Normans?

Originally posted by Exarchus What difference do you set between successor and political heir?

It occurs to me that the nearest thing to a 'political heir' of the Frankish Empire would be the EEC between 1956 and 1973 - i.e. the original six, France, Germany, Italy and Benelux.

Edited by gcle2003 - 03-Aug-2006 at 08:05

Originally posted by gcle2003 So you would claim Italy is the political heir of the Roman Empire? Macedonia is the political heir of Alexander's empire? Turkey would be the political heir of the Ottoman empire, I suppose, but would it be the political heir of the Byzantine Empire, or would Greece be? Austria is presumably the political heir of the Holy Roman Empire, or should that be Germany? Or is that also France?   What would Mongolia be?   The UK, of course, under that scheme, would be the political heir of the British Empire?   In normal usage heirs inherit their predecessor's property . That's why they are called heirs.   Nobody - recently - has inherited the Empire of the Franks.   PS: You could possibly say with some justification that France is a descendant (with some intermarriage thrown in) of the Frankish Empire, but that's a totally different matter.

Actually, yeah Turkey is the heir of the Ottoman Empire. Just like The French Republic is the successor of the Kingdom of France.

For Italy, I wouldn't say so, the Western Roman completly disintigrated. Therefore I don't see a successor. You could argue though the Eastern Roman Empire would be followed by the Ottoman one and finally by Turkey, so Turkey could be called successor of the Eastern Roman Empire (and only the eastern).

As for Macedonia, as far as I remember it's not a country but a part of Greece.

Austria and Hungary would both be successors of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Since it was a double monarchy.

THe Holy Roman Empire totaly disintegrated, so no one really can claim the title of heir, Austria may be the closest though. But then, the imperial title ended then to France and finally to Germany. But it was such as loose title.

Most of the examples you gave aren't good (apart Turkey), because you're talking of heir that where totaly disintegrated, whole country saw it's existance ended. The Western Francia didn't collapse, it became just the Francia when the other two collapsed.  At that time, all 3 could claim the inheritance, but only one remained.

I believe you. I just couldn't find an instance earlier than the Votadini; I have no reason to suppose it was the first.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Counts and dukes go back to Roman times, so I guess you're asking when did the offices become hereditary?   The oldest trace I've come across is that the office of dux britanniarum (Duke of the Britons) stayed in the family of the rulers of the Votadini from about 400AD on for a century or so.   I suspect the offices of comes britanniarum and comes litori saxonici also became hereditary during the period of tribal rule following the departure of the Romans. But the period is pretty murky .     Don't know about the continent.

Well, dynasty are hereditary in essence aren't they? Yeah, I was talking of hereditary dynasty (although it may be a pleonasm).

Originally posted by Exarchus If I may, the feudalism excuse doesn't stand, counts and dukes existed long before Hugh Capet. The first dynasty of Counts I can name was the one of the Counts of Toulouse and find its roots to the times of Charles the Bald, Pippin II of Aquitaine and Fredelon. If you can find an earlier dynasty of count please point it out :).

I would agree that Bretons, Gascons and maybe Occitans didn't have a French culture... but the Burgundians?

Politic doesn't care about culture, I agree France isn't the cultural heir but is the political one.

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl Gcle, you have a problem of comprehension.

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl Originally posted by edgewaters Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl It is the same with the medieval Japan. There was an Emperor surrounded by hostile provinces, ruled by Daimyos. But they were all Japanese in the end. No, not at all. Again, you're projecting a notion of a French national identity backwards in time, before it existed. At that time, there were numerous groups who did not consider themselves "French"; Japanese had an island identity and all considered themselves Japanese, regardless of who their particular Daimyo might be. There were tiny minorities, like the Ainu, but they had no territories or leaders. There were no Burgundies or Brettonies or Basques or Gascons and if all these groups were considered French, then Adalberon wouldn't have bothered to give Capet the title of king of the Burgundians, Bretons, Basques and Gascons; "King of the French" would suffice, just as the Emperor of Japan was the Emperor of Japan.                       You are not getting the point. France was similar to Japan in the sense that they were many fiefdoms controlled by daimyos in japan and duke in France, under one Overlord (Emperor or King).