Which modern country is the successor of the Roman Empire?

[brucejoel99]

With regards to claims & legitimacy, understand that legitimacy is a negotiated communication of authority with those involved. If the restriction of this circle of communication is to the opinions of scholars & representatives of modern states, then no modern country is the successor of the Roman Empire.

If we decrease this circle of communication down to the Atlas Forum posters who choose to partake in this thread, though, then let's at least start with what it isn't.

It's not Italy. Having Rome doesn't make you the heir to the Roman Empire. If Italy would be able to claim that it was, then every Latin culture (e.g., France & Spain) would be able to claim it too.

It's not Germany, because the HRE was absolutely not Roman.

It's not Russia. Their claims to be the "Third Rome" are often highly exaggerated, based mostly on a single letter by Philotheus of Pskov to the Grand Duke of Moscovy. It was mostly a statement of perceived religious affinity in the first place, which probably shouldn't even be seen as a real claim to the Roman legacy in any case, but specifically to the position of leading Orthodox monarch, connected but far from synonymous. Such claims were, at least, accepted by most of Russia's Orthodox contemporaries, while the Russian monarchs never made any clear claims (which one could reject) to be the heirs of Rome.

It's not the Vatican, either, for that matter, when you consider that the Roman Catholic Church, like the Eastern Orthodox Church, is a splinter group which rebelled against the original imperial church of the Roman Empire; as such, their leaders are all rebels & traitors against the true imperial church, which would mean that leading Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't give Russia the right to be the successor to the Roman Empire & leading the Catholic Church doesn't give the Pope the right to be the successor to the Roman Empire.

And it's not Finland. If you claim it's the "legitimate" successor to the Roman state simply on the basis of descent from the Russian Empire, then why wouldn't Poland also be the legitimate successor to the Roman state? Both countries were only made independent at the end of WWI, within months of each other (both, mind you, after the end of the Russian Empire in 1917, so yeah, the Finns actually did become part of the USSR). And how do the Ukraine & the Baltic states somehow "lose legitimacy" by not having "become part of the USSR" (wow, aggressive nationalism much)? That's rather a silly thing to say.

Now, let's move on to what it could be, where we're really left with two options: Turkey or Greece.

I'd argue that, with regards to administrative succession, the line would presumably flow as follows: Rome --> Byzantines --> Ottomans --> Turkey, although I'd also argue that any claims to it died with the fall of Constantinople. I feel like there'd need to be some sort of administrative succession to really make a claim that they were Rome, & I don't think that being conquered & replaced ought to count.

Of course, modern Greece is the closest thing that we have to a cultural successor to Byzantium (&, consequently, the Romans & the Roman Empire) by far, but even there, you're stretching 500 years of change & foreign rule to make that connection.

So, in summation, Turkey & Greece could claim to be the heirs of Rome, with Turkey more able to claim administrative succession while Greece is more capable of claiming cultural succession.