Were the Ottomans the successors to Rome?

Were the Ottomans the successors to Rome?

no.

They inherited the Byzantine throne, so yes.

Why now? They controlled much of the same territory and inherited the Eastern Empire

>this is actually a question
Of course they were

Only balkan kul's say otherwise since their people were the ones that ruined the Sultanate of Rum.

No finland is

No, Rome was the successor to Finland

Define what you mean by the terms "successor", "the Ottomans" and "Rome".

Define what you mean by "terms", "you", and "define".

you got old pretty fast

>Destroy Rome
>Become Rome

Not how it works.

...

No, germany was.

They destroyed Rome, it is like saying a usurper is the rightful heir when he killed to get his throne

tell that to the franks

That's how it's worked since Ceasar.

Franks didn't destroy Rome. They killed a successor state headed by Syagrius.

t. knows jack shit about rome

>They killed a successor state headed by Syagrius
yeah, so rome. it had the same amount of continuity as the byzantines

A glorified rump state lead by a commander in Gaul is not Rome. By that logic, the Franks were Roman since they too were headed by Roman commanders.

shitflingers dressed like romans arent romans

>By that logic, the Franks were Roman since they too were headed by Roman.

>
>
>

>Holy
>Roman
>Empire

The Frankish chieftans held Roman titles and their armies fought in the Roman fashion at the time, still they weren't true Romans.

>NO TRUE ROMAN!

Obviously the true heir to Rome is the United States government.

Senatus Populus Que Americanum

The Republic lives on.