Heirs of Byzantium

I also agree with you that the Greek claim to the Byzantine imperial legacy is extremely weak -- while their claim to the culture might be a bit less so.

I surely agree that the Greeks are the foremost cultural heir of Byzantium among modern day peoples. I always wrote that.

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi I also agree with you that the Greek claim to the Byzantine imperial legacy is extremely weak -- while their claim to the culture might be a bit less so. I surely agree that the Greeks are the foremost cultural heir of Byzantium among modern day peoples. I always wrote that.

I don't think that Greece as a state claims to be the continuance of Byzantine Empire, thats childish...in previous times maybe some did. But I cannot imagine the poor Greek state of 1830 included Morea and the cross area of Roumeli(till Lamia) and a douzin of islands in the Aegean claiming to be the new Byzantine Empire, which just made a break...If you want to speak about the inheritance of all the other we now western historiography now calls byzantine(culture,language etc etc) it would be good.
But really I don't understand what do you mean with "imperial legacy". Is it the right to claim land?...Ottomans I suppose didn't use the Byzantine flag to conquer previously Byzantine lands...
Its true that Ottomans used previously established institutions to help them rule(e.g. those of kleisourarchai who are simiral with the ottoman derven-agas) but very new ways were brought like kadi juridical system,devshirme, millet system etc, and I suppose the citizens felt the difference.
  Simple mathematic equations,accepting Beylerbey's thesis, show that today's Republic of Turkey who is undisputable heir of Ottoman empire is also heir of  Res Publica Romana of the pre-christian era......
The logical dead ends that come out of that type of questions( who's the political heir of... etc etc) make the intended answers absurd.



Edited by Patrinos - 11-Dec-2008 at 18:21

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi 3. Use of 'Turk' in the current (positive as opposed to earlier derogatory) meaning started already in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, before the 'Kemalist period'.

Yes, but only in an intellectual level.The official use of "Turkishness" as a cultural and national identity started with the foundation of the Turkish Republic  in the 1920s.

Originally posted by Bulldog   Turk has been used as an "identity" in Anatolia since the Seljuks entered the region, the meaning of this identity can be whatever you subjectively wish to make of it. However, this identity was strong enough for the Europeans to re-name Anatolia "Turchia", the Turks themsevles actually knew the lands as "Rum" or "Roman" until the 15th century when the Ottomans started referring to the Southern Balkans as "Rumeli" (Roman lands).

It's not what i wish to make it, it's what it was. It was not the national identity of the 20th century, simply because there was no such thing as a "Turkish nation". The principles of Turkism were  grasped by Ziya Gökalp, in the early 20th century.  Until then, a Turk was a derogatory term used to signify the non-educated peasantry. It's not that there was an identity, it's that this identity was different in the Middle Ages, different during the Ottoman Empire, different during the Turkish Republic. That's what really matters. And the use of  the term Turk to signify Ottoman subjects was only  strong in paper. Inside the Ottoman Empire it was marginalized until the Young Turk Revolution and the second Constitutional period.

Originally posted by Bulldog There were Turks in the Middle Ages, Turks durint the Ottoman Empire and Turks after the formation of the Turkish Republic, these are the simple facts. They were "identified" as "Turks". Now we can go round and round in circles discussing what is meant, to be a Turk, anybody can have their subjective view on the matter, from "etrak-ı bi idrak" to "Türk yiğitleri".

It's like talking to a wall , really.

I assumed the Russians were. Wasnt the neice of the last Byzantine emperor married to a Russian Tzar/King. The Russians took on the two headed eagle and are Orthodox, however dont speek Greek.

I might even suggest that the Byzantine Empire is but a word play upon the word "Bizarre" Empire? Ottoman rulers and Byzantine rulers were all "Perfumed men!", at least I would propose so! You might well know that the first so called Ottoman or as I would suggest the first "Othoman" Emperor, also called himself "Caesar", or "Ruler of the Romans", etc. Muhammed that Conqueror, can also be compared to Alexander the Great! You might well have noticed, that before the conquest of Constantinople by the Othmen, the Othman capital was in Adrianople, which is North of the Bosphorus! He did not conquer from Asia!, but from Europe!

I again mention that little known section of land upon the N. Western section of the Black Sea that was called "Bess-Arabia!", which might well have meant (as opposed to present day thought) "Blessed Arabia?"