Nea Byzantia wrote:Vistulange wrote:Eh, what does it matter?
For the record, though, we can't really judge the legitimacy of a government from about six hundred years ago. Times really do change. Nowadays, many in Western civilisation do not consider monarchies to be legitimate - yes, I know, I know, some people on NSG love monarchy because they're so different and woke - while monarchies were seen as the natural order of things just a little more than two centuries ago. Tomorrow, liberal democracy may very well be seen as an entirely archaic system - yes, I know, I know, some people on NSG already call it an archaic and rotten system because they're so different and woke - and certainly not the "natural order of things" as was prophesied by some scholars such as Fukuyama. Now, before people jump on the bandwagon of "but monarchy is good like this!" and "but democracy sucks because this!" and "Fukuyama is good/bad because that!", kindly recognise that those are definitely not what I'm arguing in this post.
What I'm saying is, our values and ideals change so much in the course of a mere century or two that it's basically incredibly useless to discuss the legitimacy of a six-hundred year old claim to a throne. Mehmet II claimed the successorship of the Roman Emperor due to his descent from the Komnenoi. Whether or not you or I think it's illegitimate, frankly, doesn't make the slightest difference in the world. The world at the time probably considered it illegitimate, though they couldn't do much about it, and that's what ultimately mattered, really.
We, however, have moved on.
I'm not even getting into how you measure "legitimacy". The Roman Empire certainly did not have a systematic method of succession, which arguably was one reason for its immense political instability and perhaps eventual collapse, so really, anybody could be "legitimate" so long as they were supported by the coalition needed to govern. That coalition did not necessarily look at the religion of a claimant, either - Bayezid I played on that, actually. (Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins: Politics and Society in the Late Empire by Nevra Necipoğlu is a decent source on this, specifically Chapter 6: The Byzantine Court and the Ottomans: Conflict and Accommodation, though it does have a little bit of extra detail which I found somewhat extraneous.)
"Part of the city's population, judging that the realization of peace with the Ottomans could lead to the re-establishment of internal peace, spoke out in favor of surrendering to them." (p. 146) This does not by any means suggest that the Romans wanted an Ottoman "emperor", but it does give some food for thought in that the Romans were actually quite fine with the prospect of being under Ottoman rule. Who decides the legitimacy of a Roman Emperor, if not the Romans themselves?
I know that certain elite aristocratic families in Constantinople benefited greatly from the Ottoman takeover - I'm referring of course to the Phanariots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanariotes); in particular, the Houses Kantakouzenos and Mavrokordatos. These however, were a tiny minority (but a very influential one, in Late Byzantium). Furthermore, the Imperial Regime in Constantinople had lost a lot of legitimacy with its People because of its capitulations to the Roman Papacy, in return for promises of military aid; these acts of Uniaitism, especially in the final decades of the Empire were seen as the highest treason by the strongly Greek Orthodox population; to the point that some said "Better the Turban of the Sultan; than the Tiara of the Pope". People had grown tired of the pushiness of the Latins, the Crusaders, and their Uniate mouthpieces in the Imperial elite, in the politics and religious affairs of the Empire; and it was clear, especially by the 15th century, that the Emperor in Constantinople, was not only not going to do anything about it; but was thoroughly "in bed" with such people himself.
All that being said, the pro-Ottoman camp wasn't what brought down the Empire, necessarily. Rather, it was a loss of faith in the traditional mores of the Empire. People no longer believed the Emperor in Constantinople was worth listening to, or for that matter, saving - the Romans had become mere spectators in the affairs of their own Empire; watching foreigners and other Great Powers decide their political fate for them; essentially. One can argue when exactly this state of affairs (which still afflicts modern Greece to this very day) came into being. Personally, I would point to the Fourth Crusade as the beginning f this. It was by no means too late for the Empire; even then. They did recover some hope in 1261, when Constantinople was liberated from the Latins; however, it was thrown away when Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos humiliated the Empire; and betrayed the trust of his People, by grovelling at the Pope's feet, and proclaiming himself a Catholic, in return for military aid. This, and the continued unfettered meddling of the Venetians, Genoese, and small Crusader Warlords spread throughout the Aegean, ultimately brought the Empire to its knees - for the vile Turks to scoop up.
"Vile Turks" is a bit much. Tone it down, would you?