Does Russia have any historical legitimacy as Third Rome? If they take back Constantinople? Or is the Roman Empire gone for good?
No
The only three Romes were
-Rome
-First French Empire
-Third Reich
>>383118
Didn't the Germans have an entire holiday dedicate to beating up Latins?
>>383118
How were the First French Empire and the Third Reich in any way, shape or form, successors to Rome?
>>383106
Ivan III married the daughter of the final Roman Emperor, and argued for Translatio Imperii based on that.
For what it's worth, the Ottomans also claimed to be the ERE's successor.
>>383106
None at all, it's quite ridiculous to claim successorship over a 2000 year old empire.
>>383153
he is a shitposting german.
>>383118
>Rome
>Spain
>England
>US
thats the real list. Turd Reich was just a bunch of LARPers
>>383166
Ottomans weren't even Christian, though. True, Rome wasn't originally, but it converted from the emperor, not by being conquered by foreign invaders.
No.
The Vatican is Rome.
>>383173
I don't understand how Spain or England could be considered comparable to Rome, they were colonial empires based on expropriating resources. They ensured the people they conquered had separate identities.
U.S. is the only one there that has some similarity, but even then I don't really think so, because it's also not based on incorporating the people it occupies into its identity.
>>383174
That's not terribly relevant when you consider what Islam is.
Islam places itself as the final stage of God's religious plan; first there were the Jews, then the Christians brought the world closer to recognizing the one true god {before they became polytheist scum with the trinity}, and now Islam is here to finish the job. Using Islam as a reason why the Ottomans aren't Roman is like saying the Kingdom of Jerusalem was ill-named because the Franks weren't Jews.
>>383196
The Roman Empire's existence wasn't tied to Rome anymore than the U.S.'s existence is tied to Washington.
>>383106
Rome died when Turks sacked Constantinople.
>>383200
Did the Franks call themselves Jewish?
>>383216
Rome died when Rome fell during the migration age. The Byzantine empire was not Rome.
>>383106
No. Sophia Palaiologina's marriage to Ivan III is generally used as a pretext for that (like this guy here >>383166) but she did not have any rights of succession (not Porphyrogennetos). No idea why he even married her, Palaiologos family was a bunch of annoying fucking cunts trying to sell Sophia as a Chinese knockoff of Byzantium succession.
In fact, Ivan the Terrible lead out his Byzantium lineage from Volodymer fucking Monomakh and his marriage to actually legitimate Byzantine woman whose name I forgot. Needless to say, those claims are just as dubious since Rurik dynasty is a ridiculously huge one, and no one said Moscow branch was the eldest (because agnatic seniority fucking rule, bitches).
After Romanov dynasty came to power and especially after Holstein-Gottorp-Romanovs tangentially related to actual Romanovs did it had basically become a joke.
When Nicholas II lost his throne officially, succeeding it to Prince Mikhail who, in turn, refused to rule, monarchy in Russia ended completely with zero legitimate way of reestablishing it.
Churchwise, Moscow Patriarchy was an illegitimately established one. OG Kiev Patriarchs and Kiev clergy had had a long history of looking down upon, if not outright despising it, for example, even after Russian protectorate was established over part of Ukraine.
>>383229
>but she did not have any rights of succession
So? Do you know how many different dynasties there were throughout Rome's history and how many of them didn't have any right of blood success from the last dynasty?
>>383235
*succession
>>383229
>because agnatic seniority fucking rule, bitche
Can't forget the other aspect of the Rota system, musical fucking chairs.
>Grand Prince of Vladimir, your brother the Grand Prince of Kiev has died
>Welp, send a letter to my brother, the Grand Prince of Novgorod, it's time for him to come rule over here while I go to Kiev.
>>383235
Yeah, but at least they had, you know, Rome. Constantinople had fallen by that time, and some illegitimate woman doesn't mean shit.
Mehmets have more rights to Byzantine Empire.
>>383252
But Russia is actually part of the Orthodox Church.
>>383255
Mehmets set up a new Orthodox patriarch. They even persecuted Christian heretics and increased the influence of the Greek Church within the Balkans.
>>383261
So?
Even if they did have a legit title to the claim, Turkey today certainly couldn't after conducing genocide on Christians in the 20th Century.
>>383255
An illegitimately established part of it, as I said in my first post.
Sure, they're the largest and most powerful branch of it for now but most of their power is due to ridiculous amount of Ukrainian parishes (orthodox clergy ties weight of the church to the amount of the parishes instead of population count because they're weird like that). As far as I know, all orthodox ones in Ukraine - Moscow plus Kiev plus Autocephalous weirdos - are the most numerous in the world, Romania is second place.
With the happenings in Ukraine I wouldn't hold my breath on Russian Orthodox Church remaining as powerful.
>>383276
Turkey=/=Ottoman Empire
The modern Turkish state has very little in common with their predecessor. For starters, the Ottoman Empire was ethnically and religiously inclusive. Yes, the Muslims dominated, but there were places for non-Muslims in the empire. There's also a significant cultural divide because of Attaturk's language reforms. Like, people in Turkey literally can't read the stuff from before the 1920's without training.
This, from what I understand, is a pretty significant force behind the more hardline Islamic elements in Turkish society. There's this wealth of culture and history that they feel an affinity for, but are forever severed from it by the actions of one radical reformer.
>>383284
>An illegitimately established part of it, as I said in my first post.
Ah, no. You don't understand how Orthodox hierarchy works, all bishops have virtually equal power, and the Russian Orthodox Church existed long before the Patriarchate did. The Patriarchate of Russia is recognized by all Patriarch of the Orthodox Church--it might have been established without getting the go ahead from the Ecumenical (read: "imperial", since in Byzantium "ecumenical" meant the extent of the empire) Patriarch, but that was because he was basically under the Ottoman thumb.
>>383297
The Orthodox Church actually has more independence today than it did under the Ottomans.
>>383297
Turkey is an interesting case, from what I've seen. It's been a cycle of
>Military dictatorship
>Military gets tired of ruling, decides to try democracy
>Islamists (at least they're quite mild in relation to Arab ones) come to power
>After a while military gets tired of islamists and throws a coup
ever since Ataturk died.
