4 byzantine empire is roman empire

>A Christian Empire can succed a Pagan Empire
It can, if it converts to christianity while preserving the non-church-related culture, language, values, and overall identity of the first empire

>implying the Byzantine Empire was the successor to Rome in any way

WE

Because the Yuan and Qing literally believed they were Chinese. Meanwhile I don't think Ottomans called themselves Romans.

The Roman Empire had already converted long before the ERE.

>Meanwhile I don't think Ottomans called themselves Romans
This is the biggest thing that people miss.

For some reason it's become a popular thing on Veeky Forums to say that "the Ottomans claimed to be successors to the Roman Empire", and their entire basis for this is that Mehmed II called himself "Caesar" literally one time. No other Sultan did this nor did anyone living in the Ottoman Empire who wasn't living in Greece or Constantinople.

It's insane. It's like some sort of hyperintense game of Chinese whispers.

>After the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD, Mehmed II declared himself Kayser-i Rum, literally "Caesar of Rome". The claim was recognized by the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, but not by Roman Catholic Western Europe. Gennadios (Georgios Scholarios), a staunch enemy of the West, had been enthroned Patriarch of Constantinople with all the ceremonial attributes of Byzantium by Mehmed himself acting as Roman Emperor and in turn Gennadios recognized Mehmed as successor to the throne. Mehmed's claim rested with the concept that Constantinople was the seat of the Roman Empire, after the transfer of its capital to Constantinople in 330 AD and the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Mehmed also had a blood lineage to the Byzantine Imperial family; his predecessor, Sultan Orhan I had married a Byzantine princess, and Mehmed may have claimed descent from John Tzelepes Komnenos.

the fact is that they are the successors of the ERE. not the Roman Empire.

most people on Veeky Forums just won't admit it because
>sandkickin, heretic, steppe niggers are shit teir

even though by the time the Ottomans emerged as an Empire they were a well established and multi cultural society.

look, Byzantines got BTFOed. Many factors come into play as to why the Ottomans came up but you really just have to accept them for what they are. They succeeded the Byzantines which of course was the ERE.
Now while i stand by them as successors to the Byzantines, they are not successors of Rome or the Roman Empire.

Because Ottomans didn't take over the Roman Empire's cultural legacy, did not become Roman, did not use Latin or Greek.

/thread

then who is the successor of Rome

Because Romans, unlike Chinese, lacks the concept of Mandate of Heaven.

>greek

- Didn't speak Greek or Latin.
- Weren't Christian.
- Were from the Asian fucking steppes.
- Literally only claimed the title out of hubris, and even then it was only one Sultan who bothered.

Why are non-whites such cultural appropriators?

Spain.

The Sultan sold the title of Qasr al Rum to the monarchies of France, Russia, and Spain. We both know what the French and Russians did to their monarchs, but the Spanish royal line is still going and still holds the title "Qasr al Rum".

Sure the muslims can, if they convert to orthodoxy.

Dubs never lie. This is the answer, OP.

maybe EU could be considered to be some kind of reborn Roman Republic

It's a reborn Holy Roman Empire at best.

Because us Chinese genetically and culturally absorbed and assimilated while the Turks successfully imposed their genes and culture on the population they conquered.

>Didn't speak Greek or Latin
To say the least they did as the empire was multi cultural.
>weren't Christian
Yeah their hierarchy was not christian but the line of christian and orthodox nobility continued under a religious tolerance.
>Asian Steppes
meme shit. They weren't uncivilized swine using poopsticks to clean their anus' by this time. They adapted many other cultures along with Byzantine culture.
>claimed title out of hubris
More like was given title. You have to look at the ERE as it was in the old state as well as what it was in the new state that was the ever declining Byzantine Empire. In the ERE you have land extending from the Balkans and the Caspian sea, to Egypt and even for a time parts of Spain and all of the southern Mediterranean. This of course changes as Islam was found and the lands were then overturned do to many reasons. But throughout the middleages up through the 1400's the Byzantine Culture and the Empire itself had gone from expanding its land across the entire Mediterranean to just the smaller area of the Blakans and Greece. This Culture had been replaced with other forms of Islamic traditions and so when the Ottomans Claimed the Byzantines as well as the Roman Empire they took on the Culture and the land that was once Roman but was now all Muslim based. Of course Europe had maintained its own identity for the most part but What I am trying to say is that Roman culture had been fading out in the old lands around the southern and eastern Mediterranean Sea. Once the Ottomans claimed all this land they were able to Succeed what was once the ERE.

Don't get me wrong I don't accept them as the Roman Empire but rather the Successors of the Byzantines which of course was the ERE.

I'd say America is the closest to Roman Republic. I mean their original founders were Romaboos and Lockefags.

American hegemony is spread far and wide. Military budget 800bil. Sure their influence has declined in the few decades but in my opinion they took on a role that was very similar to what the Romans did.

Not saying they are the successor or anything to Roman Empire, but they are without a doubt copying Roman methods.

but in your examples the vanquished ones were filthy barbarians, whereas the Ottomans were the filthy ones in the OP example.

what is even the point of this? Does it at all matter whether internet people think one empire is somehow a "successor" to the empire it conquered?

there's a really big difference: In china the previous empire was either completely gone or considered illegitimate before the new government conquered them because they lose legitimacy by losing the war. The ottomans just conquered the byzantines like any other empire and added another title. There was no tradition that would have legitimized the ottomans this way.

Why all the Americans claim be the successor of Rome because "MHU PAX AMERICAN"? using that rule every empire in the world who have any kind of hegemony like the British in the XIX century is the successor of Rome

we are not succesor of gays we r successor of "rome"

>like the British in the XIX century is the successor of Rome

Well the anglos did for a time consider themselves some sort of spiritual successor to Rome.