[Poll]Is the Ottoman Empire a continuation of the Roman Empire?
- Thread starter Avrorrange
- Start date
The Rurikds and some Romanov's did but the administration was both Russian and some borrowed Mongol elements, then that of the Byzantine Empire
I'd say it's the other way around, the Greeks had become a long-standing population in the areas of Asia Minor, and parts of Syria and Egypt that the Romans conquered, and Greek was considered a very prestigious language.
By Romanity, I mean the Roman identity -- Greek was clearly the more prestigious language, given its use by the Roman aristocracy and (due to geography among other things) its predominance in the Early Church.
Since they had become Roman citizens and lived under Rome, they came to view themselves as Romans.
Since they had become Roman citizens and lived under Rome, they came to view themselves as Romans.
Russia's claim is the strongest by a fairly large margin, and it's still pitiful at best. Turkey's is the absolute worst, not only was there no continuation of Roman culture, religion or identity, outside of a few barely mentioned Ottoman titles that nobody in the world took remotely seriously, but they were conquerors that took over and dismantled the Roman State, rather then lawful inheritors or inheritors in any other sense of the word.
Of course, the point as been made before, there really was only one Rome on a technical level, the "Byzantine" Empire was the Roman Empire, simply moved to another capital and with 1000 years of adaptation and change behind it.
Of course, the point as been made before, there really was only one Rome on a technical level, the "Byzantine" Empire was the Roman Empire, simply moved to another capital and with 1000 years of adaptation and change behind it.
Pretty much. The Byzantophiles have been sipping their kool-aid for so long that their responses to the question seemed to be borrowing from their 'in-tone' historical narratives of their favorite timelines to the point of raising eyebrows at a minimum.
But to answer the question. The Rome of the BCs? Not at all. The Rome before 1000AD? Nope. The Rome of 1453? ....that's a much harder and legitimate question. In part because the Ottomans managed to coup some of the last descendants of Constantine XI into the Empire and even made one of them Grand Vizier at one point.
Let's look at Wikipedia to see if there's any arguments worth looking into, straight from Mehmed the Conqueror's Wikipedia page:
....well shit
I would actually further argue that the Byzantine Empire stopped being truly Roman after Justinian II, given that he was the last Eastern Roman Emperor to style himself Augustus, but I suspect that's a minority position.
Care to provide some evidence to back up the personal insults?
How does having a few of the Byzantine nobility enter high positions in the Ottoman bureaucracy equal being a continuation of the Byzantine state? It was standard practice for pre-modern empires to co-opt members of the local elite. It made administering far-flung provinces much easier.
And in response to the wikipedia excerpt, just because Mehmed proclaims himself the successor of the Roman Empire doesn't make him so. Furthermore it was a title ignored by his successors and the Ottomans referred to the Orthodox millet as Rum, ie Roman. You don't call a group of second-class citizens a name that also identifies you. By that example the Ottomans didn't see themselves as Romans. I'll provide a quote of my own.
"This discussion of time and place may seem antiquarian today, but is vital to an understanding of the identity of the Roman Orthodox in the fifteenth century. It coincided roughly with the ninth century of the Muslim era when the Ottomans first named Byzantines for what they were: subjects of a church that had survived an empire, called 'Rum', or Roman. The definition holds to this day, most vividly when a villager in north-eastern Turkey explains 'This was Roman country; they spoke Christian here.'"
-Anthony Bryer, "The Roman Orthodox World (1393-1492)", in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, pg. 853
But for that to be the case that would mean the title of Augustus is fundamental to Roman identity.
@Basileus444
I know it's far too clear-cut to actually be any sort of dividing line because such things don't exist in reality, but if the Roman Emperors abandon their Latin appelations and had with the successors to Justinian I given up the rest of the language, that marks some sort of division in identity before and after, surely?
I know it's far too clear-cut to actually be any sort of dividing line because such things don't exist in reality, but if the Roman Emperors abandon their Latin appelations and had with the successors to Justinian I given up the rest of the language, that marks some sort of division in identity before and after, surely?
Language didn't really mean as much to people of the past as it do to us today, people often spoke several languages and many dialects, unless they lived very isolated. The people 10 kilometre away often spoke different languages or dialect barely intelligible. Remember the Romans didn't really speak Classical Latin outside a small elite, they spoke Vulgar Latin.
I have been thinking about some of the examples bought up in the previous thread.
To sum up what happened there:
Side A: Ottoman conquest came from outside, it cant be the same state or a continuation.
Side B: Egypt, Persia and China was taken over more than once from outside and no one stopped considering them China, Egypt or Persia. So why cant be this the case with Rome and Ottomans?
Side A failed to give an acceptable answer to this.
I came up with the folowing:
I think that the examples are special cases because this names became the names of territories and not only peoples or staates. What i mean is for example if anyone conquers the Nile Valley in the North East of Africa and moves its center of power and capital there, he will end up being called Egypt by most of the world. Same with China: if a Vietnamese dinasty conquered China and moved its capital to Beijing or some other chinese city the state that resulted from this conquest would short time later be called China by everyone. The same is true mostly to Persia as well. This doesnt mean that these are the same states or the legitimate successors of each other - they simply inherited a name and some legitimacy with it. Of course beside the name they took over a lot of other stuff - mostly everyone will use whats alrady in place instead of starting from scratch. This accounts for a lot of other similarities and together with the same name this seems enoough to make people think that this are basically the same polities. I dont want to answer right now if they are right or not.
Constantinople is not like the ones above - the region wasnt widely called Rome. Though i think that the malay sources mentioned in the previous thread called the Ottoman state Rum most likely because reasons like this.
To sum up what happened there:
Side A: Ottoman conquest came from outside, it cant be the same state or a continuation.
Side B: Egypt, Persia and China was taken over more than once from outside and no one stopped considering them China, Egypt or Persia. So why cant be this the case with Rome and Ottomans?
Side A failed to give an acceptable answer to this.
I came up with the folowing:
I think that the examples are special cases because this names became the names of territories and not only peoples or staates. What i mean is for example if anyone conquers the Nile Valley in the North East of Africa and moves its center of power and capital there, he will end up being called Egypt by most of the world. Same with China: if a Vietnamese dinasty conquered China and moved its capital to Beijing or some other chinese city the state that resulted from this conquest would short time later be called China by everyone. The same is true mostly to Persia as well. This doesnt mean that these are the same states or the legitimate successors of each other - they simply inherited a name and some legitimacy with it. Of course beside the name they took over a lot of other stuff - mostly everyone will use whats alrady in place instead of starting from scratch. This accounts for a lot of other similarities and together with the same name this seems enoough to make people think that this are basically the same polities. I dont want to answer right now if they are right or not.
Constantinople is not like the ones above - the region wasnt widely called Rome. Though i think that the malay sources mentioned in the previous thread called the Ottoman state Rum most likely because reasons like this.
Constantinople was the capital of the roman empire until its Fall. Not of the eastern roman empire and also not of the byzantine empire. ERE, WRE and byzantine empire are modern inventions, which never existed in roman times. Also a division of the roman empire after Theodosius did never happen. So Constantinople was the capital of the one and only roman empire.
The Turks conquered Constantinople. They were the enemies of romanitas. They cannot be the successors of the roman empire. They are perhaps as unroman as you can be.
Simple like that.
PS: Having said that, I prefer 638 AD for the Fall of the Roman Empire. At least as an "Empire".
The Turks conquered Constantinople. They were the enemies of romanitas. They cannot be the successors of the roman empire. They are perhaps as unroman as you can be.
Simple like that.
PS: Having said that, I prefer 638 AD for the Fall of the Roman Empire. At least as an "Empire".
Last edited:
I'll jump in unfamiliar territory and will most likely to sperg bullshit, but I'll risk.
From what I know, though based there, the Fatimids, Ayyubids and Mamluks never claimed to be Sultans/Caliphs/Whatever of Egypt proper said, as in being rulers of the Egyptian state, but rulers that had a base in Egypt, that same couldn't be said for the Roman Empire, there was the "Roman State" that wasn't bound to any dynasty, in fact it survived many.
Feel free to contest any point.
As far Egypt goes the answer was already given. In Egypt, the Ptolemies and whatever people comprised the 25th dynasty had adopted the traditions and not also considered themselves pharaohs and styled their state accordingly with all the traditions that came with it. As for China same thing, the various foreigners that did invade did become sinicized and ruled by Chinese customs and laws, if it was rather strange with the Yuan and Manchus having a caste system they still claimed the traditional Mandate of Heaven.
The Ottomans ruled a far different state and had different Customs that Ottoman Sultans could declare themselves Kayser-i-Rum, but were not Roman. If for some strange reason there was an Ottoman state that had taken all the trappings of Byzantium at keeping in mind they are still Muslim and it's administrative practices it could be considered an Islamic Roman Empire, the OTL Ottomans did not do that, so they can't be considered Roman.
First and foremost not everyone is saying the Ottomans can't be Romans because their Byzantophiles, I don't care for them myself and more a Russophile of Rurikid Russia, regardless it's unnecessarily hostile to assume that everyone who defends the positions the Ottoman were not a continuation of the Roman are Byzantophiles by default.
Second, you use a Wikipedia article, not the sources themselves, the thing sources can be in a debate with other sources and even historians, they should not be taken solely at face value. The article mentioned that Mehmed was crown by the patriarch of the Orthodox Chruch. It didn't mention anything about whether or not other independent Orthodox nations recognized the Ottomans as such. So using Wikipedia without any background knowledge is a piss poor excuse of an argument.
That was when Heraclius abandoned the Western titles of the Empire.