So when the Roman Emperor Constantine decided to set up the city of Byzantium to become the capital city of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, he and others referred to it as the “New Rome”, but would later simply be known as “Constantinople”. But once New Rome had fallen to the Ottoman Turks, there were various claimants as to who would be the “Third Rome”. Who would you all say were the rightful claimants to be the “Third Rome”?The Russians? Some referred to Moscow as the “Third Rome” when Sophia Palaiologina (niece of Constantine XI, the last Byzantine emperor) married Ivan III of Russia (Grand Prince of Moscow).The Spanish? The claimant Eastern Roman Emperor Andreas Palaiologos ceded the Roman Imperial crown to Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile.The Ottomans? After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Mehmed II declared himself, "Caesar of Rome".The Bulgarians? In 913, Simeon I of Bulgaria was crowned Emperor by the Patriarch of Constantinople.The Serbians? In 1345, the Serbian king Stefan Uroš IV Dušan proclaimed himself Emperor.The Germans? In 800, the title of Emperor of the Romans was granted to Charlemagne by Pope Leo III.
> Who would you all say were the rightful claimants to be the “Third Rome”?There's no the Third Rome, Turks are in control of the Second Rome and they are the true heirs of the Roman Empire. I'm not even memeing, Mehmed II took the title Kaiser I Rum after the fall of the city and the Ottoman sultans had it as one of their titles until 1923. So in other words, the Roman Empire fell in 1923 and it was Ataturk who destroyed it.
>>6458182B8, the >H>R>E was more of an heir then the ottomans
>>6458250How do you measure the degree of heirness-to-the-roman-empire tho? What's the unit, a gibbon?I mean, if you compare the RE in the 5th century to the RE in the first century you'll see that the RE was a very distant heir to itself.
>>6458182There was no legitimacy in the Turks claiming that. The Byzantines were just a gradual devolution of the the original Roman Empire, there was never a point when the Greeks came from outside the empire and conquered it, they didn't even split off from the rest of Rome, the western bits were merely conquered, while the eastern bits persisted until they were conquered by a foreign power 1,000 years later. The Ottoman Empire (and Russian Empire, for that matter)was never a division of the Roman Empire, it has no relation to the Roman state beyond conquering it.
>>6458157Rome was an empire of conquest. That which conquered Rome would be its spiritual successor, and that successor was the Ottomans for finally wiping out the last bastion of Rome in Constantinople/Trebizond. The scheming of the petty Europeans that use pieces of paper and the hands of minor nobles to claim such a title are at best pretentious and at worst foolish.
>>6458157Third Rome refers to the city
>>6458157None, but if I have to then T*rks.
>>6458662>Third Rome refers to the cityAlright. So which of the following cities can be considered as being the “Third Rome”?:Moscow?Madrid?Istanbul?Preslav?Skopje?Vienna?
>>6458157I'd Say Russia since:1) Orthodoxy2) Tenuous blood ties3) Imperial Title
The three best claims to the Empire all died in WW1, give it a rest bros
>>6458157Charlemagne's title also extends the claim of Rome to France and in extension England
>>6458182The ottomans won it via right of conquest.
>>6458841Germany, Austria Hungary, and ottomans?
>>6458841>The three best claims to the Empire all died in WW1, give it a rest brosYeah but then when those three claimants of the “Third Rome” had died after the First World War, who can be said to have been the rightful claimant of the “Fourth Rome”? Soviet Union? Third Reich? Fascist Italy? Francoist Spain?
>>6458699Moscow is the only one to actually take the title afaik
>>6459515Fascist Italy unironically
It’s a toss up between the following nations.Finland (you already know why)Spain (you already know why)Turkey (you already know why)Italy (you already know why)Also, Austria-Hungary was the heir to the holy roman empire.
>>6459600>Finland (you already know why)Actually, I don’t. Tell me why.
>>6459600Explain exactly how Finland took the title. By any reasonable standards the Russian Imperial claim to being third Rome passed either to the Soviet regime or was retained by the deposed Romanov family. A Finnish Republic has no leg to stand on unless we're just memeing
>>6459614Pic related>>6459624Communism is revolutionary, the bolsheviks killed the romanovs and the russian empire and conquered the nation during the civil war, by your logic the ostrogothic kingdom was the heir to Rome because it was the next state to rule over Italy.
>>6458699Rome, Georgia; USA
>>6459640Odoacer unironically could have named himself Emperor and Rome would have went with it. Hell, the Senate continued to work even while he was King.
>>6459640Sounds plausible, but by that logic, the third Rome died when Moscow fell into the bolshevist hands since by the looks of that "graph" the succession of Rome is only handled through a title of the ruler or a marriage which Finland inherited none. So in conclusion, there is no Third Rome
>>6458157Spain or France because Andreas ceded his rightful title one than once. It depend which one of them get title first. Since Spain has monarch and France doesn't. Spain is true heir to Rome
>>6458157There has never been a third Rome. Rome died in 1453 (or if you really want to stretch it, 1475) with the Byzantines.
It is foolish to debate who is the third rome. For it is known, set in stone that the inheritor of rome, the third rome is me. I am the third rome, I have graced the human kind to revive what was dead to bring rome to the foreground once again. Bow before the true rome.
>>6460992Based roman BVLL
>>6460873Its called third reich
>>6458379>Rome was an empire of conquest.>What is an empire?Most empires in hsitory were forged through conquest, the Roman empire was no different. That doesn't make the turkish claim on the roman throne any more valid.