Heirs of Byzantium

I am aware that to some the question may seem shocking at first...Especially to those used to associate the Eastern Rome as the symbol of the Antique civilisation and the Bulgarians as the late intruders in the area bringing the new feodal era with them.But was that really the case? Werent they both populated mainly by the autochtonous people/although both equally open for newcommers/?Some sluggish brain cells may need to be awakened...

The Bulgarians routing the Byzantine forces at Bulgarophygon in 896. From the Madrid Skylitzes.

To the rest of the world Byzantines were known mostly as "the Greeks",due to the official language in the empire,but the ethnic Greeks were minority there, mainly in the coastal towns, the bulk of the population was the thracian and thraco-related peoples in Asia minor,also Armenians,Georgians, Ilirians etc...The Greek element was further weakend after the Third crusade/1202-1204/ when the "Franks" cut out from the Empire the "craddle" of the Hellene people -Peloponese,  Attica and most of the islands, and kept it under their rule all the way till the fall of Byzantium under the Turks.Thrace was much more vital to the empire and in the struggle for its possession disputed by the Bulgarian empire both countries eventually exhausted themselves and became easy pray for Serbs and little later the Ottomans...Was the beautiful Thrace the ultimate cause for the fall of the Eastern civilisation under the "infidel"?!Or was it some other reason?Our discussion will shed some light on the matter!

Mehmet II enters the fallen city

On a serious note, didn't one of the last descendants of the Paleologoi sell his birthright to the Spanish monarchs while he was in exile after the fall of Constantinople? I guess this would give them a claim too, especially since the monarchy--though not the line--is still intact.

-Akolouthos