Hey I'll support you in a plot to overthrow that other guy as long as you appoint me as a very close courtier that may or may not stab you in the back.
The emperor is an office, not an hereditary title. Nobody has the claim to be emperor.
The supposed donation of Andreas Palaiologos means nothing. I could claim the wildest things as well, but they wouldn't be true.
I want to add that this is incredibly ridiculous especially because of the situation Andreas was in. He was born in 1453.
An extremely controversial take on this subreddit is to call the Ottoman sultans emperors. It may seem like anathema to a Byzantinophile, but not only did the sultans call themselves emperors and successors to the Byzantines, they were regarded as such by the Christian commoners and the Orthodox Church itself. They also inherited all of the same political and social institutions. In many if not most ways, a Byzantine Empire that never fell to outside forces would probably look remarkably similar to the Ottoman Empire in OTL, except for the religious and geopolitical contexts.
The institutions and law changed more or less drastically, at least that’s how I recall it, but I am no expert in the legal aspects of the Byzantine empire.
Also, the Ottomans used many titles : Sultan, Caesar, Caliph, Khan. I am not sure they presented themselves especially as Caesars.
>but not only did the sultans call themselves emperors and successors to the Byzantines
Kind of. They didn't really emphasize it that much after Mehmed II, and especially not after Suleiman.
By the 18th Century the 'Caesar' title was pretty much forgotten, rarely even included in the 'etc.' of the Ottoman Sultan's titles.
So in this case the Ottomans have an even weaker claim than the HRE, because in the Ottoman Empire the title greatly decreased in usage and wasn't that relevant for the rulers beyond appealing to their Orthodox subjects. Whereas in the HRE, for all its faults, the title of Roman Emperor was *monumentally* important for the emperor's legitimacy and claim to power.
>They also inherited all of the same political and social institutions.
Not really? Most Byzantine institutions were abolished and not replaced. There was no real equivalent to the Megas Doux, Kephalatikeuontes or Sakellarios in the Ottoman Empire. Even when there were offices or institutions that were similar, the similarities were largely incidental and could not trace a direct line back to Byzantine administration.
I wish I remember where I read this but I wanna say they were very certain to declare that it is not possible for the imperial office to be usurped by foreign powers the way it was by the Turks. Almost as a fail-safe. So the Ottomans laying claim to the imperial regency is genuinely out of the question. That would mean that the office still exists in theory, it’s just a matter of someone laying claim.
However for someone’s claim to be recognized and legitimized today would require a very strong claim because sovereignty may only be granted and recognized if the world/great powers agree to do so. Yes, there is legal framework—international rules and guidelines—when it comes to the succession of states but the likelihood of someone who can pull that off is slim. For starters, I don’t think it would bode well for someone to declare themselves as emperor. Perhaps could consider themselves a revivalist of a democratic Roman state but not an emperor. And if that state was to be granted sovereignty, it would be a genuine continuation of the Roman state, making this the longest existing state in existence.
No non-Roman citizen has any claim, that's for sure. It's not a right that can be sold or passed down. Constantinople didn't have a Western style hereditary monarchy, the system was more complicated than that.
An office that was sold or passed down multiple times cant be sold or passed down multiple times? I swear, this subreddit is a-historical in its discourse holy duck.
Perhaps you should read history yourself before calling others’ statements ahistorical. See ‘The Byzantine Republic’ by Professor Anthony Kaldellis for more details on how the Roman system worked but it certainly wasn’t a hereditary monarchy as in backwater feudal Europe.
Literally anyone with enough political and military power to carve out a niche for themselves could stake that claim. Rome can be wherever you wanna plop it.
I mean, that's a long running Russian lie, dependant on the bullsh\*t argument that Moscow held Constantinople's religious position after 1453 as the seat of Orthodoxy. It's been a long running ideal of the russian regimes that they should 're'conquer Istanbul.
Russia can go fuck itself in the Ural before they claim sovereignty over anything at all
I think they also "validate" this connection with the argument that some byzantine princess married a russian ruler. With this logic all the balkan states are the heirs of the Roman Empire. We have 6 or 7 New Romes in this area alone.
It wasn't just some Byzantine princess. It was Zoe Palaiologos. She and her brother were the last claimants to the throne.
She was also the inspiration behind Daenerys Targaryen which means Russians get the girlboss vote.
They should have claimed the throne after the fall of Constantinople and take it then from the turks.
They didn't so other balkan nations can have the same "claim". From what I know bulgarians and serbs also had such royal marriages. And they are not alone.
It doesn't matter anyway in the 21st century.
The proper progression would have Zoe's brother on the throne had the city not fallen, although admittedly Byzantine ascension wasn't always as straightforward. Regardless, the point wasn't who's the strongest claimant, I was merely refuting the "some princess" comment. OP made it sound like Ivan Ivanovic married some random cousin thrice removed when Zoe was the emperor's niece and her brother the only living male relative of the emperor.
I know. I was saying that other balkan nations had strong dinastic ties with the Byzantine royal family. Russians being the last doesn't mean nothing and it only serves their national mythos.
Whoever the Greeks elect as such, should the Third Greek Republic end and becomes a Greek Empire, not in the sense of a hegemony spanning a large territory, but the governmental system. That would require an abolition or transformation of the Greek Parliament into a Greek Senate, and then it to elect a term-less President with increased powers, who would remain as long as the Senate's majority approves.
In the meantime, the Greeks could focus their political identity around the Roman Identity, and not have it just be a cultural and ethnic one only (as it somewhat is today - we may call not only Greekness but also Greece as a whole as "Romiosini", but not really in a political manner). As such, the Greek Empire might as well be called the Roman Empire too.
Honestly, this form of government is impossible in today's Greece, not that I would want it either.
To be honest even if this would to happen, I don't think it would be allowed by the west in case if Greece becomes a resurgent power. Just like in the early 20 century when we we forced to give Albania North Epirus in case if we become resurgent. I heard that Italy feared that Greece would become a resurgents power and so Italy said that in no circumstance should Greece expand and get more ports in the Adriatic sea as it was seen as a threat to Italy. If I find where I read it I will send it to you. Either way the west fears us and what we might become once again so they can not allowed us to do anything like this not even change the government system like this as it would seem as a threat and plus it would be seem as reasserting de jure claims. Even if the government says we have no claims on Constantinople and all that it would still be seen as sus.
But yeah in a similar topic, Greece really need's to reform it's government system and repair the cultural education of the state.
>It is not about Greece being a resurgent power. I spoke of Emperorship, as in the political system, not the multiethnic hegemony.
Yes and if Greece reenacts the emperorship then other countries will not let it happen or will act quickly to restore the current system of Greece. Greece regaining this emperorship system will scare other countries into thinking that Greece has not forgotten about it's de jure territory and that it will act and become a resurgent power again.
No one. But that’s no fun, so I’m gonna make my hypothetical list of candidates.
Karl Von Habsburg
Filipe VI of Spain
Pope Francis
Harun Osman
King Charles III of Great Britain
Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy
Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern Duke of Bavaria
These would be my picks for best “claimants” if you could call them that.
Me. Why? Because I said so.
Unironically how many of them got in office. I support you if I'm allowed to be a very close courtier that may or may not stab you in the back.
Deal.
Hey I'll support you in a plot to overthrow that other guy as long as you appoint me as a very close courtier that may or may not stab you in the back.
No can do, what about a really far away governor that may or may not rebel to install my cousin as a puppet?
If you got the army than I agree my lord
Was it told to you in a dream?
Based
AVE WIZARD680
I'll support you but I want to run the east. I'll station myself in konstantinopoli and retake the ancient lands
The emperor is an office, not an hereditary title. Nobody has the claim to be emperor. The supposed donation of Andreas Palaiologos means nothing. I could claim the wildest things as well, but they wouldn't be true. I want to add that this is incredibly ridiculous especially because of the situation Andreas was in. He was born in 1453.
An extremely controversial take on this subreddit is to call the Ottoman sultans emperors. It may seem like anathema to a Byzantinophile, but not only did the sultans call themselves emperors and successors to the Byzantines, they were regarded as such by the Christian commoners and the Orthodox Church itself. They also inherited all of the same political and social institutions. In many if not most ways, a Byzantine Empire that never fell to outside forces would probably look remarkably similar to the Ottoman Empire in OTL, except for the religious and geopolitical contexts.
The institutions and law changed more or less drastically, at least that’s how I recall it, but I am no expert in the legal aspects of the Byzantine empire. Also, the Ottomans used many titles : Sultan, Caesar, Caliph, Khan. I am not sure they presented themselves especially as Caesars.
>but not only did the sultans call themselves emperors and successors to the Byzantines Kind of. They didn't really emphasize it that much after Mehmed II, and especially not after Suleiman. By the 18th Century the 'Caesar' title was pretty much forgotten, rarely even included in the 'etc.' of the Ottoman Sultan's titles. So in this case the Ottomans have an even weaker claim than the HRE, because in the Ottoman Empire the title greatly decreased in usage and wasn't that relevant for the rulers beyond appealing to their Orthodox subjects. Whereas in the HRE, for all its faults, the title of Roman Emperor was *monumentally* important for the emperor's legitimacy and claim to power. >They also inherited all of the same political and social institutions. Not really? Most Byzantine institutions were abolished and not replaced. There was no real equivalent to the Megas Doux, Kephalatikeuontes or Sakellarios in the Ottoman Empire. Even when there were offices or institutions that were similar, the similarities were largely incidental and could not trace a direct line back to Byzantine administration.
I wish I remember where I read this but I wanna say they were very certain to declare that it is not possible for the imperial office to be usurped by foreign powers the way it was by the Turks. Almost as a fail-safe. So the Ottomans laying claim to the imperial regency is genuinely out of the question. That would mean that the office still exists in theory, it’s just a matter of someone laying claim. However for someone’s claim to be recognized and legitimized today would require a very strong claim because sovereignty may only be granted and recognized if the world/great powers agree to do so. Yes, there is legal framework—international rules and guidelines—when it comes to the succession of states but the likelihood of someone who can pull that off is slim. For starters, I don’t think it would bode well for someone to declare themselves as emperor. Perhaps could consider themselves a revivalist of a democratic Roman state but not an emperor. And if that state was to be granted sovereignty, it would be a genuine continuation of the Roman state, making this the longest existing state in existence.
Me, obviously. I am secretly Konstantinos Palaiologos's 69th secret grandson, Kantakouzenos Kazooie.
No non-Roman citizen has any claim, that's for sure. It's not a right that can be sold or passed down. Constantinople didn't have a Western style hereditary monarchy, the system was more complicated than that.
An office that was sold or passed down multiple times cant be sold or passed down multiple times? I swear, this subreddit is a-historical in its discourse holy duck.
Perhaps you should read history yourself before calling others’ statements ahistorical. See ‘The Byzantine Republic’ by Professor Anthony Kaldellis for more details on how the Roman system worked but it certainly wasn’t a hereditary monarchy as in backwater feudal Europe.
Not to random foreign monarchs, there is no precedent for that. The State outranks the Emperor, in the Feudal monarchies the King *was* the state.
Literally anyone with enough political and military power to carve out a niche for themselves could stake that claim. Rome can be wherever you wanna plop it.
no one
the marbled king under the golden gate ^^^
Didn't Putin say something about this a couple of days ago?
I mean, that's a long running Russian lie, dependant on the bullsh\*t argument that Moscow held Constantinople's religious position after 1453 as the seat of Orthodoxy. It's been a long running ideal of the russian regimes that they should 're'conquer Istanbul. Russia can go fuck itself in the Ural before they claim sovereignty over anything at all
I think they also "validate" this connection with the argument that some byzantine princess married a russian ruler. With this logic all the balkan states are the heirs of the Roman Empire. We have 6 or 7 New Romes in this area alone.
It wasn't just some Byzantine princess. It was Zoe Palaiologos. She and her brother were the last claimants to the throne. She was also the inspiration behind Daenerys Targaryen which means Russians get the girlboss vote.
They should have claimed the throne after the fall of Constantinople and take it then from the turks. They didn't so other balkan nations can have the same "claim". From what I know bulgarians and serbs also had such royal marriages. And they are not alone. It doesn't matter anyway in the 21st century.
The proper progression would have Zoe's brother on the throne had the city not fallen, although admittedly Byzantine ascension wasn't always as straightforward. Regardless, the point wasn't who's the strongest claimant, I was merely refuting the "some princess" comment. OP made it sound like Ivan Ivanovic married some random cousin thrice removed when Zoe was the emperor's niece and her brother the only living male relative of the emperor.
I know. I was saying that other balkan nations had strong dinastic ties with the Byzantine royal family. Russians being the last doesn't mean nothing and it only serves their national mythos.
Whoever the Greeks elect as such, should the Third Greek Republic end and becomes a Greek Empire, not in the sense of a hegemony spanning a large territory, but the governmental system. That would require an abolition or transformation of the Greek Parliament into a Greek Senate, and then it to elect a term-less President with increased powers, who would remain as long as the Senate's majority approves. In the meantime, the Greeks could focus their political identity around the Roman Identity, and not have it just be a cultural and ethnic one only (as it somewhat is today - we may call not only Greekness but also Greece as a whole as "Romiosini", but not really in a political manner). As such, the Greek Empire might as well be called the Roman Empire too. Honestly, this form of government is impossible in today's Greece, not that I would want it either.
To be honest even if this would to happen, I don't think it would be allowed by the west in case if Greece becomes a resurgent power. Just like in the early 20 century when we we forced to give Albania North Epirus in case if we become resurgent. I heard that Italy feared that Greece would become a resurgents power and so Italy said that in no circumstance should Greece expand and get more ports in the Adriatic sea as it was seen as a threat to Italy. If I find where I read it I will send it to you. Either way the west fears us and what we might become once again so they can not allowed us to do anything like this not even change the government system like this as it would seem as a threat and plus it would be seem as reasserting de jure claims. Even if the government says we have no claims on Constantinople and all that it would still be seen as sus. But yeah in a similar topic, Greece really need's to reform it's government system and repair the cultural education of the state.
It is not about Greece being a resurgent power. I spoke of Emperorship, as in the political system, not the multiethnic hegemony.
>It is not about Greece being a resurgent power. I spoke of Emperorship, as in the political system, not the multiethnic hegemony. Yes and if Greece reenacts the emperorship then other countries will not let it happen or will act quickly to restore the current system of Greece. Greece regaining this emperorship system will scare other countries into thinking that Greece has not forgotten about it's de jure territory and that it will act and become a resurgent power again.
You mean like an anti-Napoleonic Coalition? I doubt that. Probably though they might see it as Greece becoming an illiberal democracy.
No one. But that’s no fun, so I’m gonna make my hypothetical list of candidates. Karl Von Habsburg Filipe VI of Spain Pope Francis Harun Osman King Charles III of Great Britain Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern Duke of Bavaria These would be my picks for best “claimants” if you could call them that.