Talk:Thomas Palaiologos

Untitled
The start text (2 September 2005) of this article came from article Demetrius Palaeologus which at that time was Thomas and Demetrius Palaeologus Arrigo 16:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I realize that Mehmed II was officially the conqueror of the Byzantine Empire, but there seems to be plenty of disenting oppinion that Mehmed actually considered himself Byzantine in nature. Kind of like the English kings claiming the French crown. Thusly, as Mehmed's took the title of caesar, He essentially viewed himself as taking, not destroying, the Byzantine state. Hiberniantears 22:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There is 3 difference: English king has been crowned king of France after diplomatic deal with last French king which has proclaimed english king for his heir. In legal terms French kings of France after 1422 has been usurpers. Second thing is that only person of ortodox faith can be emperor of Byzantium and last in time of Demetrius abdication Thomas has ruled in Morea, maybe few more days but .... I like for history to think only with legal thinking. In the end problem with Mehmed like caesar in legal term is if nothing else that then all Byzantine forces which has refused to surender has been rebels ??????

I have put question to Dimadick if Osman in 1289 has lived inside our outside Byzantium because if is inside Byzantium-Turkish war has been civil war 270 years long. Question is OK because in many books Osman has lived on Byzantium frontier. rjecina

Requested move
The discussion for this move request is undergoing, as well as other similar requests, in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. Please go there to discuss the move request.--Panairjdde 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The debate on the move is now completed; the result was no consensus. Mango juice talk 20:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)