There are still people who don't recognize the true successor of Rome

*takes your islands*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman–Venetian_Wars

>SACRO
>IMPERO
>OTTOMANO

Nice bait lad 6/10

>shit skin goat fuckers
>successor of rome

Pick one.

Byzantine was a direct successor of rome, following the same culture and similiar way of governing.

Ottomans are muslim and Byzantines were orthodox. shut up

>Greek wewuz vs Roach Wewuz

>following the same culture and similiar way of governing

Greek Christianity is no closer to the true Roman Religion than Islam.

>Since when do Arabs and Salvs get along?

when arabs get burns and rashes ouchie

Romans adopted Christianity
They never adopted shitslam

They threw away a vital part of what made the Roman Empire "Roman" when they did so. The moment Latin died out as the natural language of the Empire's rulers was the second the ROMAN Empire ended.

>it's another butthurt Romeboo who tries to find excuses as to why the Eastern Roman Empire is not Roman
easily the worst people on Veeky Forums

I'm a massive fucking Romeaboo and think the Ottomans make better Romans than the Greeks. Badass conquerors make better children than a bunch of LARPers who couldn't stay in control of some of the richest and most populated areas in the classical and medieval world. The only Byzantine worthy of the title Caesar was Justinian, while Ottoman history is full of great leaders whose accomplishments equal a few of the great Romans, like Mehmed II and Suleiman the Magnificent.

If the Manchu invaders of China who founded the Qing Dynasty can be considered a legitimate Chinese dynasty, then the Turk invaders of Constantinople can be legitimate Romans.

Fuckin' Byzantines
REEEEEE

Except that the Machus retained the structure of government, language and adopted Chinese culture. The Ottomans imposed Turkish, brought a foreign culture and repressed Orthodox Christianity

but muh mandate of heaven

>repressed Orthodox Christianity
>rebuild Constantine for Orthodox Christians

Muslims were more the successors of the persian empire than anything else (or the seleucid/parthian/sassanid if you want proper chronological autism). Most of their intellectuals were persians and their capital was in baghdad, mesopotamia (not quite persepolis, but babylon always was the second city of the persian empire).

The fact one was muslim and the other christian is also a big part of it. Crying about "losing a part of rhemselves in the process" is to ignore both the fact that they DID convert and the roles of "mystery cults" in the upper echelons of Rome's political elite (cult of eleusis, cult of mithras, cult of christ) for centuries before that. Also they only finally absorbed byzantium in 1453 (technically rome's successor or sibling), when western renaissance was already well under way. Another department would be art, Islam never embraced romeboo art. Although they did adopt greek philosophy at various stages here and then.

The succession line from Rome is simply not clear. It's wewuzism. Besides claim to persian heritage is probably cooler in its own way. I'm not denying the caliphate probably was the absolute world superpower during the 800-1200 period, but being a superpower alone doesn't make you "heir of rome". There needs to be cultural/linguistic/administrational continuity.

>Fiddled goats instead of little boys
Barbarian/10 not Roman

>names the only 2 turkshits that didnt fuck up the empire
>not knowing about alexsis kommnons, and basil II the one man bulgar genocides
Turk shits were technology static after the 17th century while yhe byzantines were at the cutting edge till 1453, culutrallly

But Byzantium is int a heir
They were literally just half the empire that split due to administrative problems
Byzantium isnt a heir IT IS ROME

I'm talking about Byzantine after the fall of Rome post 476 obviously. And that's why I said successor/sibling.

Muslims aren't just one homogeneous group. The Turks who became the Ottomans were as distinct from the Turks who conquered Iran as the Romans were from the other Latin tribes.

I'm not arguing against the mystery cults, that's like crying over the Romans adopting Greek personalities for their own gods. The adaptability of Roman paganism was one of their strengths, replacing it with dogmatic Christianity weakened Rome.

The Byzantines has no cultural continuity with Rome. They were Greek.
They had no linguistic continuity, Romans spoke Latin, Greek was only used as a lingua franca for art and diplomacy.
Finally Byzantine despotism is no different from the Turkish sultanate. Neither has a proper claim to continuity with the Principate.
If Byzantines can claim to be Roman based on such flimsy "wewuzism" than the Ottoman's and Germans claims are equally valid. Of course we have to say according to common sense and the principles you laid out that all three were wrong.

>while the Byzantines were at the cutting edge till 1453, culturally

Yet literally every account from Procopius to Ibn Battuta we have is a chronicle of Byzantine decay, both civilly and culturally. Muslims and Franks alike thought Constantinople was a filthy, backwards city.

Learn how to type you delusional Byzaboo.

gee, I wonder who's behind this post

...

They can claim to some degree of wewuzism simply because the split of power between Rome & Byzantium was literally a construct of the western roman empire itself, with its own blessing. Islamic civilisation can never hopeto make a claim as strong as this. Also culturally you still ignore the impact of religion as a cultural glue. I agree that in customs they were greek (but then one can indulge in pointing out the centuries old greek/roman symbotic relationship they developed ever since the aeneids WE WUZ TROJAN). Linguistically I agree as well, there is no doubt they retained the greek alphabet in and out of the diplomatic rooms.
But administration wise, they kept and maintained much from the romans in terms of institutions and codes of law. Reverting to a pseudo-tyrannos model (muh archon basileus) is not the undoing of the roman-influenced administration. Besides once again it goes back to the question of whom-influenced-whom. It was greece who culturally shaped early rome, and then rome culturally impacted on greece. It's still evidence of lineage.

The only claim the caliphate cqn mqke is that it eventually conquered byzantium, was military mightier and they translated greek texts here and then because they were prone to bouts of aristotlean fanboyism (eg mutazilite period or al andalus)

I want mudslimes to leave. Give Constantinople back to Greece. Wait....don't they will just use it to pay debts to Germany.

Decay doesn't mean it stops being was it was. It just means it became uncompetitive as a civilisation. If decay is the only criteria you need to dismiss one's identity, then the ottoman were dead by the 18th century and the real successor's to abu bakr's caliphate were the sultanates of west asia.

That's the stupidest fucking thing.

There was direct political continuity between the WRE and Byzantine Empire.

Obviously, you can't say that for any of the other claimants.

>It was greece who culturally shaped early rome, and then rome culturally impacted on greece.

Rome never had the same tradition of hereditary dictatorship that characterised Greek despotism. The end of the Principate, the adaptation of Christianity and the reign of the despots of the late Roman Empire marked points were the Empire became objectively less Roman.

You can either accept the simplistic narrative that the Roman Empire continued to exist after everything that made it Roman was extinguished or do the rational thing and it ended in 476AD with the fall of the last thing that made the WRE Roman, control of Rome itself.

>There was direct political continuity

Until the Justinian dynasty was overthrown and Greek was made the official language.

>The end of the Principate, the adaptation of Christianity and the reign of the despots of the late Roman Empire marked points were the Empire became objectively less Roman.
It was still Rome. You keep doing mental gymnastics to circle around that. Signs of decay OR political/religious "evolution" does not mean they suddenly ceased being themselves.

>simple narrative
You're the one downplaying the role of the 3rd century crisis and the tetrachy institutionalised by Dioclesian which led to the succession od adninistrative reform thwt led to the administrational sharing of power between east & west.

By your logic, european civilisations stopped being themselves when they shed christendom for secularism. Or when they gave up monarchies for constitutional republics. You're making up your own standards to dismiss lineage - as if a culture decomes absolutely distinct/separate from its predecessors if it doesn't remain absolutely static in its development. It's just ludicrous.

>couldn't connect territory around the black sea

cucked

A coup is not generally seen as a break in the political continuity of a state itself (just their line of succession). Conquest generally is.

Their official language has literally nothing to do with it. Nobody's arguing that the Byzantines were the CULTURAL successors of the Western Roman Empire, just their legitimate political successors.

>he hasn't taken the Veneziapill yet

Wake up, Venice is true successor of Rome:

>founded by Roman nobles fleeing from barbarian invasions
>never touched by barbarians since 553 AD besides the eternal A*stian
>Italic people with an Italic language like the Romans
>ROMAN Catholic
>dominant power in the Mediterranean like the Romans (Mare Nostrum)
>controlled Ravenna for a while, the capital of the late WRE
>BTFO'd the Latin massacring fake Romans in the Fourth Crusade

Arguing about byzantines being roman is the ship of theseus of history.

>civilisations are objects
kys

>Signs of decay OR political/religious "evolution" does not mean they suddenly ceased being themselves.
It does. If Americans gave up their dedication to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness it wouldn't be the same "civilisation."

>the pagan european civilisations of early Roman times were the same as the ones that adopted Christianity were the same civilisations

If you think the Franks were related to the Gauls you're delusional. They're as distinct as the Romans and Byzantines.

>If you think the Franks were related to the Gauls you're delusional. They're as distinct as the Romans and Byzantines.
I didn't even mention the franks or the gauls, I was using christendom and the modern republics as examples of cultural/political shifts.

>It does
Well then Rome already stopped being Rome in 43-32BC when they became an empire rather than a republic. Or ancient greece stopped being greek once Cleisthenes put an end to tyrannies and the old aristoi.

You're saying a culture has to remain static in order to claim "lineage". It's fucking retarded.

I directly mentioned Christendom with the example of the Gauls and Franks.
Most Western nations have a some form of democracy in their history, particularly the British. Just look at the althing or Magna Carta.

I never said a culture has to remain static. I just believe that there are objective hallmarks of certain cultures, and once they disappears that culture can no longer be said to "exist." Is it that wild to claim that the Roman Empire didn't exist after the traits that made it "Roman," were erased?

>Is it that wild to claim that the Roman Empire didn't exist after the traits that made it "Roman," were erased?
But not all traits changed. And there is clear hereditary line with the tetrarchy of 293. And the roman/greeks always shared a symbiotic relationship, from institutions to religion to politics.

No one who is sane would argue they were exact copies of each other and that they later didn't evolve separately, especially after WRE collapsed. But we're arguing about cultural ancestry here.

And by your own standards, if byzantium cannot lay claim to some degree of roman heritage due to purity-spiraling, then how can possibly the Ottomans hope to make the same claim? Completely different religion, different institutions, entirely different language family.

You just btfo'd your own premise you made in the OP.

>if byzantium cannot lay claim to some degree of roman heritage due to purity-spiraling, then how can possibly the Ottomans hope to make the same claim?

They can't. It's just to piss off Byzantiboos using their own logic.

First off, I'm not the OP. I have claimed since the beginning you either allow anyone to claim the mantle of being mantle by a few tenuous connections or you admit the Roman Empire ended in 476BC.

>And there is clear hereditary line with the tetrarchy of 293.
You can't apply hereditary descent to cultures and civilisations. You're either Roman or you're not.

>the roman/greeks always shared a symbiotic relationship, from institutions to religion to politics
I'd agree with you when it comes to religion. Politically they were incredibly different.
Roman dictatorships weren't inherited.
Roman democracy wasn't egalitarian like it was within the Athenian demos.
Greek Empires were either tyrannies of one polis, i.e. The Athenians' or the tyranny of one man. The Roman Empire was based around the Principate, not Greek despotism.

>Roman democracy wasn't egalitarian like it was within the Athenian demos.
>Ancient greece is only 480-330BC
You know "ancient greece" goes all the way back to 900BC if you generously ignore the myceneans and minoeans and the greek dark ages. Also Athens was not the only city state in greece. Sparta and Athens were the top two powers for the majority of its history until the peloponnesian war due to Athens' control of the Delian league (which became an imperial tool fairly quickly). And the spartan helot system was FAR from democratic (another reason why athenians and spartans clashed in 460BC). And by 330BC it was all irrelevant because Alexander turned it fully into an empire.

So you're basically measuring greek culture only through the prism of a tiny window of its history and relying solely on the impact of ONE of its region (even if the most commonly known).

>Roman dictatorships were not inherited
They were once they became imperator, rather than dictator. I agree there some variants between greek tyrannies and roman dynasties, namely the adoption laws put in place by the senate to curb it (although it eventually proved futile in practice).

>You can't apply hereditary descent to cultures and civilisations. either Roman or you're not
Of course I'm not arguing about it in a "biological/racial" sense. But you purposefully ignore that the WRE (when still was not christian) under Dioclesian literally divided the political apparatus to allow for better management of the empire between Rome and Byzantium. It was a measured and conscientious decision on part of Rome to avoid the troubles they experienced during the 3rd century crisis. There is a clear institutional/legislative "lineage" going on here. Rome gave Bizantium its own reins and told them "you're our eastern half". That's not a meme, that's recorded history. Period.

>you admit the Roman Empire ended in 476BC
Got no problem with that. My problem is OP being a worse WEWUZ than the byzaboos.

What if I tell you I'm a Balkanshit Bulgarian and I do recognize the Byzantine empire as the true successor of Rome. Fucking proud actually to have butted heads with them for over 600 years.

agreed

They aren't successor of Rome. They never held Rome. And even if they did they still aren't successors of Rome. That's like calling inner Mongolia in China the successor of the Mongol Empire.

why is this board filled with islam lovers and turkroaches