AHC : Roman Independence rather than Greek Independence

As title really.

I'm curious as to what the repercussions of (and the mechanics of) a Roman Independence movement rather than Greek. Perhaps even including the Patriarch.

I won't lie, during a rather pain-induced/painkiller induced daydream yesterday I had this awesome image of a man appearing dressed as the 'Marble Emperor' in Istanbul calling for independence/restoration, and become a sort of Freedom Fighter figure, exploiting the cisterns of Istanbul.

So yeah, how could/would you engineer a Roman Independence movement that succeeds at roughly the same time ~1821.

Bonus Points if:
1) It doesn't rely on outside help outside of supplying arms.
2) It takes control of Istanbul successfully in the early stages of the 'Struggle' and keeps it.
 
That's a difficult one. For the Greeks to go with a Roman identity instead of a Greek one the War of Independence would have to start before or during the early stages of the enlightenment before Neoclassicism really spreads to the Ottoman Empire. The problem with that is I don't see a way to so severely cripple the Ottomans during this period to the point they would lose control of the Balkans, let alone their own capital. Perhaps an even more successful Great Turkish War could do the trick?

Alternatively you could have the Phanariotes take a leading role during the War of Independence, giving the uprising a more religious character, but I don't know if that would be enough to establish a Roman nation state rather than a Hellenic one by the early 19th Century.

The final idea I had would be to start a Greek uprising outside of the Morea/Attica, making it more difficult for the Greeks to claim the Classical Greek heritage. But I don't know if any other Greek speaking area would have as favourable terrain/isolation as the Morea did in our timeline.

The big problem with all of these is that the Greeks would have to accomplish this with little or no outside help. I don't see the western powers (or Russia) being very eager to support a Roman state with claims on Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
That's a difficult one. For the Greeks to go with a Roman identity instead of a Greek one the War of Independence would have to start before or during the early stages of the enlightenment before Neoclassicism really spreads to the Ottoman Empire. The problem with that is I don't see a way to so severely cripple the Ottomans during this period to the point they would lose control of the Balkans, let alone their own capital. Perhaps an even more successful Great Turkish War could do the trick?

It depends on whether Neoclassical ideas are embraced or rejected. It could be that the Pharanoites (to tie in your next paragraph) put forward a rebuttal that Athens et al were built upon by the Romans, and as such that identity is as neoclassical, but nonetheless superior.

Alternatively you could have the Phanariotes take a leading role during the War of Independence, giving the uprising a more religious character, but I don't know if that would be enough to establish a Roman nation state rather than a Hellenic one by the early 19th Century.

I figured that the Patriarch would likely have to be involved, at least on the sly. Perhaps clever politicking leads to the appointment of a Pro-Revolution Patriarch that is publicly otherwise.

The final idea I had would be to start a Greek uprising outside of the Morea/Attica, making it more difficult for the Greeks to claim the Classical Greek heritage. But I don't know if any other Greek speaking area would have as favourable terrain/isolation as the Morea did in our timeline.

The big problem with all of these is that the Greeks would have to accomplish this with little or no outside help. I don't see the western powers (or Russia) being very eager to support a Roman state with claims on Constantinople.

Well this is where being "Roman" may have an advantage - potential for broader support in non-Greek speaking areas. Albanians and other groups could gravitate to the idea of a "Roman" joint identity. Perhaps focusing on joint Orthodox Christianity as anything else - which bring Assyrians, Maronites, Armenians and Pontic Greeks into the list of potentials, not to mention Italians that may live in the Ottoman Empire.

As to support, it might have to involve a higher price. Perhaps agreeing to a British Military Base, a sort of Modern Pera on the Bosporus that could be used to assure British support for the revolution, but also ensuring the British have both a say if not outright control of the Bosporus if needs be. (In fact, considering OTL Cyprus, it is a good approach, and may apply for Cyprus being a potential hand-over in exchange for the permanent bases.) As to why the British? The Great Game. Early insurance with the Russians making moves in Central Asia. (A little earlier than historically, but...)
 
I'll give it a shot. The House of Osman was very close to extinction IOTL in 1807 as princes Mustafa and Mahmud were the heirs of Selim III who was overthrown by Janissaries and replaced by Mustafa. He ordered Selim and Mahmud to be killed but Mahmud survived. What if he had been found and murdered by Mustafa's troops? The lifespan of an Ottoman sultan would be rather short and there were already reformist forces working to bring change. Mustafa is likely to be killed as well, making the Ottomans extinct and leaving room for plenty of chaos. The Ottoman Empire is also at war with Russia, leaving potential for at least a Balkan uprising.

No Ottoman Sultan means that the Patriarch would at least be neutral towards any revolutionary activity on the part of the Greeks. In fact the infighting that would result between the different Pashas would probably compel the Patriarch to condone replacing the Ottomans with someone, anyone.
 
Last edited:
I'll give it a shot. The House of Osman was very close to extinction IOTL in 1807 as princes Mustafa and Mahmud were the heirs of Selim III who was overthrown by Janissaries and replaced by Mustafa. He ordered Selim and Mahmud to be killed but Mahmud survived. What if he had been found and murdered by Mustafa's troops? The lifespan of an Ottoman sultan would be rather short and there were already reformist forces working to bring change. Mustafa is likely to be killed as well, making the Ottomans extinct and leaving room for plenty of chaos. The Ottoman Empire is also at war with Russia, leaving potential for at least a Balkan uprising.

Interesting. It begs the question what balance can be achieved to prevent a massive Russian takeover, whilst allowing the rise of the Romans once again. Perhaps it leads to a whole "Oh good god, what just happened?" in whatever secret society is involved, who less declare independence, but use their forces to perform a remplacer l'état and take control to essentially be the government supporting the army fight off the Russians? Perhaps even going "Look, the Sultan and Fam died, you're fighting the Russians, swear allegiance to the Senate of Rome and all property and position will be respected, and we'll honour the Ottoman debts (to the Army), and send the Republican Irregulars."

Meanwhile "BRITAIN. HELP. RUSSIANS. SULTAN DEAD. SENATE NOW RULES."

It leaves an odd situation where the Russians are going to kill the army either way, short of a weird warlord situation, so may as well have someone backing you, and sending reinforcements.
 
Interesting. It begs the question what balance can be achieved to prevent a massive Russian takeover, whilst allowing the rise of the Romans once again. Perhaps it leads to a whole "Oh good god, what just happened?" in whatever secret society is involved, who less declare independence, but use their forces to perform a remplacer l'état and take control to essentially be the government supporting the army fight off the Russians? Perhaps even going "Look, the Sultan and Fam died, you're fighting the Russians, swear allegiance to the Senate of Rome and all property and position will be respected, and we'll honour the Ottoman debts (to the Army), and send the Republican Irregulars."

Meanwhile "BRITAIN. HELP. RUSSIANS. SULTAN DEAD. SENATE NOW RULES."

It leaves an odd situation where the Russians are going to kill the army either way, short of a weird warlord situation, so may as well have someone backing you, and sending reinforcements.

The Napoleonic Wars are ongoing. Napoleon is too busy campaigning in Russia to probably care but why not crown him as the symbolic Roman Emperor? There are French troops in the Ionian Islands that could serve as reinforcements and given how occupied he would be, he would be in no real position to command the Phanariotes. Maybe he sends his son Napoleon II in his stead.

That or just convert an impressionable (young) Giray princeling, force him to convert him into Christianity, and have him married off to the daughter of a Phanariote, and you have your Emperor. Given the prestige of the Giray family amongst the Ottoman aristocracy, you'd probably get some Muslim support of the new Roman regime, provided that there is religious tolerance.
 
Last edited:
For a momenent I thought about a Roman independence movement developing in Rome herself (in an uber-Ottoman Empire scenario)! :)

A problem is that the Ottomans themselves claimed at least part of the Roman heritage...
 
A problem is that the Ottomans themselves claimed at least part of the Roman heritage...
They didn't really, this is something that's very commonly stated but is greatly overexaggerated. Mehmed may have taken the title "Caesar of Rome" after conquering Constantinople, but he never really used it, it never became the Sultan's primary title. The Ottoman Sultan would always be referred to as Sultan, Caliph or even Khan before Caesar. On top of that, the title seems to have dissapeared completely after Suleiman.

Most importantly, the Ottomans themselves did not call themselves Roman, they did not make an active effort to preserving Roman heritage and they did not make an effort to preserve Roman institutions. This gives them far less legitimacy as a "Conqueror Dynasty" than for example the Yuan or Qing in China.
 
I think it’s easier for the Byzantine Empire to be considered Greek and the ruler of Greece to call himself Emperor. Even prior to the French Revolution, there was an academic movement by wealthy Greeks to call themselves Hellenes rather than Rhomanoi, though this took time to spread to the lower classes.

A problem is that the Ottomans themselves claimed at least part of the Roman heritage...

More than part of it - I will note that the Islamic world called the Ottoman Empire Rum, which means what it sounds like.
 
Top