"Why does Rome have to be Greek and Orthodox? The earlier Romans weren't either of those things and were treated in contempt by the Christian Byzantines who proscribed their rituals and attacked their monuments. The argument for the Ottomans is that just as the first Rome was Latin and pagan, and the second Rome was Greek and Orthodox, the third Rome was Ottoman and Muslim"
The Ottoman Empire is an instance on it's own, it's not a Roman empire.
They had their own culture and did not inherrit those from the romans. They originate from east Asia, invaded the Byzantines and basically stole their Land.
There is just no continuity. The Roman Empire never ceased to exist until 1453. Why would they write that in the history books? Every historian would say, the end of rome was 1453. Because the Ottomans are not Romans or the Roman Empire by any means. This was no Usurpation, this was simply conquest.
Yeah, not all Roman Emperors were Italian, not all of Roman history was one Religion. But that makes no difference, since they were still part of the SAME empire, and those changes were part of cultural aversion and not foreign influence by war and conquest.
When that is not just occupation by a foreign force, what is it then? Do Country Boarders don't exist anymore or what? This was not a civil war, like it happened before.
Why is it not a usurpation? A foreign king conquers his enemy's capital city and then claims the very same title that the previous occupiers had: Kaiser-e-Rum, Caesar of the Romans. That he's also the Sultan of the Turks etc etc is a complication, but not necessarily an invalidating one.
I have no clue what you are talking about Hadrian. He ruled until 117, the Empire was not even divided back then and the main Language was Latin. So why would he even have spoken Greek? When you are talking about the Byzantine Empire, it's ONLY the Eastern part after Western Rome ceased to exist. In the 7th century they adapted Greek Language.
Every Byzantine Emperor spoke Greek and they all followed the same tradition, with some minor exceptions.
I mean that the earlier incarnation of the empire under the old caesars of Rome was most definitely not Christian or Greek, and would have shuddered in revolt at the very notion of this. Therefore Roman-ness does not depend on religion or nationality, if we accept Byzantium's claim to being a continuation of Rome that is. I picked Hadrian specifically because he was the one who had his tomb turned into a Papal fortress and I could use that to improve the "spinning in his grave" quip, but really it applies to all the pre-Christian emperors.
You are also forgetting that Roman was not Roman back in the day. Of course not every Roman was born in Rome, but there was something like citizenship.
That Rome was diverse only serves to lessen the importance of Christianity, not increase it.
The Pope did not hate the Byzantines by any means. He just supported Otto since he kinda occupied Rome and helped him to rise to power. By the way, the Byzantine Empire was also catholic at this time, the great christian schism was in the 11th century not 10th.
Pre-schism Christianity was far from a united Christianity. The Papacy in Rome and the Patriarchate and the Emperor in the east were still starkly divided even when they weren't outright at each other's throats. Iconoclasm and the failure of the emperor to protect the Exarchate of Ravenna saw to that, and it's not surprising that with the empire apparently on its knees the Popes turned to Pepin of the Franks for protection instead. Later with the empire in an even worse state under the unpopular usurper Irene the Pope went one step further and crowned Charlemagne as the true emperor, which obviously only served to worsen relations between Byzantium and the west. Charlemagne's coronation would be the foundation of a new western Roman imperial tradition that would culminate in the coronation of Otto and the formation of a permanent German-dominated Roman Empire in the west.
Have you ever thought the roman catholic church is called that way, because it's located in R O M E and founded BY ROMANS, while the empire still existed? So what makes it illegitimate?
I'm not saying it's illegitimate. Quite the opposite, the Catholic church has one of the best claims to the Roman name in my opinion. I'm saying that the use of the name "Roman" by one group of people doesn't disprove the assertions of another, so Greeks calling themselves Romans doesn't mean that Byzantium was the sole Roman imperial claimant.
Russia had heavy greek and orthodox influence, which makes them pretty suitable candidate. They are not a direct successor, they are just the closest what exist culturewise. Oh and btw. the Crim was part of the Byzantine Empire at some Point. Keep in mind that Russian Orthodoxy is different to Greek.
Cultural and religious proximity might be a fine enough argument from the Russians' perspective. Or even from the former Byzantines of Greece who still look up to the eastern Church. But the Ottomans had a different argument, which was through the right of conquest and their forcible usurpation of the empire and its capital city directly.
If Turkey is Rome, why did they rename all their cities into their language? Greece kept the Byzantine names. Why do they use the Moon, not the Eagle?
And why did the Greeks rename all the Roman cities into their barbarian language (remember that early Romans saw Greeks as awful barbarians and foreigners just as much as Ottomans were seen as such by Byzantines) instead of keeping civilised Roman Latin names that Julius Caesar would have been proud of? Why did they use the Chi-Rho and the Cross as their symbols?
Not that modern-day Turks have any claim on Roman heritage, the Ottoman phase of the Roman empire (if such a phase could be said to exist) definitely died in 1921. The Ottoman identity is completely gone.
The Patriarchy of Constantinople is something you should be researching. They still use Byzantine Eagle and practice Byzantine Traditions. The Byzantine Empire never really ceased to exist.
The Patriarch of Constantinople is most definitely not a Roman Emperor. He's a patriarch, exclusively a religious leader, same as the Pope in the west. In fact the Patriarchate's continued existence is due to the fact that the Ottomans patronised and supported it, both to continue older Roman traditions and (more importantly) to control their Greek subjects.
