AHC: Muslim roman empire

Alternately, maybe have the Caliphate end up losing and one of its successor states or armies merging with the Byzantine Empire and over time having the people convert, especially if the Arabs are willing to assist them in retaking Rome. It would be a slow process, but I could see it becoming appealing. Granted, some of the eating requirements would either have to be removed or be classified as a cultural thing rather than a religious thing.

As such, the Arab armies would assist Rome in taking North Africa and expand more and if they assist in taking Persia, Rome may see great value in the, and their new religion and speed up conversion. It'd require separating Islam from dogmatic Arabic influences, but it would help the faith in the long run
 
Also be clear, your succession or opinion regarding translatio imperii, is that, an opinion. Do not propose your opinion as an absolute, as many disagree with this.
??? Everything in this site is always an opinion. No one can or have right declaring absolute, and i have never made that declaration. Everything I, or anyone else, said is always an opinion.
 
This is exactly what I'm asking about. if the ottomans embraced the roman identity more (like mehmed IV tried to do with himself being crowned 'caesar') and europe approved in one way or another, then we would all be speaking about the third roman empire today - but those factors would take a wildly divergent timeline to solve. How could these be resolved or changed?
Why does Europe have to approve?

But well 1. Ottoman empire is more tolerant of other religions . Which in and of itself is rather a messed up aks considering that western Europe was not know for religious tolerance.
If the seemed tolerant and friendly to Christians then there would be more acceptance.

2. Arrange marriages and make friends with Western groups and powers

3. Last but not least and this would truly matter only in the east, keep the orthodox center in Constantinople and play that card as much as possible for the Christians in the empire.

Remember the crusades did more to weaken Byzantium than anything else. Catholics thought orthodox were heritics

The only true way would be to convert to catholicism.. That's not an. Option .

So it's just.a matter of history agreeing, which they never would because of religious bias and the belief that Rome = Christian and the pope.

When in fact we are not talking Rome, we are talking Byzantium and the eastern empire.
 
Right. For that matter, could we not say, the late Abbasid Caliphate is essentially the continuation of the Akkadian empire, Assyria and Babylon as Saddam Hussein likened it? In this case, the Abbasid and later the republic of Iraq, are at least Semitic, the Ottomans though? Or perhaps we could say that Pakistan is the inheritor of the Indus Valley Civilization, they rule the same territory no? Claiming that the Turkic beyliks and the Islamic rulers of the Ottoman Caliphate are the successors of Byzantium, is analogous to me, as saying that the Spanish holdings in Mexico are successors of the Aztec, Huastec, Toltecs, etc... or analogous to saying that the US is successors of the Native tribes and peoples of North America. The Muslim lords and scholars of the time even viewed the situation as the previously mentioned parallels did, that the goal ultimately of baghwa was conquest and to perform the holy duty of jihad upon the kuffar which distribute chaos unto the world by their disobedience to Allah. This is no different from the 'sea to shining sea' model or 'manifest destiny' and other ideals spoken of by European colonialists. This can be supported by both Ottoman era jurisprudence and jurisprudence prior to the Ottoman foundation...

Regardless, some posters in this thread, have essentially resorted to saying, 'we believe that this is the case, for reasons' as opposed to reasoned counters. Further, they cheapen the uniqueness of the Ottoman state and the Turkic beyliks by consuming themselves with westernizing every aspect of their existence and cutting it from the wider Islamic perspective and viewing it as part of the European fold via 'Rome'.
Remember The ottoman wanted to be a part of the European fold. Even if by force. In the high level sense the argument is was the ottoman empire, "the under new Management" continuation of the Eastern empire is easier to digest for many.

Honestly to me.. I Would say in my opinion only in so far that they did Co op many byzantine beuracraric traditions, but even at that the ottoman empire was unique unto itself.. It was like hey look, we are Rome.. No they tried to be somewhat palatible to the locals and not seem so scary.

The obvious answer is yes and no and veries by opinion and what era or ruler is running things.

Russia claims to be successor to the ussr
The ussr to the Russian empire
The Russian empire to kyiv, novogorid, moskva, golden horde.. Heir to Byzantium etc..

It's all vauge guessing, but in many ways yes and in many ways no. It was new management for a group that looked east and west due to geography and historical reasons.
 
??? Everything in this site is always an opinion. No one can or have right declaring absolute, and i have never made that declaration. Everything I, or anyone else, said is always an opinion.

You said the translatio of Rome -> Byzantium -> Ottomans was *correct*. Such a statement should come with an assurance of, in the view of those people then or in my opinion/view.
 
Why does Europe have to approve?

But well 1. Ottoman empire is more tolerant of other religions . Which in and of itself is rather a messed up aks considering that western Europe was not know for religious tolerance.
If the seemed tolerant and friendly to Christians then there would be more acceptance.

2. Arrange marriages and make friends with Western groups and powers

3. Last but not least and this would truly matter only in the east, keep the orthodox center in Constantinople and play that card as much as possible for the Christians in the empire.

Remember the crusades did more to weaken Byzantium than anything else. Catholics thought orthodox were heritics

The only true way would be to convert to catholicism.. That's not an. Option .

So it's just.a matter of history agreeing, which they never would because of religious bias and the belief that Rome = Christian and the pope.

When in fact we are not talking Rome, we are talking Byzantium and the eastern empire.

This is part of the issue, the concept of Rome is a flimsy one and can be attained by any of these powers and they may reason as they wish. Your rapid and unnecessary disregard of the Papal claims and the Latin claim of Rome is perhaps the most common bias on this site. As I discussed in other threads, the Papal claim of translatio imperii is not a weak one, and surpasses (in some’s opinion) the Ottoman’s sort of flimsy Amir al-Mu’minin, that is interpreted by westerners as a call to Byzantium. Remember, when the Ottomans issued statements to the Cossacks, it was not, ‘Submit to Rome’ or anything similar to what Byzantium produced, but it was framed similar to that of the Abbasid Caliphate, that being he addressed himself as lord of the faiths and in order to avoid chaos, one should seek his refuge.
 
This is part of the issue, the concept of Rome is a flimsy one and can be attained by any of these powers and they may reason as they wish. Your rapid and unnecessary disregard of the Papal claims and the Latin claim of Rome is perhaps the most common bias on this site. As I discussed in other threads, the Papal claim of translatio imperii is not a weak one, and surpasses (in some’s opinion) the Ottoman’s sort of flimsy Amir al-Mu’minin, that is interpreted by westerners as a call to Byzantium. Remember, when the Ottomans issued statements to the Cossacks, it was not, ‘Submit to Rome’ or anything similar to what Byzantium produced, but it was framed similar to that of the Abbasid Caliphate, that being he addressed himself as lord of the faiths and in order to avoid chaos, one should seek his refuge.

in my most humble personal opinion Rome was dead and long gone before the ottomans even appeared, also the popes claim to being the roman (western empire is also malarkey. Rome turned into a backwater with the Vatican taking on the true importance of what was left, that being the church of Rome.

Honestly Charlemagne had the best chance of recreating some sort of Roman Empire in the west but that died with him as it became primarily a Hapsburg/German empire

The eastern empire really wasn't roman anymore by 867-1000AD as well and took on the decidedly Macedonian tint of what many think of when they think of Byzantium - even the Kommenian Dynasty was Greek vs any sort of western or Italian bent, especially after the split of the church.

So I'm not in all reality not arguing the stance of who is ROME (which became synonymous with saying the Vatican or the church ) .. im not disregarding the pope or others wish to recreate a Christian roman empire that rules the world, just well.. there were not enough Italians to do this. the Hapsburg Empire at its height was quite impressive, but it was most assuredly not Roman. So I'm staying in the east and more who is Constantinople, heir to the knowledge, heir to what was - and they took that like the others who came before and made it their own - and in that effect - ownership is 9/10ths of the law. Religious wise, that's a different story depending on what religion one practices.
 
in my most humble personal opinion Rome was dead and long gone before the ottomans even appeared, also the popes claim to being the roman (western empire is also malarkey. Rome turned into a backwater with the Vatican taking on the true importance of what was left, that being the church of Rome.

Honestly Charlemagne had the best chance of recreating some sort of Roman Empire in the west but that died with him as it became primarily a Hapsburg/German empire

The eastern empire really wasn't roman anymore by 867-1000AD as well and took on the decidedly Macedonian tint of what many think of when they think of Byzantium - even the Kommenian Dynasty was Greek vs any sort of western or Italian bent, especially after the split of the church.

So I'm not in all reality not arguing the stance of who is ROME (which became synonymous with saying the Vatican or the church ) .. im not disregarding the pope or others wish to recreate a Christian roman empire that rules the world, just well.. there were not enough Italians to do this. the Hapsburg Empire at its height was quite impressive, but it was most assuredly not Roman. So I'm staying in the east and more who is Constantinople, heir to the knowledge, heir to what was - and they took that like the others who came before and made it their own - and in that effect - ownership is 9/10ths of the law. Religious wise, that's a different story depending on what religion one practices.

Most assuredly not Roman, by whose standard? Also it is malarkey to you, not to the people of the day and Roman legacy is not defined by having Rome as some grand city.
 
This is part of the issue, the concept of Rome is a flimsy one and can be attained by any of these powers and they may reason as they wish. Your rapid and unnecessary disregard of the Papal claims and the Latin claim of Rome is perhaps the most common bias on this site. As I discussed in other threads, the Papal claim of translatio imperii is not a weak one, and surpasses (in some’s opinion) the Ottoman’s sort of flimsy Amir al-Mu’minin, that is interpreted by westerners as a call to Byzantium. Remember, when the Ottomans issued statements to the Cossacks, it was not, ‘Submit to Rome’ or anything similar to what Byzantium produced, but it was framed similar to that of the Abbasid Caliphate, that being he addressed himself as lord of the faiths and in order to avoid chaos, one should seek his refuge.

Yes and this is prefect argument for why the claim that the Ottomans was continued Roman Empire rings hollow, because the Ottomans didn’t even believe it themselves.
 
The Roman Empire ended with the Eastern Roman Empire at the latest. At least there was a legal movement from Rome to Constantinople and general continuity of laws and bureaucracy from the OG Empire to the Eastern. Hell, as much as people like to hate on it on this site, the Carolingian Empire had more legal continuity than the Ottoman Empire through the Patrician status of the Arnulfing/Carolingians and bestowal by the Pope who depending on who you ask is technically a member of the original Roman Hierarchy. Personally I think of Rome as being more cultural than anything else. The Roman Empire ended when Christian philosophy displaced original Roman thought. So, Constantine.
 
Most assuredly not Roman, by whose standard? Also it is malarkey to you, not to the people of the day and Roman legacy is not defined by having Rome as some grand city.
cough.. during the day it was more important .. and yes then the osmani are the successor .. period to those they ruled and subjugated just as it was under any other ruling group.

you are shifting time frames .. im not judging history or what people think or thought.

obviously the osmini are doing what they need to do to put their control and needs upon the people. same as any ruling class does since og and nog the cavemen.
religion is a control mechanism.. always has been .. doesn't mater if its catholic or Lutheran ..jewish or Islam .. they are all control
render unto Caesar that which is Caesar .. osmani are no different
 
This is part of the issue, the concept of Rome is a flimsy one and can be attained by any of these powers and they may reason as they wish. Your rapid and unnecessary disregard of the Papal claims and the Latin claim of Rome is perhaps the most common bias on this site. As I discussed in other threads, the Papal claim of translatio imperii is not a weak one, and surpasses (in some’s opinion) the Ottoman’s sort of flimsy Amir al-Mu’minin, that is interpreted by westerners as a call to Byzantium. Remember, when the Ottomans issued statements to the Cossacks, it was not, ‘Submit to Rome’ or anything similar to what Byzantium produced, but it was framed similar to that of the Abbasid Caliphate, that being he addressed himself as lord of the faiths and in order to avoid chaos, one should seek his refuge.
Wasn't the Ottoman letter to the Cossacks a forgery by the Zaporizhian Cossacks?

Or are there surviving real letters between the Ottoman Sultan and the Cossacks?
 
Wasn't the Ottoman letter to the Cossacks a forgery by the Zaporizhian Cossacks?

Or are there surviving real letters between the Ottoman Sultan and the Cossacks?

From what I gather, the reply of the Cossacks was what was forged, while the Ottoman ultimatum was legitimate.

We also have other Ottoman ultimatums though, such as between the Ottoman state and the Safavids.
 
From what I gather, the reply of the Cossacks was what was forged, while the Ottoman ultimatum was legitimate.

We also have other Ottoman ultimatums though, such as between the Ottoman state and the Safavids.
Yes, the letter from the sultan seems believable. As for the reply by the Cossacks...
The alleged Ottoman letter seems very out of character because the Sultan is described as "son of Muhammad; brother of the sun and moon; grandson... of God" which isn't very Islamic. The geographical references "Macedonia, Babylon, Jerusalem, Upper and Lower Egypt" are unusual choices of exonyms even if he's targeting a Christian audience. Since the Reply of the Zaporizhian Cossacks itself is considered apocryphal, I see no reason to consider the Ottoman letter it was replying to legitimate.
 
Last edited:
The alleged Ottoman letter seems very out of character because the Sultan is described as "son of Muhammad; brother of the sun and moon; grandson... of God" which isn't very Islamic. The geographical references "Macedonia, Babylon, Jerusalem, Upper and Lower Egypt" are unusual choices of exonyms even if he's targeting a Christian audience. Since the Reply of the Zaporizhian Cossacks itself is considered apocryphal, I see no reason to consider the Ottoman letter it was replying to legitimate.

As far as I know, the wording is not son of Muhammad; but deputy of Muhammad, which is, the Caliph. Further, wordings such as Macedonia, Babylon, etc were used within the Islamic context, as Islam had ready knowledge of Babylon and its mythos as did the Christian world.
 
Top