AHC: Muslim roman empire

with any PoD after the birth of muhammad (or earlier if you can prevent the butterflies), have a state with both a rightful or undeniable claim to being the roman empire's successor, and islam as its state religion. Bonus points if you can have it claim descent from the western roman empire, and even more bonus points if it is the foremost superpower of its time like the brits OTL.
 
Well the Ottomans directly made this claim (though Europeans disagreed).
Why not the Sublime State of Osman?
really, why not? :p
funnyhat mentioned the only thing seperating the ottomans from being seen as a real successor to rome - public opinion agreed that they were not, and since we're on an english speaking forum and not a turkish speaking one we know already that they did not manage to force the european's hand on the subject (or almost any other subject honestly). How could this be solved?
 
Europeans associated Rome with Christianity by this time, so conquest by an Islamic nation is a non starter. Though if a Roman emperor had voluntarily converted to Islam, maybe? (Or he may just get deposed...)
 
Europeans associated Rome with Christianity by this time, so conquest by an Islamic nation is a non starter. Though if a Roman emperor had voluntarily converted to Islam, maybe? (Or he may just get deposed...)

What about the Iconoclasm controversy in Byzantium? Wasn't this basically a form of "Islam-lite"?
 
What about the Iconoclasm controversy in Byzantium? Wasn't this basically a form of "Islam-lite"?
I mean you just removed one of the many dozens of basic theological differences between Islam and Christianity.
Even if Christianity became through internal means very similar to Islam you would see the separation remain by tradition and by virtue of the internal division within Islam to begin with.
 
Just have Muslim Byzantine or another muslim empire conquer or beat down most of europe so they cant object, and then adopt bureaucratic system and make rome, Ravenna, or istanbul the capital.
 
Simple, have the Ottoman state adopt the old Seljuk name of Rûm upon conquering Constantinople or, earlier on, upon uniting Anatolia under its banner - since the eagle is both a Muslim and a Roman symbol, they could also adopt a banner depicting a white eagle on a green field. :p
 
funnyhat mentioned the only thing seperating the ottomans from being seen as a real successor to rome - public opinion agreed that they were not, and since we're on an english speaking forum and not a turkish speaking one we know already that they did not manage to force the european's hand on the subject (or almost any other subject honestly). How could this be solved?

An increably strong Protestantism-Wank that results in the Europeans wanting nothing to do with the reputation of that city, perhaps? Have the theology take on a fundimentally anti-Roman flavor in it's early stages ("This is the true form of Christianity preached by Jesus and the disciples before the Tyrant Emperors usurped it and bent their words into heresy") and they might say good ridence if the Caliphate wants the title
 
Instead of taking over the Persian empire, have the Caliphate take over the Roman one, and from there expand to take over the Mediterranean basin.
 

Scaevola

Banned
The Sublime Porte, owning all the former ERE plus Mesopotamia for a time, has better claim to the name Roman Empire than the post-conquests Middle Greek Kingdom of the 700s+.
 
It’s not impossible to make the Ottomans into Muslim Romans, but at the very least they would need to stop being Turkish. If the Ottoman dynasty spoke Greek as court language and Western Anatolia and Thrace was populated by Greek speaking Muslims, I think we would see them as the Byzantine Empire under new management.
 
The issue is, the Islamic laws require the Caliphate whom by its design reject the ideal of a Roman Emperor at least to a large degree. I believe the best option though would be a Fatimid or Shi’a state adopting this title out of an aversion to claim the title of Caliph.
 
The issue is, the Islamic laws require the Caliphate whom by its design reject the ideal of a Roman Emperor at least to a large degree. I believe the best option though would be a Fatimid or Shi’a state adopting this title out of an aversion to claim the title of Caliph.

How much did any caliphate after the rashidun look like the ideal designed by the companions, caliphate? More than that how much did any caliphate after the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols interact with political authority in the way that earlier caliphates did?
On the other side of the coin, were the ideals of the Roman emperor set in the principate, the dominate the Byzantines, or a different period?

While I’m not doubting that a strict reading of Sharia precludes any one state from claiming both the caliphate and the political structure of the principate, in both these terms I think there is enough flexibility that, as realpolitik dictates, legal fictions and selective practising of Roman traditions can make it so that there is a tl where a caliphate that doesn’t also claim to be the Roman Empire is seen by some as illegitimate.
 
It’s not impossible to make the Ottomans into Muslim Romans, but at the very least they would need to stop being Turkish. If the Ottoman dynasty spoke Greek as court language and Western Anatolia and Thrace was populated by Greek speaking Muslims, I think we would see them as the Byzantine Empire under new management.
Would not roman speak latin/italian anyway?
 
What if the Emperor is Muslim, but the Empire as a whole is too multi-cultural and religious to be seen as a Muslim State?

I'm thinking something kinda like a western version of the Liao Dinasty, but you know, Roman.

If the Emperor himself is not a Turk or Arab, and his trappings are very European, he could be seen as Emperor of Rome. Just a Muslim Emperor.

Its not that much of a Muslim state because if it was tried, entire parts of the Empire would revolt.

Have the Emperor not fulfill all the checkboxes to be a Caliph as well (like being Sa'yid) and bam! You can even get a separate office of Emperor and Caliph. Bonus fun if the Pope is also a vassal of the Emperor.
 

Scaevola

Banned
If the Emperor himself is not a Turk or Arab, and his trappings are very European, he could be seen as Emperor of Rome. Just a Muslim Emperor.
This argument itself comes from Eurocentric view/culture. I'm not accusing you of anything of course! Just the grounds of the argument.

In OTL itself there were no Byzantine emperors with what we'd call mostly European trappings. The administration was very centralized and featured governors, major landowners, generals, eunuchs, patriarchs, chariot racers, caulkers, and even many women heavily involved in intrigue and affairs of state, as opposed to the overwhelming landed aristocracy of western Europe. Then there are eunuchs, abject abomination to Romans and early Christians alike if I'm not mistaken, then borrowed by the Christian Roman empire from her Eastern enemies.

Then there were emperors from Isauria, basically savages to the Byzantines, and from Syria, and from Armenia. And some heretics to boot, especially the more mystical iconoclasts.

The Byzantine Empire wasn't just another angle of the Roman Empire, it was a totally different animal and does not fit well into what we call East or West. But an emperor with your idea of very European trappings would have to be a Frank.
 
How much did any caliphate after the rashidun look like the ideal designed by the companions, caliphate? More than that how much did any caliphate after the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols interact with political authority in the way that earlier caliphates did?
On the other side of the coin, were the ideals of the Roman emperor set in the principate, the dominate the Byzantines, or a different period?

While I’m not doubting that a strict reading of Sharia precludes any one state from claiming both the caliphate and the political structure of the principate, in both these terms I think there is enough flexibility that, as realpolitik dictates, legal fictions and selective practising of Roman traditions can make it so that there is a tl where a caliphate that doesn’t also claim to be the Roman Empire is seen by some as illegitimate.

According to Sunni tradition, all the caliphates following the Rashidun were guided correctly and were legitimate and fulfilled all the statuses for the Caliphate. None of them veered from the supposed ideal of the Sharia except in some minor ways such as differing rulings on tax and what have you. I am not such a puritanical person, as to nullify 1500 years of Caliphal reign as some Muslim wish to do in their purity spirals.
 
Last edited:
Top