The oldest treaty still in force today is the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373, so it’s safe to say there are no extant treaties from the original Western empire. If there are any left from the Eastern (Byzantine) empire, then we would have to narrow our search to the years 1373 and 1453. If you want to extend the search to mere references to obligations of older agreements in extant treaties, I think the task is going to be quite a bit more difficult.
The Ottomans are not the legitimate successors to the Byzantines. They conquered and destroyed them. They supplanted the Byzantines.
I don’t know about the Byzantines vs. the Ottomans, but in Chinese history you quite frequently see a band of conquerors coming in and overthrowing the old regime and claiming legitimacy as a successor – the idea being that the old dynasty had become so corrupt that they could no longer uphold their mandate, and so it rightfully passed to another dynasty by conquest.
Yes, but succession by conquest is well-established. William the Conqueror became King of England in succession to Harold.
“Upon making Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) the new capital of the Ottoman Empire, Mehmed II assumed the title of Kayser-i Rûm (literally Caesar Romanus, i.e. Roman Emperor.” And there was no Byzantine empire left to claim otherwise. Looking at the territory of the Ottoman empire at their peak, they seem more worthy to claim that title than any of the other european kingdoms that were around at that time.
Compare this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OttomanEmpire.png
to the peak of the Holy Roman Empire:
Neither one actually controlled Rome itself but the since the capitol had been Constantinople for over 500 years the Ottoman’s look like a stronger claim to me.
If the Ottomans assumed the Byzantines’ legal rights and agreed to honour their international obligations, then they’re the successor state regardless. (So far the only evidence we’ve heard that they were the successors is that they assumed the Roman imperial title; this alone seems to make the claim rather iffy, though of course there may be additional evidence we haven’t yet considered.)
Did every usurper of the Roman/Byzantine Empire ‘assume legal rights and honor international obligations’? A change in head of state via violent overthrow is going to significantly change the makeup the state no matter who overthrows it.
See here:
Seems to me that there is a clear unbroken claim to succession from SPQR to modern turkey. Byzantine Empire was actually the Roman Empire (just the capitol moved). Ottoman empire was the successor to Byzantine by conquest and by directly claiming the title and modern Turkey specifically claims to be the successor to the Ottoman empire.
AFAIK France and Germany can’t make that claim, the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1806 and as far as I can tell, there was no sucessor state.
(And to be honest the Holy Roman Empire never had as good claim to be a successor to the empire as the Byzantines did anyway)
Presumably yes; history has shown it to be highly unusual for the victor in a coup or civil war to completely abrogate all existing political and diplomatic relations, for no other reason than it being highly inconvenient (and in many cases, downright disadvantageous) to have to renegotiate all the prior treaties, tributes, and claims.
I believe revolutionaries in France (1789), Russia (1917) and China (1949) did pretty much that, didn’t they? I know the People’s Republic of China, at least, made a point of declaring all prior treaties with foreign powers null and void. In fact I’d wager almost every post-colonial revolutionary government did so either out of policy or necessity.
How quickly we forget poor Trebizond.
Russia and China did; I’m not sure about France. By “post-colonial revolutionary government” are you talking about colonies which achieved independence via revolution? If so, I’m not sure they count; there’s no way they could have claimed to be the successor state even if they wanted to because the country they broke away from still existed.
Actually, throughout history China has just been an area of land, called by it’s people The Middle Kingdom. People talk about Imperial China, but if holding previous obligations is a requirement to be a successor state, than there have been a good many countries over the years occupying the area known as The Middle Kingdom. The way the Chinese system worked was that each new Dynasty represented a new country, and continuity didn’t work like Roman or Egyptian dynasties.
If you look at Chinese history in regard to new dynasties, you’ll find that the first thing they generally do is attempt to wipe out all traces of the dynasty they replaced. Early Qing for example did everything possible to distance itself from Ming. The Tsars, Kaisers, Padishahs, etc, all tried to pretend they were part of a single Roman legacy which was essentially unbroken. Really, the exact opposite of what went on in China because they did everything in their power to embrace a dead dynasty and make themselves a part of it rather than distancing themselves from it. Those other nations didn’t have a system of literally renaming its country every time a new royal family came to power which institutionalized disowning of the previous “country.” “China” is just a lazy name that Europeans gave the region and it’s based on the Qin dynasty. In Chinese, the name of the country in imperial times is the name of the dynasty.
Yet they’re generally all regarded as rightful successor states, and as the country ‘China’, even though 5000 years of unbroken Chinese history is literally communist propaganda. At least this is how I’ve had it explained to me before.
So if we’ve established that a change in religion, language, leader, capitol, and disowning previous obligations all do not disqualify one from being a successor state, then Turkey is Rome.
This is the strongest argument in this thread, buttressed by the followup discussion about it, and the best answer to the OP question.
In regard to China, this is unmitigated horsepuckey from beginning to end. Whoever told you this has a staggering level of ignorance about even the most basic facts of Chinese history. Absolutely, absolutely false.
Hm, good point, but still you have countries like Vietnam and Korea that did exist before colonization, as well as those like China and Iran that weren’t formally colonized but still heavily influenced by foreign intruders. Most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, perhaps not so much, I suppose.
Well that was from a thread on a different site where we were trying to figure out which nation had the longest east Asian hegemony, and China being the obvious answer, he set out to argue that it’s not a country. Even without all that, we still have cases of disowning all previous obligation and still being considered a successor state, so the point still stands.
This quote from wiki supports the idea that any other claims to be a successor to the Byzantine empire have been extinguished, leaving Turkey as it:
The nephew of the last Emperor, Constantine XI, Andreas Palaeologos had inherited the title of Byzantine Emperor. He lived in the Morea (Peloponnese) until its fall in 1460, then escaped to Rome where he lived under the protection of the Papal States for the remainder of his life. He styled himself Imperator Constantinopolitanus (“Emperor of Constantinople”), and sold his succession rights to both Charles VIII of France and the Catholic Monarchs. However, no one ever invoked the title after Andreas’s death, thus he is considered to be the last titular Byzantine Emperor. Mehmed II and his successors continued to consider themselves heirs to the Roman Empire until the demise of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century. Meanwhile, the Danubian Principalities (whose rulers also considered themselves the heirs of the Eastern Roman Emperors[120]) harboured Orthodox refugees, including some Byzantine nobles.
At his death, the role of the emperor as a patron of Eastern Orthodoxy was claimed by Ivan III, Grand Duke of Muscovy. He had married Andreas’ sister, Sophia Paleologue, whose grandson, Ivan IV, would become the first Tsar of Russia (tsar, or czar, meaning caesar, is a term traditionally applied by Slavs to the Byzantine Emperors). Their successors supported the idea that Moscow was the proper heir to Rome and Constantinople. The idea of the Russian Empire as the new, Third Rome was kept alive until its demise with the Russian Revolution of 1917.[121]
Well, they also assumed at least some of the functions of the Emperor, e.g. the Sultans took on the duty of appointing the Patriarch of Constantinople. And the Patriarch, of course, had a significance and a jurisidiction which extended well beyond the boundaries of the just-suppressed Byzantine statelet, so arguably this was a function of international significance.
The thing is, before the final conquest Byzantium really had been reduced to a city-state which was effectively a vassal state of the Ottoman empire. Did the Emperor have any “international obligations” of any signficance, other than to the Ottomans?
I don’t see how anyone can claim the Ottoman empire is not the successor to the Byzantines without also not recognizing a whole raft of other states which we do commonly accept.
Case in point, Constantine changed the official religion of the Roman Empire from Sol Invictus (which was basically worship of the emperor as a god) to Christianity and moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople, which eventually lead to Greek becoming the language of the empire. Constantine himself was appointed by his own army Augustus and it was declared an illegal assumption of power by Galerius.
So from Constantius I to Constantine, the Roman Empire changed religion and capitol, and it was a sucession by military force which was declared illegal. Anyone going to try and claim that the Roman Empire in 337AD is not the successor to the one in 272 AD? The claim that the Roman Empire ended in 337 AD because it was conquered by force by Christian usurpers makes just as much sense as the claim that the Byzantine Empire ended in 1453 because it was conquered by muslim usurpers.